New Penn Station (Moynihan Station) [Archive] - Page 4

tmg

August 18th, 2006, 03:05 AM

The New York Times
Plan for New Rail Station Appears Stalled Once Again
By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: August 18, 2006

The $900 million plan to transform the city’s former general post office building on Eighth Avenue into a dramatic new transit hub connected to Pennsylvania Station appears to be delayed again.

State and city officials had hoped that the Public Authorities Control Board would approve the long-awaited project, which would be called Moynihan Station, at its meeting in Albany today. They want construction to begin this fall on what proponents say would be a grand gateway to New York City and a necessary expansion of the nation’s busiest transit center. But that now seems unlikely.

Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, who controls the state board together with Gov. George E. Pataki and Joseph L. Bruno, the state Senate majority leader, said yesterday that there are still too many unresolved questions.

In addition, he said, there is also a new, more comprehensive proposal to modernize and expand Penn Station on both sides of Eighth Avenue, between 31st and 33rd Streets, by moving Madison Square Garden a block west to the back of the post office building that was to be converted into Moynihan Station.

“There are a lot of questions about the financing and what the final project will look like,” Mr. Silver said in an interview yesterday. “It does not appear we’ll have the answers in time for tomorrow’s meeting.”

Mr. Silver’s decision was supported by Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is running for governor. He expressed concern that the plan had been rushed before the state board.

“Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern of irresponsible actions by the outgoing Pataki administration,” said a spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer, Christine Anderson, who added that the state board “should not approve this project until these unanswered questions are resolved.”

The prospect of yet another delay angered some proponents of the plan and delighted others.

State officials bristled at Mr. Spitzer’s criticism. “We should move forward with what this Moynihan Station was all about from the beginning, expanding Penn Station to meet the needs of transit riders today and in the future,” said Charles A. Gargano, the state’s top economic-development official. He said that going forward with Moynihan Station now would not preclude doing the larger proposal, which, he added, would take a minimum of 18 months to put into place.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who died in 2003, championed the conversion of the James A. Farley post office building into a great train station for more than a decade. Much of the financing was put in place in 2001. Last year, the state selected two developers — Steven Roth, chairman of Vornado Realty, and Stephen M. Ross, chairman of the Related Companies.

Aside from the political sparring, the nub of the issue today is that the developers subsequently put together what some are calling Plan B: the complete renovation of Penn Station, which sits below Madison Square Garden, between Seventh and Eighth Avenues. The current Garden would be demolished to make way for office towers, a soaring glass canopy and a commercial complex. Across Eighth Avenue, the post office would be converted to an adjunct train station.

The nascent proposal has sparked widespread interest.

“This larger project has so much more economic benefit that it’s really important to focus on getting the entire project, including Madison Square Garden, locked down,” said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, who supports the delay.

But city officials and some civic groups said that work on Moynihan Station should begin now. The developers, who declined to comment on the vote in Albany, have told state and city officials that the work on the Farley building would not preclude the larger project. “We’d like to see something move forward now,” said Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff. “There’s no downside to going ahead with the current plan. It will not compromise our ability to work out the larger plan.”

The Municipal Art Society, which has long supported the Moynihan Station project and has expressed reservations about the larger plan, also opposed further delays. “Whatever the virtues of Plan B, it is years away from starting,” said Kent Barwick, the society’s president.

TonyO

August 18th, 2006, 07:17 AM

Assemblyman Sheldon Silver
Speaker of the Assembly
Room 932, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12248
(518) 455-3791
fax: (518) 455-5459
Email: speaker@assembly.state.ny.us

kliq6

August 18th, 2006, 10:01 AM

Silver is a idiot and no matter what you write him or say to him he is always going to be clueless. He is the speaker of the whole assembly but instead of looking out for the whole state he only cares what gets done on Chambers street.

He is trying to stop west side development and this project is a good start to really get things going over there

tmg

August 18th, 2006, 10:35 AM

I think we can afford to wait a few months. Governor Spitzer will make these decisions with more openness and less corruption.

BrooklynRider

August 18th, 2006, 11:15 AM

The Partnership for New York City is a pretty large coalition of major New York Businesses. It doesn't say so directly, but they seem to be supporting this delay.

londonlawyer

August 18th, 2006, 01:21 PM

Phase II.

Plus. I saw the article in today's Times. I guess this project is not muerto.

Eugenious

August 18th, 2006, 11:48 PM

Plus. I saw the article in today's Times. I guess this project is not muerto.

This project is dead, its going to take another five years to work out the MSG move and the redesign of existing penn station.

Dont want to brag but, I TOLD YOU SO.!!!

krulltime

August 19th, 2006, 12:44 AM

Spitzer Steps Up Criticism of City’s Railyard Proposal

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: August 19, 2006

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who is running for governor, yesterday stepped up his criticism of the city’s plan to buy the West Side railyards from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for $500 million, calling the amount “woefully inadequate.”

In a letter to the transportation authority, Mr. Spitzer said that the best way to move forward was to conduct a new appraisal of the 26-acre property along 11th Avenue, between 30th and 33rd Streets, and to sell it to the highest bidder at an auction. He also asked for an engineering analysis to determine the cost of building platforms over the railyards, something that would have to be done before developers could erect any buildings there.

“Given the enormous needs of the M.T.A., it is critically important that the M.T.A. maximize the value of this asset consistent with other appropriate public objectives,” Mr. Spitzer said in his letter.

Less than three months before the election, the letter puts Mr. Spitzer sharply at odds with the Bloomberg administration, which contends that its proposal would spur development on the Far West Side. City officials say it would also ensure that any development there would be consistent with a comprehensive rezoning plan put in place last year by the city.

Mr. Spitzer’s latest move came on the same day that state officials delayed approval of another development supported by the Bloomberg and Pataki administrations: the long-awaited $900 million Moynihan Station project. Mr. Spitzer, as well as Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the state comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi, have raised what they say are a series of unanswered questions about the financing of the plan to transform the Farley Post Office into a grand transit center that would help relieve overcrowding at Pennsylvania Station.

Mr. Spitzer has shown a desire in recent weeks to exercise his political muscle, as much as Gov. George E. Pataki has shown an eagerness to complete projects that would establish his legacy before he leaves office.

On his radio program yesterday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said that politics was slowing down major projects like Moynihan Station and the expansion of the Javits Convention Center, “rather than what makes sense for the future of the city.”

Peter S. Kalikow, chairman of the transportation authority, has said he favors selling the development rights over the railyards to the city for $500 million. The authority is currently updating an appraisal of the property that was done last year in connection with a failed attempt to build a football stadium for the Jets.

“We strongly believe that the value we’re offering is generous,” Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff said, “especially given the complexity of the site and the extraordinary fact that the city is paying $2 billion to extend the No. 7 line to that neighborhood.”

It is unclear whether Mr. Spitzer can derail or delay a deal with the city. But city officials had wanted to get it done quickly.

As for Moynihan Station, Governor Pataki told reporters yesterday that he was confident that his administration would be able to answer all the questions about the project. “It’s an excellent plan,” Mr. Pataki said. “It will be a tremendous gateway to the greatest city in the world.”

Most of the money for Moynihan Station has been in place since 2001, and last year the state selected two developers to do the work. In recent months, the developers have also come up with a tentative alternative plan for a larger, more ambitious overhaul of the surrounding neighborhood. It involves a major renovation of the present Penn Station and the demolition of Madison Square Garden, which sits above the station. The Garden would be replaced with a five-story glass canopy and a commercial complex.

Across Eighth Avenue, the developers would still convert the post office into a train station, while building a new Garden at the west end of the building.

The alternative proposal has attracted a lot of interest, but it faces a number of hurdles, including its cost. But Mr. Spitzer, Mr. Silver and others have asked why they should rush to approve the original Moynihan Station project if the larger proposal is the right thing to do.

State and city officials contend that if construction on Moynihan Station begins this fall as planned, it would not impede the larger proposal if and when it is approved, which would take about 18 months. The officials said that over $100 million in federal funds could be jeopardized if they fail to move forward now. And if the developers fail to put the larger plan together, the city could be left without anything getting done a year from now.

“There’s no downside to going ahead with the current plan,” Mr. Doctoroff said. “It will not compromise our ability to work out a larger plan.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

ablarc

August 19th, 2006, 08:22 AM

It's a bird in the hand versus two in the bush.

You know what they say...

ld876

August 19th, 2006, 09:34 PM

“There’s no downside to going ahead with the current plan,” Mr. Doctoroff said. “It will not compromise our ability to work out a larger plan.”

I keep reading this comment from Bloomberg's people and others...I can't imagine how it would be feasible to begin building/altering the post office according to one plan, then to be able to completely change it down the road if the larger plan is approved. It seems wiser to get one plan set in stone, settled on, and build it, not to begin building a quasi-plan with the possiblity it will change in 18 months, making the site a bigger mess than it already will be (let alone the extra costs a major change like this mid-construction will add).

Am I missing something aside from Doctoroff wanting it to look like something is getting done?

ablarc

August 20th, 2006, 09:21 AM

I keep reading this comment from Bloomberg's people and others...I can't imagine how it would be feasible to begin building/altering the post office according to one plan, then to be able to completely change it down the road if the larger plan is approved.
The second plan doesn't have to force revision of the first. Think of it as an addition. You don't work on the Garden until the station is finished. Airports are done this way all the time.

It seems wiser to get one plan set in stone, settled on, and build it, not to begin building a quasi-plan with the possiblity it will change in 18 months, making the site a bigger mess than it already will be (let alone the extra costs a major change like this mid-construction will add).
It does seem wise, doesn't it? But not all plausible things are true. Suppose you were to factor in the very real possibility of funds being withdrawn or the economy tanking...now, wouldn't you rather have half a loaf than none at all?

NYguy

August 20th, 2006, 11:37 AM

Back to our regularly scheduled debate:

(DAILY NEWS)

Move Madison Square Garden west? Yes.
Putting MSG in post office annex will allow Penn Station to shine

BY SCOTT STRINGER

We should move Madison Square Garden to create an iconic gateway to our city.

Here's why: Penn Station, the country's busiest rail station, is deeply flawed. Built to accommodate 100,000 travelers, it now packs in over half a million every day. Its cramped platforms limit how many trains can enter and leave the station, making delays inevitable. Esthetically, it is an unsightly, underground strip mall submerged beneath a sports arena.

Penn Station begs for a makeover, and we can only build a new one if we move MSG. With the Garden relocated, we could create a soaring, light-filled new station, with well-designed platforms and waiting areas that would enhance Manhattan's mass transit capacity and get cars off our overcrowded streets.

Our transportation troubles would be only slightly mitigated by New York State's current plan to build a train station in the current James A. Farley General Post Office building on Eighth Ave. between 31st and 33rd Sts. That new station would host New Jersey Transit, but not Amtrak or the LIRR, meaning 80% of commuters would continue to use Penn Station. We must reckon with our transportation problems head-on by building a new Penn Station.

Relocating MSG would also enable new economic development on its current site. New construction would create thousands of jobs; a depressing stretch of Eighth Ave. would get a welcome face-lift; and tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenue and secondary economic impacts would be generated.

The only proposed new location for the Garden is the underutilized Farley annex - the large, connected building just west of the Farley Post Office. While we have to be careful that MSG does not dominate the Farley building's historic Eighth Ave. frontage or encroach on its public spaces, an open, collaborative design and review process can resolve these and other issues.

Time is short. If the Garden does not occupy the Farley annex, big-box retail will. And if the Garden stays put, its owners will invest in onsite renovation and doom New Yorkers to the current Penn Station for generations to come.

We have the chance to cure the chronic failings of Penn Station and grace the city with the majestic and enduring gateway we have lacked since the original Penn Station was destroyed in 1964. Let's prepare New York for a promising, unparalleled future.

Stringer is Manhattan borough president.

__________________________________________________ _________

Move Madison Square Garden west? No.
Not so fast. It's best to calmly weigh the options & choose the best course

BY KENT BARWICK

Those eager to move Madison Square Garden into the annex of the Farley post office should look before they leap.

The late Sen. Pat Moynihan believed America is the land of second chances. He saw the opportunity to build a new Penn Station in the landmark James A. Farley General Post Office across Eighth Ave. from the current "stygian chamber" (hell hole) of a station as New York's golden opportunity to redeem itself for tearing down the original Pennsylvania Station. He persuaded Congress to allocate millions of dollars in funding so that New York would regain a grand gateway with room to grow.

More than eight years have passed since President Clinton, Gov. Pataki and the senator stood in the monumental post office to announce that work would start soon. Now, we have a new delay: Developers have an even bigger idea.

They would build a new Madison Square Garden in the west end of the post office, demolish the current Garden and construct a huge commercial office complex with an upgraded Penn Station underneath.

The complex real estate play envisioned by the developers - Vornado and Related - is a big, bold New York-scale idea in the tradition of the Vanderbilts' Grand Central City or the Rockefellers' Rockefeller Center. But serious dangers are apparent.

Who will guarantee us a grand new train station? What will prevent the Garden from papering over the post office building's great Corinthian columns with jumbo advertising? Can a train hall also be a lobby for the Knicks? And: Who will be in charge?

Generations ago, the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers were risking their own money. As we contemplate fundamentally altering the plans for Moynihan Station, our tax dollars are at stake. We have to ensure this is a contract with the future that will not be compromised by a commercial real estate deal.

The fate of Moynihan Station, MSG and the Farley Post Office must not be determined by a cacophony of competing private interests.

A responsible public authority should sort out the project, set high standards for architecture and supervise construction. We can hope that a new governor can provide enlightened leadership. Otherwise, the entropy and confusion of interests that bedevil so many of our public-private partnerships could sink this golden second chance.

Barwick is president of the Municipal Art Society.

__________________________________________________ _____________

DAILY NEWS EDITORIAL

Red lantern for Pat's trains

It was back in the Clinton administration - that of Bill, not of DeWitt - when Sen. Pat Moynihan got the idea of turning the James A. Farley General Post Office into a grand new Penn Station. And since then the project has been derailed time and again, most recently on Friday. Thanks to a major fumble by Gov. Pataki and the developers who won the right to convert the landmark into a train station and retail complex, what was supposed to be a final vote of approval was put off at the request of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, backed by state Controller Alan Hevesi.

They were uncomfortable with giving a thumbs-up when developers Steve Roth and Steve Ross have been shopping plans to do something radically different with the postal building - like making it the home of a new Madison Square Garden.

This move-the-arena plan would be part of a mega-development on the opposite side of Eighth Ave., where the Garden now stands. Think two 90-story towers - plus a sweeping new Long Island Rail Road entrance for which they want $1 billion from the public.

There's much to like - and much to question - in the still-sketchy plans of Roth and Ross. Pataki had wanted them to start on the station with the option of reconsidering what to do with the rest of the building in the future. But Silver and Hevesi were justified in balking at okaying a development that the builders might have no intention of completing in present form. Now it's up to Roth and Ross to get real so Pataki's successor can get the Moynihan Station on track.

NYguy

August 20th, 2006, 11:51 AM

A responsible public authority should sort out the project, set high standards for architecture and supervise construction.
Barwick is president of the Municipal Art Society.

I think not. Can you say LMDC?

This move-the-arena plan would be part of a mega-development on the opposite side of Eighth Ave., where the Garden now stands. Think two 90-story towers - plus a sweeping new Long Island Rail Road entrance for which they want $1 billion from the public.

Two towers of the same height could be a nod to the original WTC. Probably not likely, but just a thought. I'm sure the development would get more public support though.

sfenn1117

August 20th, 2006, 12:41 PM

NYguy

August 20th, 2006, 12:55 PM

Certainly sounds exciting, it's too bad were five years away from this possibility, at the earliest. The current MSG cannot be demolished til the new one is completed.

Then again there's a few supertalls downtown to keep us occupied in the meantime.

Exactly. Most, if not all of the WTC space will be spoken for before this development gets built. So I don't want to hear any groans about too much office space.

Vengineer

August 20th, 2006, 07:56 PM

It is very incredibly frustrating to say the least, when the project you've been working on for almost a year, which was based around the specification of accomodating the Moynihan station only, is chucked into the garbage due to the unsure and mercurial minds of developers and politicians. Oh well we still get paid, at the expense of taxpayers money that is. These idiots need to grow some balls of foresight and make up their minds so that we can get back to work.

LeCom

August 20th, 2006, 11:47 PM

Eugenious

August 21st, 2006, 03:20 PM

lofter1

August 21st, 2006, 03:35 PM

Something as equally fantastic ^^ using the most up-to-date technology at hand wouldn't be so bad either.

GVNY

August 21st, 2006, 06:36 PM

Rebuilding the station is completely possible, and the restoration of the eagles from the original station to the top of the new colonnaded entrance would be a touching tribute.

Goodness, it is embarrassing to even imagine rebuilding the station.

londonlawyer

August 21st, 2006, 07:33 PM

If anyone had some real balls they would work to rebuilt the original penn station.

I agree.

TREPYE

August 21st, 2006, 07:47 PM

Goodness, it is embarrassing to even imagine rebuilding the station.

The fact that the original was demolished is even more emabarrasing.

Eugenious

August 26th, 2006, 10:33 AM

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/news.cms?id=14574

Developers say MSG not a factor for Moynihan
by Julie Satow

The developers of the Moynihan Station on Friday threw their support behind officials, who are calling for the project to move forward regardless of whether Madison Square Garden is relocated.

The chief executives of Vornado Realty Trust and the Related Cos. wrote a letter to the state Economic Development Corp. in support of a September closing for the Moynihan Station project.

That is despite a plan it floated earlier this summer that envisions demolishing and moving MSG into the Farley Annex on Ninth Avenue, as part of the renovation of the post office. As it stands now, the Moynihan Station project does not include the relocation of MSG.7

"The functional heart of the current Moynihan Station project can be built regardless of what happens with Farley's Annex," says the letter, written by Stephen Ross of the Related Cos. and Steven Roth of Vornado. "There is no reason to delay Moynihan Station in the meantime."

The project, which was already approved by the board of the state EDC, needs the unanimous approval of the Public Authorities Control Board, which includes representatives of Gov. George Pataki, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver.

The PACB has delayed its vote, which was scheduled for earlier this month.

©2006 Crain Communications Inc.

ablarc

August 26th, 2006, 10:51 AM

Developers say MSG not a factor for Moynihan

"The functional heart of the current Moynihan Station project can be built regardless of what happens with Farley's Annex," says the letter, written by Stephen Ross of the Related Cos. and Steven Roth of Vornado. "There is no reason to delay Moynihan Station in the meantime."
Nothing but good news.

(This was obvious to anyone in developing or architecture.)

Transic

August 28th, 2006, 10:37 PM

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Hevesi_letter_outlines_concerns_about_new_Moynihan _Station/4202.html

Hevesi letter outlines concerns about new Moynihan Station

by amy zimmer / metro new york
AUG 29, 2006

MANHATTAN — Is there enough money to build Moynihan Station?

State Comptroller Alan Hevesi asked that and other questions about the project in a letter he sent to members of the Public Authorities Control Board — Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and the board Chair John Cape — in advance of their Aug. 18 meeting. The letter was obtained yesterday by Metro.

“Our concern with the financing structure of the project relates to the sufficiency of the funds in the budget,” wrote Hevesi. “The project as originally designed in 2004 was to be completed with a construction budget of $556 million. While construction costs, particularly for steel and concrete have risen dramatically since that time, the cost estimate for the project has not changed.”

The letter goes on to question whether the state has allocated enough funds for contingency costs for the project and who will pay for maintenance of the transit hub planned for the James A. Farley Post Office on Eighth Avenue — totalling $1.2 billion over the 99-year lifetime of the project’s lease.

“We don’t know specifically who will be responsible for operating and maintenance costs associated with the common, transportation and commercial areas of the project, and in what amounts,” Hevesi wrote. “Furthermore, it is unclear who will receive the benefit of any excess funds derived from lease payments.”

Rounding out the memo are concerns about one of the project’s developers, Vornado Realty Trust, being allowed to buy commercial space at the new hub for less than fair market value; the fact that the U.S. Postal Service has yet to approve the project; and speculation about whether a new Madison Square Garden will be built at the site.

Citing financial concerns and unanswered questions, Silver delayed the vote until next month, at the earliest.

The Empire State Development Corporation — the state agency overseeing the project — would not comment on the letter nor release its response to Hevesi.

Officials with knowledge of the plan, but who are not authorized to comment on it, affirm that funding is in place for the project and downplayed Hevesi’s concerns. They say the original price reflects a plan that has since been scaled back, so the new design accounts for the construction cost increases. For the first year’s estimated $6.5 million upkeep, the state is negotiating with developers to cover roughly 65 percent of the costs. The balance would come from rent from tenants like NJ Transit and the Port Authority.

kliq6

August 29th, 2006, 10:25 AM

it is imperative to the West Side development to get this, javits and Seven train built ASAP

Eugenious

August 30th, 2006, 08:49 PM

West Side Drama Pits D'amato Against Moynihan

BY DAVID LOMBINO - Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 30, 2006

URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/38807

The next big drama on Manhattan's West Side could pit Senator D'Amato against the last visionary project of Senator Moynihan.
That is the contention of a source who says Mr. D'Amato, the powerful former Republican senator from New York who has been a registered lobbyist for Madison Square Garden, has been spending part of his energies working against the Pataki administration's proposal to transform the Farley Post Office building into Moynihan Station.

A little more than a year after defeating the Jets Stadium on the far West Side, the owners of Madison Square Garden, the Dolan family, are lobbying again in Albany, according to several sources. Madison Square Garden LP employs lobbyists Patricia Lynch, who was Speaker Sheldon Silver's chief of staff, and Mr. D'Amato's firm, Park Strategies LLC, according to state records.

Earlier this month Mr. Silver postponed a vote on the plan by the Public Authorities Control Board, which must give final approval for the transit hub. The $900 million project, named after Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who died in 2003, would create new train hubs for New Jersey Transit and the Long Island Rail Road, a new post office, and retail outlets just to the west of the existing Penn Station. Mr. D'Amato served across the aisle from Moynihan for about 18 years, during which the two were known to have a cordial working relationship.
Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, who represents the West Side, said Ms. Lynch was lobbying on behalf of the Garden when the Moynihan project was in front of the PACB two weeks ago. But he said it was unclear what position the Garden was taking on the plan.
"Exactly what they are advocating for in this process, in terms of pace or substance, I have not heard yet," Mr. Gottfried said. "There could be other aspects of the deal, financial or otherwise, that MSG might want to slow down."

Mr. Gottfried said that Mr. D'Amato would more likely be employed to lobby the state Senate and the Pataki administration, both big supporters of the Moynihan project.

The Dolan family fears that a green light for Moynihan Station could threaten a grander plan by developers Vornado Realty Trust and the Related Companies to move the world's most famous arena inside the western half of the Farley Post Office building, according to sources familiar with the project.

In that more ambitious plan, the Dolans would stand to gain a new arena, abandoning their outdated current site, on top of which the developers would improve the existing Penn Station and build office towers. If the Garden move does not proceed, the Dolans might have to spend millions renovating their existing facility.

So far, Madison Square Garden has had a low profile in the plans to move their arena. In the developers' presentations to selected public officials and civic groups, a Garden representative has not been present. A deal has not yet been finalized between Related, Vornado, and the Dolans, according sources familiar with the project.

If the Garden is seeking to slow the Moynihan project, that would seem to be at odds with the desire of Vornado and Related, two of the city's most powerful developers, who have been named by the state to build Moynihan. In a joint letter to the Empire State Development Corporation last week, the CEOs of Related and Vornado said that the Moynihan project should move forward regardless of what happens to the bigger plan to move the Garden.

Yesterday, a spokesman for the developers, Bud Perrone, said that they were unaware of any lobbying activity by MSG about Moynihan Station.
Vornado and Related have said that it could cost around $1 billion of public subsidies to remake Penn Station. The initial plan has been hailed by city officials as well as civic and planning groups as a unique opportunity to improve Penn Station and remake the entire far West Side.
State officials say that simpler Moynihan Station should be the priority, and that the plan to move the garden should come later. They say the building of Moynihan Station would in no way preclude the larger plan and that they want a vote before the PACB soon, and a ground breaking on the station before the governor leaves office at the end of this year.
Mr. D'Amato's son, Christopher, who works at the former senator's lobbying firm, told the New York Sun that he would not confirm any projects that Park Strategies was lobbying on behalf of the Garden other than what was available in public records. The latest filing with the state's lobbying commission from May and June said that Park Strategies lobbied on behalf of Madison Square Garden for "West Side Re-development," the Javits Convention Center, and the West Side Stadium project.

The records show that Park Strategies has received about $5,000 a month from the Garden for the last few years. Mr. D'Amato has said publicly that he once received $500,000 for making a single phone call on behalf of a client concerned about a decision to be made by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

A spokesman for the Mr. Silver, Bryan Franke, said that the Mr. Silver had only "spoken" with the Vornado and Related, who had made a presentation about the plan to move the Garden, and Mr. Gottfried, who represents the district in question.
Mr. Franke said that Mr. Silver believes the only "complete plan" he has seen is the larger plan to move the Garden, and that is not the plan currently before the Public Authorities Control Board.
Madison Square Garden is no stranger to public debates. Last year, the Garden's owner, Cablevision, spent an estimated $22 million in lobbying in Albany and New York City over the proposed Jets Stadium on the far West Side, according to Common Cause, a good government group.
A spokeswoman for the Garden declined to comment.

ablarc

September 4th, 2006, 06:23 PM

Silver is scum, and so are the Dolans.

londonlawyer

September 4th, 2006, 08:48 PM

Silver is scum, and so are the Dolans.

I could not agree with you more. Also, while I want to see the MSG site redeveloped, it sucks that the Dolans will benefit from it. They are true a_wipes.

Derek2k3

September 10th, 2006, 12:12 AM

They have a model with the new Moynian Station along with MSG here. Very schematic of course.

http://www.radiiinc.com/images/49/Radii-farley-Penn.pdf

Previous HOK design.
http://www.radiiinc.com/images/38/Radii-Farley.pdf

NoyokA

September 10th, 2006, 12:27 AM

I do not like that view of MSG in the Farley one bit. That said I would still support it since it would be replacing the current MSG with tall skyscrapers.

Citytect

September 10th, 2006, 01:01 AM

I could live with this...

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b195/nova_cain/nyc05/farley-msg01.jpg
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b195/nova_cain/nyc05/farley-msg02.jpg

Dynamicdezzy

September 10th, 2006, 01:04 AM

A lot better than what we have now.

lofter1

September 10th, 2006, 01:14 AM

This SOM version of a new MSG in the Farley is fairly dull ... perhaps a bit too reverntial to the existing space.

But worse is the awkward skylight at the center of Farley ...

Dynamicdezzy

September 10th, 2006, 01:19 AM

(Lofter) Isn't the skylight part of the current Farley project anyway? Unless your describing the MSG side?

lofter1

September 10th, 2006, 01:33 AM

The rounded / barrel vault skylight above the east side of Farley is an OK solution for the Moynihan ...

The one I don't like is the flat-topped / slope-sided skylight that seems to be meant for the mid-block connection between the new MSG and the new Moynihan station (replacing the "Potato Chip" / wedge and a later version of a glass-covered arcade that had been proposed some time back).

But honestly I'm somewhat confused by those renderings as they seem to show more than one proposal ...

Citytect

September 10th, 2006, 01:39 AM

Look again. The mid-block skylight between Farley and the Annex has been completely eliminated to make room for MSG. The skylight you're describing is part of the glass structure over Penn Station that would replace the current MSG.

Refer to the last image you attached above. You will see the Farley Post Office, 8 Ave, and a new glass structure east of 8.

Dynamicdezzy

September 10th, 2006, 02:08 AM

Citytect is right. I went on the site and the renderings are labled as Farley / Penn Station. They are two proposals. We only see half of the Farley building, well because there is no MSG model available (I Guess). Which is why the building in the rendering seems to just cut off. and the clear structure is the proposed Penn Station for the MSG site.

lbjefferies

September 10th, 2006, 09:34 AM

ablarc

September 10th, 2006, 09:59 AM

Isn't the glass structure where the new cluster of skyscrapers were supposed to go?
So where are the skyscrapers?

Still confused.

lofter1

September 10th, 2006, 10:28 AM

Thanks for the clarification, guys -- missed the text when I viewed the pdf late last night ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ablarc http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=119394#post119394)

So where are the skyscrapers?

Still confused.

We're on the same page, ablarc.

If those renderings shows what is proposed to replace MSG and become the new Penn Station then I find the design incredibly disappointing.

We need some poetry here, not so much corporate-think.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

Dynamicdezzy

September 10th, 2006, 11:44 AM

Well if MSG were to go, wouldn't 1 Penn go along with it? Freeing up that whole site??? Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Dynamicdezzy

September 10th, 2006, 11:46 AM

....and I don't think they have any renderings of MSG or any potential tower to go along with what we just saw. Too bad, it would really show what could potentially be there.

Scruffy88

September 10th, 2006, 01:06 PM

1 penn is there to stay. Only the rounded arena structure would be eliminated

pianoman11686

September 10th, 2006, 02:48 PM

We need some poetry here, not so much corporate-think.

If that's what's needed, then SOM's not the firm you want designing it.

That said, I don't think these renderings are relevant for the new Penn Station/existing MSG site. Preliminary images and concepts called for a "glass canopy" over Penn, to bring light down to the tracks. And around the canopy, skyscrapers. There's nothing about these renderings that would be consistent with that plan.

lofter1

September 10th, 2006, 04:37 PM

1 penn is there to stay. Only the rounded arena structure would be eliminated

The short stumpy "tower" along 7th Ave between 33rd / 31st (5 Penn Plaza?) would go as well.

NYguy

September 10th, 2006, 04:53 PM

The short stumpy "tower" along 7th Ave between 33rd / 31st (5 Penn Plaza?) would go as well.

Yeah, that one would be gone. Vornado already owns it, but with the incentive of building even more office space, I'm sure they won't miss it. Neither will I.

ramvid01

September 10th, 2006, 05:37 PM

Yeah, that one would be gone. Vornado already owns it, but with the incentive of building even more office space, I'm sure they won't miss it. Neither will I.

Thank god, i really hate that building's height/girth and not to mention it's design, yuck.

Citytect

September 10th, 2006, 05:46 PM

Are we talking about Two Penn Plaza (http://retail.vno.com/property.asp?propid=146)? The fat 29 storey tombstone building. It would be very expensive to demolish this building. I'd love to see it replaced with something better, but I'm not counting on it.

lofter1

September 10th, 2006, 06:09 PM

Yep, your'e right -- 2 Penn Plaza -- the fugly stumpy thang:

http://retail.vno.com/XML/Manhattan_Retail_Properties/Enlarge/TwoPenn-EX-B.jpg

From what I've read the plan would be to re-construct the entire two-block expanse from 7th Ave <> 8th Ave. & 33rd St. <> 31st St.

212

September 10th, 2006, 07:02 PM

Well I sure hope Vornado isn't committed to SOM for the entire Penn Station site ... is it?

Sir Norman Foster deserves this one.

lofter1

September 10th, 2006, 08:36 PM

I've got my fingers crossed for something visionary -- but Vornado doesn't give me lots of hope in that direction.

LeCom

September 10th, 2006, 11:17 PM

jp1

September 11th, 2006, 11:57 PM

sorry, podium? are you suggesting that the entire rest of the block (where MSG currently sits) will be a podium at 2/3rd the height of the current penn plaza 2 building, with a tower much higher placed on top of the podium?

NYguy

September 12th, 2006, 02:54 PM

They're not demolishing it.

But the podium will go up 2/3 of its height and the rest will be reclad.

Are you saying the top 3rd of this building will be reclad? That would be even worse than it is now.

http://retail.vno.com/XML/Manhattan_Retail_Properties/Enlarge/TwoPenn-EX-B.jpg

lofter1

September 12th, 2006, 03:25 PM

Nothing I've heard about the proposed project to go up on these two blocks between 31st <> 33rd sounds very good, IMO.

I was hoping for a "clean slate".

Looks like we're going to get something far less (outside of more height and lots of glass).

NYguy

September 12th, 2006, 03:31 PM

As far as new office space there goes, I wonder if the MTA would consider moving their headquarters there. They were at one point looking to build their own tower over the Westside railyards.

NYguy

September 13th, 2006, 08:07 AM

Observer

Perils of Pataki: Tied to Tracks on Moynihan Station
Silver Stops Projects, And There’s Not Much Putzy Governor Can Do; Gargano in Full Gear; Snarled by Property Shuffle With Vornado and Related

By Matthew Schuerman

Governor George Pataki’s aides are scrambling to get the jackhammers going at Moynihan Station in west midtown before Dec. 31, determined not to let yet another Pataki-legacy development project slide into the Spitzer era.

Things aren’t looking good.

Moynihan Station started out life as a comparatively modest renovation of the city’s main post office into an extension of Amtrak’s Pennsylvania Station, underground and across Eighth Avenue to the east.

Now the post-office renovation, named after the late Senator who was its greatest champion, is getting overshadowed by a gargantuan property shuffle proposed by the same private developers who were brought in to help finance the renovation.

The developers, Vornado Realty Trust and the Related Companies, are working on a deal that would move Madison Square Garden a block west, on top of the Farley Post Office Annex. On the two-block plaza where the arena now stands, a five-million-square-foot office complex would be built. Pennsylvania Station, now located underneath the Garden, would be made roomier and opened up to the sun via skylights.

When this bigger plan first surfaced, a smattering of civic groups, business associations and individuals who supported it said that the $865 million mini-Moynihan (the renovation of the post office) should proceed quickly while the business and tax details of the larger scheme got worked out. But two government officials—State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and State Comptroller Alan Hevesi—have put the Governor on the defensive by questioning certain aspects of it.

“What we were presented with is not the same plan as what we are being asked to vote on.” Mr. Silver said. “I think there has to be a final presentation of the plan that is going to be built in order for us to vote on it.”

Without Mr. Silver’s assent, the state’s Public Authorities Control Board cannot agree to release the $86 million that the Governor has agreed to contribute to the project. The PACB postponed the vote in August and has not announced the agenda for its Sept. 20 meeting.

Two of Mr. Pataki’s aides working on mini-Moynihan—Charles Gargano, the chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, and Robin Stout, the president of an ESDC subsidiary, the Moynihan Station Development Corporation—telephoned some of these groups to get them to lobby Mr. Silver, but with mixed success. According to the state agency overseeing the project, nine organizations have sent letters urging action on the smaller project. Along with five unions or contractor associations that are naturally in favor of construction work, the list notably includes the Real Estate Board of New York, the leading association of real-estate developers. But key constituencies, such as the Regional Plan Association, have not yet committed.

Earlier, Mr. Gargano released a letter from Related and Vornado saying, “The functional heart of the current Moynihan Station project can be built, and will have its own independent utility, regardless of what happens with Farley’s Annex.”

While that letter was meant to impress the movers and shakers who could exert pressure on Messrs. Silver and Hevesi, it also raised questions about just how far the developers would be able to get on the project if they moved ahead now before the unfinished status of the Garden deal interfered.

“This is not a ringing endorsement of the path we are on,” one government official said.

Kathryn Wylde, president and chief executive of the Partnership for New York City and the most vocal advocate for waiting for the entire Garden swap to come together, said, “The question was always whether the other part of it gets done. This is a project that has been many years in the making, but it has never worked as a great transportation hub because it didn’t have the site assemblage, so why go forward with a significant public expenditure when within a short period of time you could have a better product in place?”

The commuter and Amtrak train tracks at Penn Station extend westward under the Farley building now, and the Moynihan renovation would extend staircases downward and provide a more elegant, spacious access reminiscent of the original McKim Mead & White–designed Pennsylvania Station that was torn down 42 years ago. But critics say that even when fully functioning, Moynihan would accommodate only 30 percent of the hub’s passengers.

The potential delay bodes ill for the curators of Mr. Pataki’s record as he prepares to run for President. While his administration claims credit for the redevelopment of Times Square (a joint city-state project), more recent projects have come to less definitive ends: Queens West crawls along, Ground Zero keeps getting revised, and now Moynihan Station, supposedly a project with no enemies, is stumbling into the next Governor’s term. The first phase of the Javits Convention Center expansion got final approval in July only to see the Mayor and Senator Charles Schumer immediately call for the next phase to begin at the same time, saying in a press release he co-published with Mayor Bloomberg, “This additional work would add only limited construction time, while preventing the costly disruptions that a Phase II expansion would pose if begun later.”

The Governor has gotten a couple of parks underway—but then again, they are just parks.

But state officials expressed surprise that Mr. Silver believed that there were two plans out there when in fact the larger one, involving Madison Square Garden, is still only a “scheme.” The developers have not signed a contract with the Garden, only a memorandum of understanding, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg is refusing to give the Dolan family, the arena’s owners and his enemies in his failed quest for the West Side stadium, the tax breaks they reportedly need in order to actually move. Some insiders believe that delaying the project would benefit the Dolans.

Or it could be a matter of party politics. Mr. Silver’s willingness to postpone Moynihan indefinitely—or until a fellow Democrat comes into office—may be a ploy by the Assembly Speaker to earn a chit before Eliot Spitzer even wins the election. Mr. Spitzer’s spokeswoman, Christine Anderson, said the Attorney General does not favor a delay, but she added by e-mail, the project “lacked adequate preparation and left major questions unanswered about ongoing financial commitments by the state and other matters.”

Mr. Hevesi, the Comptroller, provided valuable political cover for both Mr. Silver and Mr. Spitzer last month when, in a letter to PACB members, he raised many questions, including who—the government or the private developers—would pay for the operation of the station. Mr. Stout said that the MSDC had responded to the letter, “line by line,” on Aug. 28, and explained that conservative financial projections show that his agency would be able to pay for station operations with revenues from tenants for the entire life of the project. A source briefed by the Mr. Hevesi’s office told The Observer that the Comptroller was still not satisfied with the response, but Mr. Stout said that he had not received any query for more information.

Neither Mr. Stout nor the Comptroller’s office would release the state agency’s Aug. 28 response.

The Regional Plan Association, a major civic organization that has long advocated for the station, was one of those approached by the ESDC recently for support, but has not yet endorsed going forward with mini-Moynihan first.

“What we said was, we’re interested in hearing the answers to all the questions that are out there,” R.P.A. president Robert Yaro told The Observer. “We are confident that the ESDC will provide the answers.”

Mr. Yaro said that he saw advantages to both the piecemeal and comprehensive approaches, since the full-fledged Penn Station revamp is “the big brass ring.” Yet redoing Penn Station would cost as much as $1 billion more, according to some estimates, and require another time-consuming hunt for money. (Currently, $550 million is coming from public sources.)

“There are a lot of competing projects and they all are looking for cash and they all have merits,” Mr. Yaro said, naming, among others, a Long Island Rail Road connection to Grand Central and the Second Avenue Subway. “None of them are fully funded. There is a lot of competition. Phase 1 of Moynihan is fully funded or very close and that is unusual.”

Another civic planning group, the Municipal Art Society, has voiced strong doubts about the larger Madison Square Garden swap and has strongly favored moving ahead with the Moynihan project while those details get worked out.

“Our position is, let’s get started,” said the society’s president, Kent Barwick. “It’s going to be a decade before everybody turns around …. Many, many parties have to advance to the point where the PACB will be able to operate on the larger project. You have to negotiate with the post office, the city has to negotiate with Madison Square Garden. If anybody is thinking they’re gong to be able to approve something in 90 days, that’s not the case.”

NYguy

September 13th, 2006, 08:10 AM

“What we were presented with is not the same plan as what we are being asked to vote on.” Mr. Silver said. “I think there has to be a final presentation of the plan that is going to be built in order for us to vote on it.”

I don't normally agree with Silver, but if Related, Vornado, and Cablevision are serious about this deal, they need to go ahead and present the plan formally.

ablarc

September 13th, 2006, 08:26 AM

...within a short period of time you could have a better product in place...insiders believe that delaying the project would benefit the Dolans...
Deja vu?

lofter1

September 13th, 2006, 09:02 AM

Eugenious

September 13th, 2006, 12:33 PM

I'm all for the delay (what's the problem with three more months + 2 weeks at this point?) especially if it keeps Pataki's name off this project in the future.

There are plenty of lovely spots in and around Poughkeepsie where Potato Head can work on his legacy ...

Are you on drugs, if they dont go ahead with Moynihan now its going to be many years before anything happens with this deal. We know for a fact Bloomberg is not caving in to the Dolans with the tax break, and they already stated that they wont move without it.

I say go now before it's too late, The station and the new MSG are two separate projects. Lets not screw Moynihan because the dolans decided to get in on the action.

Vengineer

September 13th, 2006, 12:51 PM

I say go now before it's too late, The station and the new MSG are two separate projects.

Not exactly. There are major areas in the current design of Moynihan station that come under conflict if MSG comes into the picture. Although a seperate 'alternate' set of plans have been prepared in case the MSG proposal comes to pass, it is under-developed to say the least when compared to the current plans. As frustrating as it might be, there is SOME logic behind the delay to get everything prepared and ready before the sledgehammer enters the scene.

pianoman11686

September 13th, 2006, 04:45 PM

Silver's Moynihan Station Delay Could Prove Costly for New York

BY DAVID LOMBINO - Staff Reporter of the Sun

September 13, 2006

URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/39529

Proponents of the state's plan to build Moynihan Station say further postponement of a final vote scheduled for next week could cost New York about $130 million in federal funds.

The $900 million project, which would remake the Farley Post Office building on Eighth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets into a transit hub, is named after Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic senator. It has been in the works since the late 1990s. Governor Pataki wanted to begin construction this fall, but last month the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, postponed final approval based on unanswered questions.

Development analysts say the Pataki administration, which is eager to push the project forward before the governor leaves office at the end of the year, is using the threat of lost funds to usher the project through. Democrats, they say, are stalling with the hope that the front-runner to be the next governor, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, will take control over the plan.

The project is tentatively on next week's agenda of the Public Authorities Control Board, but Mr. Silver has given no indication that he will now approve it, and he recently told the New York Observer he would not do so until the Moynihan Station project is incorporated into a larger, unfinished plan to move Madison Square Garden.

The president of the Municipal Art Society, Kent Barwick, said the threat is real that Congress could take back federal monies that were appropriated a long time ago.

"It has been eight and half years and we are really worried," Mr. Barwick said. "New York is a graveyard of big ambitions that never got off the ground."

Mr. Silver's objections to the current plan are tied to a letter the state comptroller, Alan Hevesi, a Democrat, wrote to the representatives on the Public Authorities Control Board. It raises concerns about cost overruns, the amount of contingency funds available, and long-term operational expenses for the state. Mr. Hevesi also said the impact of moving Madison Square Garden required an additional comprehensive plan.

Mr. Spitzer has said he opposes approval of the plan based on the financing questions raised by Mr. Hevesi.

A director of the state's development agency, Robin Stout, said those questions have been answered.

"The functional heart of Moynihan can be built regardless of what happens to the rest of the Farley Building," Mr. Stout said. "Moynihan Station will have its own new independent utility even if a new Penn Station is built between Seventh and Eighth avenues."

Yesterday, the offices of Messrs. Silver and Hevesi acknowledged that opinion but were not moved to update their stances on Moynihan Station.

The president of the New York Landmarks Conservancy, Peg Breen, said Mr. Silver should move the project forward. Any further delay, she said, would rob New York of a valuable transportation project.

"The last thing this needs is to be caught up in party politics," Ms. Breen said. "There is plenty of glory to go around here."

The Moynihan Station project seemed to be coasting toward final approval until the state's chosen developers, Vornado and the Related Companies, earlier this year began circulating grander plans to relocate Madison Square Garden from its current location over Penn Station, into the western side of the Farley Post Office building.

The move would allow the existing Penn Station, the largest transit hub in the United States, to be expanded and opened up to daylight. Many elected officials and civic organizations see the arena's relocation as an unprecedented opportunity to right one of the city's worst planning nightmares.

Robert Gottheim, an aide to Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat whose district includes the potential site of Moynihan Station, said that he was not immediately aware of any signs that the federal funding is in jeopardy.

"The congressman met with Vornado and Related, he was intrigued very much and he thinks that site should be judged holistically. It shouldn't be done piecemeal," Mr. Gottheim said.

A spokeswoman for the Federal Railroad Administration, Dede Cordell, said the federal funding is not in danger.

"It has been appropriated. The money will sit in that pot until they use it," Ms. Cordell said.

© 2006 The New York Sun, One SL, LLC.

NYguy

September 13th, 2006, 06:00 PM

Silver's Moynihan Station Delay Could Prove Costly for New York

Proponents of the state's plan to build Moynihan Station say further postponement of a final vote scheduled for next week could cost New York about $130 million in federal funds.

The project is tentatively on next week's agenda of the Public Authorities Control Board, but Mr. Silver has given no indication that he will now approve it, and he recently told the New York Observer he would not do so until the Moynihan Station project is incorporated into a larger, unfinished plan to move Madison Square Garden.

The Moynihan Station project seemed to be coasting toward final approval until the state's chosen developers, Vornado and the Related Companies, earlier this year began circulating grander plans to relocate Madison Square Garden from its current location over Penn Station, into the western side of the Farley Post Office building.

Again, I say the problem is not with Silver's delay of the vote, but in the developer's and Cablevision's indecision on what they actually want to do with the site. They need to pick a plan and go with it. What's the problem here? I know the new plan will involve a 16 month approval process, but Related, Vornado, & Cablevision have yet to formally unveil a plan. Yet everyone seems to think that the second plan is the better of the two. So lets get on with it already.

Citytect

September 13th, 2006, 06:57 PM

^You're right. The developers need to officially reveal the bigger plan. I can't figure out what they're waiting for.

ablarc

September 14th, 2006, 08:07 AM

I can't figure out what they're waiting for.
Architects gotta design the darn thing first.

Dynamicdezzy

September 14th, 2006, 03:23 PM

Not really, we had an idea of how the new WTC would look like even before Rogers, Foster and Maki released their renderings. Atleast Ratner had freaking wooden blocks to showcase his proposal. "Something" is better than nothing at all. and that's really what we have now (aside from the Moynihan proposal).

Vengineer

September 14th, 2006, 03:40 PM

Actually, SOM already has a design which includes the MSG plan. Although its far from a finalized construction plan, it can be considered extensive enough for presentation.

In my semi-professional opinion, I think a significant hurdle remains with getting past the Landmark Preservation Commission. It might not be as simple as everyone thinks.

ablarc

September 14th, 2006, 04:06 PM

I think a significant hurdle remains with getting past the Landmark Preservation Commission.
I assume the issue is Farley Post Office Annex, the Landmark --not Madison Square Garden, the Landmark.

Only thing worth preserving is Farley Annex's exterior: all those relentless columns. Albert Speer would be proud.

lofter1

September 14th, 2006, 04:13 PM

Only thing worth preserving is Farley Annex's exterior: all those relentless columns. Albert Speer would be proud.

Oh, come now ^^^ the Farley has good solid American-style Greco columns --

None of that Teutonic fascistic relentlessness here ;)

TREPYE

September 14th, 2006, 06:28 PM

Actually, SOM already has a design which includes the MSG plan.

So SOM will be commissioned to designing their usual crap-garbage on this proposal for all structures (MSG & scrapers)??. Please say it ain't so.

Citytect

September 14th, 2006, 06:48 PM

Architects gotta design the darn thing first.

No, I was talking about their business plans more than design plans - although they are related.

sfenn1117

September 14th, 2006, 08:28 PM

So SOM will be commissioned to designing their usual crap-garbage on this proposal for all structures (MSG & scrapers)??. Please say it ain't so.

Yeah I'm pretty sick of SOM. They design some slick buildings elsewhere across the world, but really short change New York.

I'd like to see what Pelli could do here. At least he has given NY some of our best buildings.

pianoman11686

September 14th, 2006, 08:36 PM

Both firms have been employed by either developer for big projects: Pelli for Bloomberg (Vornado) and SOM for TWC (Related). Leads me to think this might be a collaborative effort among a few firms, maybe even an open competition.

lofter1

September 14th, 2006, 10:55 PM

None of which ^^^ will make any difference if they leave 2 Penn Plaza standing ...

pianoman11686

September 20th, 2006, 11:51 PM

Pataki Again Dodges a Vote on Moynihan Station Plans

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Published: September 21, 2006

Locked in a standoff with the State Assembly over financing for a $900 million plan to convert the city’s main post office to a grand transit hub, the Pataki administration took the proposal off the table again yesterday rather than risk a vote against it.

State officials have been pushing to get the long-awaited project, called Moynihan Station, approved by the Public Authorities Control Board so that construction can begin before Gov. George E. Pataki leaves office in January. But a vote was delayed last month when Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, who controls the state board together with Governor Pataki and Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, raised questions about the project’s financing.

After delaying the start of the control board meeting for more than two hours yesterday, the Pataki administration pulled Moynihan Station off the board’s agenda.

Charles A. Gargano, the state’s top economic development official, told Assembly leaders in recent days that any further delay could jeopardize or possibly kill the project, which proponents say would be a gateway to New York City and a necessary expansion of the nation’s busiest transit center. State officials insist that financing for Moynihan Station has long been in place.

But Alan G. Hevesi, the state comptroller, issued a letter Tuesday night saying he did not believe that state officials had provided the necessary information to determine whether “there are commitments of funds sufficient to finance the acquisition and construction” of Moynihan Station. He then raised questions about the state’s deal with the project’s developers, Stephen M. Ross of the Related Companies and Steven Roth of Vornado Realty Trust. Mr. Hevesi said the state had sold one million square feet of development rights to the developers without having obtained an independent appraisal.

At yesterday’s meeting, state officials initially sought to force a vote anyway, but Mr. Hevesi and Mr. Silver refused to budge.

“We have provided answers to those questions, and continue to be available to answer any questions at any time, as we have for the past several months,” Mr. Gargano said yesterday. “We are confident that the answers provided to the comptroller will resolve any remaining concerns, and that the P.A.C.B. will vote to move forward on the Moynihan Station project in the coming days.”

But it is unclear whether the gap between the two sides can quickly be bridged.

“Instead of answering our questions,” Mr. Silver said, “we get, ‘You’re going to kill the project.’ ”

“This has to do with the fact that the project was not properly presented to us,” Mr. Silver added. “ If they’d go forward and try to answer the questions we could try and move this project forward.”

All sides maintain that they support the Moynihan Station project, which was first proposed by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan 13 years ago. State officials obtained most of the funds for the project in 2001, and it has been wending its way through the public approval process for two years.

But the issue has become mired in politics and complicated by a nascent $7 billion proposal by the developers, Mr. Roth and Mr. Ross, to modernize and expand Pennsylvania Station to both sides of Eighth Avenue between 31st and 33rd Streets, by moving Madison Square Garden a block west to the back of the post office building. The larger proposal, which has not been unveiled publicly, is referred to as Plan B.

Democrats have complained recently that the Pataki administration is trying to rush through projects and appointments in a last-minute bid to establish a legacy without scrutiny from legislators.

“These guys are trying to close out every major real estate deal in the state before they leave office,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat. “They want approval of a bunch of half-baked deals. It’s nonsense.”

Mr. Silver is also asking why the control board is being asked to approve the smaller Moynihan Station project when the larger proposal is what the developers want to build. “They’re saying, ‘Approve Plan A and we’ll give you Plan B’ later,” Mr. Silver said of the Pataki administration. “We can change it. I’m suggesting that the thing presented to me personally, and I assume to Senator Bruno, is Plan B. I’m suggesting, put forth Plan B with a financial plan and, subject to evaluation, I think we can be very supportive.”

But Mr. Gargano said the state had not yet presented the larger proposal, whose fate is still uncertain. He said it would take 18 months to get approval and require $1 billion in public funds for the renovation of Penn Station.

“We’re only asking for approval of the Moynihan Station project and development within the post office,” Mr. Gargano said. “No other plan has been presented.”

The leading candidate to succeed Mr. Pataki, the Democrat Eliot Spitzer, the attorney general, has said that Mr. Hevesi has raised legitimate questions about the financial viability of the current proposal, although he insists that he supports both plans for Moynihan Station.

Christine Anderson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer, said yesterday, “If elected, Eliot will immediately seek to resolve these issues so that the Moynihan project can move forward.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

ablarc

September 21st, 2006, 08:03 AM

The leading candidate to succeed Mr. Pataki, the Democrat Eliot Spitzer, the attorney general, has said that Mr. Hevesi has raised legitimate questions about the financial viability of the current proposal, although he insists that he supports both plans for Moynihan Station.

Christine Anderson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer, said yesterday, “If elected, Eliot will immediately seek to resolve these issues so that the Moynihan project can move forward.”
White Knight Eliot will ride to rescue immediately upon election. Meantime he will play dragon.

Again: why is this man a shoo-in?

Lofter says he's the only "viable" candidate. Does this mean his opponent is a drooling idiot? My own feeling is that anyone with an IQ above 80 could rise to the office.

This guy Spitzer, however, has character problems.

.

lofter1

September 21st, 2006, 09:53 AM

Pataki is doing all kinds of last minute BS in an attempt to solidify what he thinks is his "legacy".

We're seeing a lot of posturing on both sides here.

lofter1

September 21st, 2006, 09:55 AM

My own feeling is that anyone with an IQ above 80 could rise to the office.

You might be right ^^^ although you could probably drop that number down 10 notches or more.

Witness Pataki ;)

NYguy

September 21st, 2006, 06:59 PM

Pataki Again Dodges a Vote on Moynihan Station Plans

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

Published: September 21, 2006

“Instead of answering our questions,” Mr. Silver said, “we get, ‘You’re going to kill the project.’ ”

“This has to do with the fact that the project was not properly presented to us,” Mr. Silver added. “ If they’d go forward and try to answer the questions we could try and move this project forward.”

...the issue has become mired in politics and complicated by a nascent $7 billion proposal by the developers, Mr. Roth and Mr. Ross, to modernize and expand Pennsylvania Station to both sides of Eighth Avenue between 31st and 33rd Streets, by moving Madison Square Garden a block west to the back of the post office building. The larger proposal, which has not been unveiled publicly, is referred to as Plan B.

Mr. Silver is also asking why the control board is being asked to approve the smaller Moynihan Station project when the larger proposal is what the developers want to build. “They’re saying, ‘Approve Plan A and we’ll give you Plan B’ later,” Mr. Silver said of the Pataki administration. “We can change it. I’m suggesting that the thing presented to me personally, and I assume to Senator Bruno, is Plan B. I’m suggesting, put forth Plan B with a financial plan and, subject to evaluation, I think we can be very supportive.”

I agree with Silver on this one. Present the plan B already.

But Mr. Gargano said the state had not yet presented the larger proposal, whose fate is still uncertain. He said it would take 18 months to get approval and require $1 billion in public funds for the renovation of Penn Station.

Since it takes 18 months for approval, wouldn't it make sense to get the ball rolling sooner rather than later? I'm sure certain aspects of the development can be approved with the funds already allocated, but I see no reason to keep the proposal secret. If this project dies a slow death, it will be at the hands of the governor and the developers.

lofter1

September 22nd, 2006, 12:55 PM

Again: why is this man a shoo-in?

Lofter says he's the only "viable" candidate. Does this mean his opponent is a drooling idiot?

NYC Governor Race Thread HERE (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5469)

The latest on Spitzer's opponent, John Faso, HERE (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=121644&postcount=56)

Eugenious

September 22nd, 2006, 08:53 PM

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/060922silver.asp
Architectural Record - USA

Sheldon Silver Stalls Moynihan Station, Accusing Developers of Withholding Complete Plans
http://archrecord.construction.com/images/006699.gif September 22, 2006

The Public Authorities Control Board (PACB) rejected a $900 million redevelopment scheme for New York City’s Pennsylvania station, the nation’s busiest passenger facility, on August 17.

The plan, drafted by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, called for substantial changes to the adjacent Farley building, a McKim Mead &White design that currently serves as the city’s main post office. Reconceived as the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Station, the 300,000-square-foot transportation hub would be pierced by two immense vaulted skylights and include as much as 750,000 square feet of private, mixed-use space. The New York State Empire Development Corporation (ESDC) appointed the development companies Related and Vornado to control the commercial spaces.

To go forward, the project would have required the unanimous consent of the PACB, the state body responsible for approving state-financed projects. But State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, one of PACB’s three voting members, refused to endorse the plan. Silver’s spokesperson, Bryan Franke, says the Speaker’s reservations were based on a letter written by State Comptroller Alan Hevesi to the ESDC.

In his letter, Hevesi raised concerns about the adequacy of the project’s financing. But Hevesi most harshly criticized the developers for not presenting the PACB with its ambitious plans to relocate Madison Square Garden across Eighth Avenue into the Farley building and redevelop most of the block the Garden currently occupies. Hevesi’s letter states, “Perhaps the most fundamental question is how it is possible to approve part of the project when the new Madison Square Garden proposed for the western half of the complex will probably require that the whole plan be revised?”

While redeveloping the Farley building would provide the developers with 1million square feet of air rights, winning approval to relocate Madison Square Garden would add 5 million square feet of developable space.
A concept that follows this recalculation envisions, in place of the current Garden, three large towers surrounding a giant skylit pedestal that would raise the ceiling of Penn Station. The developers have shown the plan to various stakeholders, but they would not share it with RECORD. Bud Perrone, a spokesperson for the developers, refused comment.

The ESDC says it will have another try with the PACB. Jessica Copen, communications director of the ESDC, adds that the corporation addressed concerns about Moynihan Station and Madison Square Garden in a recent letter to the comptroller. In June 2005, Silver had used the PACB as a vehicle to kill the New York Sports and Convention Center.
`

Peakrate212

September 22nd, 2006, 09:09 PM

How do we get Sheldon Silver out of office?

He blocks everything that is positive and good for the City.

WTF?

lofter1

September 22nd, 2006, 11:25 PM

NYguy

September 23rd, 2006, 07:37 AM

Blame Pataki and his endless quest for a "legacy". He'd prefer half-assed as long as it has his name on it.

Hard to argue with this:

Hevesi’s letter states, “Perhaps the most fundamental question is how it is possible to approve part of the project when the new Madison Square Garden proposed for the western half of the complex will probably require that the whole plan be revised?”

That's exactly right. Why are they so afraid to release it? Sure there will be some public outcry, but to hell with them. Its the $1 billion for the expanded station that will have to be explained to the people.

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 08:27 AM

Hevesi is the Comptroller.

I'll bet it has nothing to do with the physical appearance. Releasing the project means releasing the financing.

Something smells.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 09:02 AM

That's exactly right. Why are they so afraid to release it?
That's certainly plausible, but it's not exactly right.

I agree the revised plan should be released, and I'm as anxious as anyone to see it.

But I don't think it's a reason to delay forging forward with Moynihan as presently designed --though "professional" wisdom doubtless insists that it is. You're listening to the tut-tuts of constrained minds.

I design projects incrementally all the time. New information and additional program elements require changes in what you've already designed principally if your thinking runs in ruts or you're a dry control freak. It flies in the face of conventional wisdom to say this --most designers will tell you you need all the facts together before you start a design-- but I say nonsense, that's not how you get Greenwich Village, the Financial District, the Louvre or Florence; and John Cage would agree with me.

Designing incrementally enriches a design by introducing unpredictable anomalies you could never cook up without the intervention of chance. In a city, that's often where the delight comes from.

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 09:36 AM

You're considering only the physical aspects of the project, but plan B is more than a physical change.

Another player is being added - Cablevision/MSG.

Who controls the air-rights?

What happens to MSG's tax breaks?

What happens to federal funding if the Farley is significantly altered?

Etc.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 09:52 AM

You're considering only the physical aspects of the project...
That's because others have framed the conversation so --starting with Hevesi.

They're confident folks will buy the idea you can't design incrementally as a professional truth. If other folks elsewhere are confident people will buy the idea that Martin Luther King was a Republican, think how much easier this one is to sell...

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 10:06 AM

That's because others have framed the conversation so --starting with Hevesi.
Again, you're ignoring the fact that the entire financial aspects of the project will change.

the idea you can't design incrementallyThe project change is not merely another design phase.

lbjefferies

September 23rd, 2006, 10:07 AM

most designers will tell you you need all the facts together before you start a design-- but I say nonsense, that's not how you get Greenwich Village, the Financial District, the Louvre or Florence; and John Cage would agree with me.

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, John Cage never designed a single building. But if he did, I think he might have bankrupted any developer daring enough to give him a chance.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 10:09 AM

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, John Cage never designed a single building. But if he did, I think he might have bankrupted any developer daring enough to give him a chance.
lbjefferies, I hope you meant that facetiously. ^ ;). I wouldn't want to think of you as excessively literal-minded. :)

Designing buildings wasn't Cage's bag, but thinking about the creative process certainly was.

.

lbjefferies

September 23rd, 2006, 10:15 AM

lbjefferies, I hope you meant that facetiously. ^ ;). I wouldn't want to think of you as excessively literal-minded. :)

I'm not. I'm just uncertain Mr. Cage would agree with you.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 10:19 AM

The project change is not merely another design phase.
Not change. Addition.

You can fund them as separate projects too. Imagine ten years between the phases and you'll see what I mean.

You get that in reality all the time.

It's just that it disturbs professionals' conventional processes because it flies in the face of their training. All it shows is that they've been trained to think inflexibly.

What else is new?

lbjefferies

September 23rd, 2006, 10:21 AM

Designing buildings wasn't Cage's bag, but thinking about the creative process certainly was.

.

If we could somehow be assured this project could go forward in increments and not triple the cost by doing so, then I would completely agree with you. I am not convinced of that. The question is, how long will this be delayed in waiting for a master plan?

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 10:28 AM

I'm not. I'm just uncertain Mr. Cage would agree with you.

Cage's great contribution to the history of ideas is that the "chaos" we attribute to unforeseen chance injected into the creative process is actually a potential aesthetic enhancement.

Those who can get next to that idea use it to create rich and complex things that often astound and astonish --and certainly vex and confound the small-minded.

These days it's a common idea among artists in all fields; you can't have Warhol, Pollock, Gehry without. You can trace it back to at least Dada.

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 10:32 AM

Not change. Addition.

I don't know why you are ignoring the fact that another company is being added, along with its existing agreements with the city, and the release of air-rights that are not part of the present project; and insist on calling this an addition.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 10:37 AM

Off topic, I know:

“The grand thing about the human mind is that it can turn its own tables and see meaninglessness as ultimate meaning”

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/cage-quotes.html

“I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones.”

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 10:41 AM

I don't know why you are ignoring the fact that another company is being added, along with its existing agreements with the city, and the release of air-rights that are not part of the present project; and insist on calling this an addition.
First there's one thing and it's completed.

Then there's another thing, and it's an addition.

They don't have to be bundled.

Conventional wisdom says they do.

I don't buy it, because too much reality contradicts the assertion.

Conventional wisdom is always plausible; that's the litmus test.

But it doesn't always get you where you want to go.

Sometimes lateral thinking gets you the brass ring.

lbjefferies

September 23rd, 2006, 10:44 AM

Cage's great contribution to the history of ideas is that the "chaos" we attribute to unforeseen chance injected into the creative process is actually a potential aesthetic enhancement.

Those who can get next to that idea use it to create rich and complex things that often astound and astonish --and certainly vex and confound the small-minded.

These days it's a common idea among artists in all fields; you can't have Warhol, Pollock, Gehry without. You can trace it back to at least Dada.

You know what else made Gehry, Warhol and Pollock possible? Money. Their genius didn't depend on it but their ability to create on a grand scale did. I think Cage probably understood that.

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 10:48 AM

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 10:50 AM

You know what else made Gehry, Warhol and Pollock possible? Money. Their genius didn't depend on it but their ability to create on a grand scale did. I think Cage probably understood that.
It may not be invariably true, but you could use those guys to illustrate this:

you do something creative and original enough and the money will materialize.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 10:51 AM

When one doesn't live in the city or state, he can afford the luxury of ignoring how much the public will have to shell out for projects.

Non conventional thinking, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
I see a paper tiger.

The connection to cost is merely an assertion. I dispute it vigorously. And I dispute it professionally.

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 10:53 AM

How so?

lbjefferies

September 23rd, 2006, 10:57 AM

you do something creative and original enough and the money will materialize.

From where? In this case, I mean.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 11:40 AM

How so?
I've already said. Doing things incrementally might seem to most people to be a formula for increased cost, but it doesn't have to be so --and in my projects, it's not.

There's plenty of waste and corruption that --if cut out-- would save a bundle. Maybe that's where Hevesi could look for savings, instead of holding up projects until the last "t" is crossed in a neat and overlarge bundle (which then runs the risk of being too large and unwieldy to fully fund ;)).

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 11:44 AM

From where? In this case, I mean.
From the gross proceeds. Through design I doubled the gross of a current project's pro forma, while increasing its cost by well less than 100%. Bank, investors, developer and city planners all agree it's now a more attractive proposition.

Everybody's going to make more money, which makes them happy. Everyone agrees the project now looks terrific, which makes me happy.

.

lofter1

September 23rd, 2006, 11:57 AM

There's plenty of waste and corruption that --if cut out-- would save a bundle.

Maybe that's where Hevesi could look for savings, instead of holding up projects until the last "t" is crossed

If we waited for the cess pool of the MTA to be cleaned up before we moved forward then neither Moynihan or the 2nd Avenue subway or the 7-Line extension will ever be built.

I don't see that anyone is claiming we need the last "t" to be crossed before Moynihan project moves forward --

But a clearer picture as to how the other phases of the as-of-yet-unproposed proposal could effect costs at Moynihan doesn't seem to be an unreasonable requirement before funding is OK'd.

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 12:00 PM

In none of your responses have you once mentioned:

1. Air-rights over MSG

2. Tax breaks to Dolan.

3. Federal funding for the Farley.

If the 2nd proposal is the preferred plan, the public has the right to see it now - not just the physical design, but how it is being financed.

Contrary to what you say
the money will materialize that doesn't happen here. One of the reasons that the Moynihan Station is not already being built already is that the money didn't materialize..

In a rush to get what is an outdated plan approved, there is the real risk that the 2nd proposal, which will also have to be approved, will be rejected, and at best, we will have MSG sitting on top of Penn Station until the 22nd century, or worse, the entire project gets stalled.

lofter1

September 23rd, 2006, 12:12 PM

... the cess pool of the MTA

I may have mis-spoke when laying this project at the feet of the MTA, but that organization is emblematic of other NY quasi-governmental agencies that wreak of patronage, corruption and deep pockets -- the taxpayers are the ones who suffer over the long run ...

Unfair Hike

The MTA is built on shady accounting, contracting candals and $2,000 oil changes.

nypress.com (http://www.nypress.com/16/16/news&columns/feature.cfm)
By Matt Taibbi
NEWS & COLUMNS

Nobody who’s been following the recent MTA mess should be surprised by anything he or she reads. The MTA has always been a foul animal, a child of incest, the offspring of unnatural acts.

The year is 1967, and Governor Nelson Rockefeller is in trouble. He’s going to have a problem fulfilling his legal obligation to balance the state budget, an ugly prospect to face when one needs conservative support for a possible presidential run. The solution: a new, two-billion-dollar highway and transit bond issue, ostensibly to cover the costs of a merger of the transportation authorities, including the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) and the commuter railroads.

There’s only one problem. The merger would be an outrage to bondholders of the existing authorities, in particular those of the TBTA, who risk seeing bridge and tunnel toll revenue reinvested in new projects before their bonds are paid off. Furthermore, the bridge and tunnel bondholders are asked to support the railways, competitors of a sort that seek to divert traffic away from their revenue-generating motor tolls. With $367,200,000 in TBTA bonds outstanding, the bondholders, led by trustee Chase Manhattan bank, are sure to sue in the event of a merger, and will almost certainly win.

Except for one thing. Chase Manhattan is run by the governor’s brother, David Rockefeller. The two brothers meet behind closed doors on Feb. 8, 1968, and emerge with an agreement that Chase will not oppose the merger. So much for those bondholders. The deal is sealed away from the prying eyes of the public in the chambers of State Supreme Court Justice William Hecht.

A few weeks later, an unholy animal — borne of political opportunism, national ambition, secrecy, a total disregard for either the voting or investing public and a lack of any consideration for either municipal efficiency or fiscal sense — comes into the world under the name it bears today. The Metropolitan Transit Authority — the MTA — which could not have existed without the extraordinarily rare convergence of two brothers sitting simultaneously at the apexes of political and financial power in the same state, is even created on an unnatural day: February 29, 1968.

The MTA has made a lot of ugly news in the last few years — a threatened strike, contentious fare hikes, a $13.5 billion debt reorganization and persistent allegations of corruption. But the most portentous blow to the authority came just a few weeks ago, in a scandal that was widely reported but the scope and meaning of which have yet to be seriously explored publicly.

The story began when the MTA’s security director, an ex-cop with a sterling reputation named Louis Anemone, went public with complaints that his efforts to investigate corruption within the MTA were being hindered by the MTA leadership. Anemone claimed that he and deputy Nicholas Casale had uncovered a pattern of bid-rigging and cost overruns that cost the Authority $100 million.

When the two sought a meeting with George Pataki to demand an independent investigation, the governor’s answer was an unceremonious **** You: Not only did he refuse Anemone’s request, but he deadpanned that he had "absolute confidence" in the MTA leadership.

Pataki had plenty of reasons to have confidence in the MTA leaders. According to New York State Election commission data, eight of the MTA board members, including Chairman Peter Kalikow and Vice Chairman David Mack, donated a total of $135,670 just to George Pataki’s campaign in the last election cycle.

Some on the board exhibited rare political enthusiasm during the 2002 race. Member Andrew Saul, for instance, chairman of the board of a women’s apparel company called Cache, Inc., not only gave the maximum allowable individual contribution of $30,700, but added $9800 under a loophole that allows contributions to minor-party primary elections (Pataki ran on the Conservative and Independence tickets).

Families pitched in as well. By themselves, the spouses of three MTA board members nearly doubled the board’s overall contribution. Denise Saul, Mary Kalikow and Bruce A. Blakeman (the husband of member Nancy Blakeman, Mr. Blakeman is also a Port Authority commissioner) donated a total of $97,200 in the last cycle.

The Board, of course, gave generously to other Republican causes (Kalikow and Saul both gave over $50,000 to Republican PACs, for instance), and there’s always the possibility that there were other donations made through companies associated with the board members. But the open donations to the governor by board members appointed by the governor, as well as Anemone’s desperate and ultimately failed attempt to leapfrog channels to bring his investigation into the governor’s office, get right to the heart of the issue.

The MTA is a Pataki operation. And the MTA scandal should be a Pataki scandal.

"The MTA … is a shadow government," says Democratic Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, who’s been organizing hearings on reform of the MTA. "Its finances are off budget. It’s just not subject to the normal oversight of democratic institutions."

lbjefferies

September 23rd, 2006, 12:14 PM

From the gross proceeds. Through design I doubled the gross of a current project's pro forma, while increasing its cost by well less than 100%. Bank, investors, developer and city planners all agree it's now a more attractive proposition.

Everybody's going to make more money, which makes them happy. Everyone agrees the project now looks terrific, which makes me happy.

.

Thats wonderful ablarc. You must be very good at what you do. But won't you admit its sometimes dangerous to jump into a project headfirst without direction? See the Big Dig in Boston.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 12:21 PM

One of the reasons that the Moynihan Station is not already being built already is that the money didn't materialize..
Trying not to nit-pick, but in this case hasn't the money been languishing on the table for so long that some fear it'll be taken back off?

lbjefferies

September 23rd, 2006, 12:28 PM

Trying not to nit-pick, but in this case hasn't the money been languishing on the table for so long that some fear it'll be taken back off?

An excellent point. And the primary reason I'm ambivilant about waiting for a more comprehensive plan. If we wait, then it better not be for long. If this project dies, then Silver should die with it. And this time I am being literal.

Citytect

September 23rd, 2006, 05:04 PM

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 05:16 PM

Going ahead without a project when some details are impossible to know is one thing. Going ahead with a project when the developer is deliberately withholding certain details is another. Is it unreasonable to ask the developers to provide all known details? I don't think so. Before the public offers financing for the project, the developers of the project should share with the public what they know about the project. Is it unreasonable to ask for such transparency in this public/private project?
Maybe, or alternatively they could have kept the cat entirely in the bag until after Moynihan actually got underway.

Nobody's under any obligation to approve the bigger plan, and the developers aren't obligated to build it. Or even plan it. Or divulge what they're planning.

How many development schemes do you suppose are being planned right this minute for New York without having been divulged? We're not howling for them to be divulged partly because we don't even know what they are.

When the time comes for public input, we'll know. Or the projects will be shelved without seeing the light of day.

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 06:18 PM

Trying not to nit-pick, but in this case hasn't the money been languishing on the table for so long that some fear it'll be taken back off?
If you are satisfied with the original plan, then by all means, build it now.

If you think the 2nd proposal deserves consideration, then the best course of action is to settle it now. There must be something "not suitable for public review" about the 2nd plan to compel the developer, who would also lose out if the 1st plan is rejected, to withhold it.

This is a prime reason why the WTC was stalled for five years. Until the recent agreement among all parties was spelled out, nothing was done despite cornerstone layings, hiring of consultants, and various announcements.

After living with MSG over Penn Station for 40 years, I think it is worth the wait to do it right.

Nobody's under any obligation to approve the bigger plan, and the developers aren't obligated to build it. Or even plan it. Or divulge what they're planning.A moot point.

It's the developers who want the 2nd plan, and they approached City Hall with the idea. The cat's out of the bag; you can't separate the two concepts any longer.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 06:33 PM

If you are satisfied with the original plan, then by all means, build it now.
Works for me. We all rooted for this one until Ross and Roth made our eyes bigger than saucers with hints of a bigger plan.

There must be something "not suitable for public review" about the 2nd plan to compel the developer, who would also lose out if the 1st plan is rejected, to withhold it.
Yeah, the design is probably full of holes. This is a big job with a lot to work out. Even a lean firm hasn't really had enough time to work it out so parts aren't ludicrous to the knowledgable; the bloated big boys actually doing the job need more time.

It's the developers who want the 2nd plan, and they approached City Hall with the idea. The cat's out of the bag; you can't separate the two concepts any longer.
That was their mistake.

pianoman11686

September 23rd, 2006, 06:41 PM

Hevesi is the Comptroller.

I'll bet it has nothing to do with the physical appearance. Releasing the project means releasing the financing.

Something smells.

I agree that something just doesn't smell right, and there is a lot to be worked out in the financing. But why is Hevesi all of a sudden injecting himself into this? Is he at all on the same page as Pataki, or can we assume that his view has been compromised by Silver? There's just something all too coincidental about him releasing that letter, and Silver falling into line. But...

You're considering only the physical aspects of the project, but plan B is more than a physical change.

Another player is being added - Cablevision/MSG.

Who controls the air-rights?

What happens to MSG's tax breaks?

What happens to federal funding if the Farley is significantly altered?

Etc.

Why should Cablevision be an obstacle? Their tax-breaks are subject to change no matter what happens, for the simple reason that Bloomberg just doesn't want them to have it anymore. I think it's pretty safe to assume that they would benefit from the move regardless, and profit handsomely off of selling the air-rights to Vornado/Related.

Federal funding? What about it? I thought the Post Office was already transferred to the city, and the nominal amount was already finalized. As far as I recall, the city's already been spending some of the grants in prepping the site/paying for consultants, etc.

If you are satisfied with the original plan, then by all means, build it now.

If you think the 2nd proposal deserves consideration, then the best course of action is to settle it now. There must be something "not suitable for public review" about the 2nd plan to compel the developer, who would also lose out if the 1st plan is rejected, to withhold it.

This is a prime reason why the WTC was stalled for five years. Until the recent agreement among all parties was spelled out, nothing was done despite cornerstone layings, hiring of consultants, and various announcements.

After living with MSG over Penn Station for 40 years, I think it is worth the wait to do it right.

A moot point.

It's the developers who want the 2nd plan, and they approached City Hall with the idea. The cat's out of the bag; you can't separate the two concepts any longer.

The WTC was stalled for many other reasons, resulting from complexities inherent in the site. These complexities aren't present in this case, as the number of parties that have a stake (or claim to) is much lower.

I agree that it's a little silly for the plans to be kept so "under the table", but maybe it's because there really isn't a plan established yet. In other words, we've not moved past the conceptual stage.

Here's what we do know: contracts for Moynihan are in place for construction to start there, and the developers have an agreement for the air rights. Why don't we let them work out the transaction with Cablevision, pay for the air rights, and let that project progress independently (since it doesn't have the longstanding Federal money committed to it). Then MSG can move to the back of Farley, while construction is already under way in Moynihan.

I think it's safe to say that the funding needs to be put in place sooner rather than later, because the risk in not getting what the city/state wants (ie, a new Moynihan) is very low. Meanwhile, let the developers do what they do best: work out the agreements behind closed doors, and start the other components of Plan B when they're ready.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: there is no need for a delay. And I don't agree that we need a comprehensive plan for everything to be in place, and agreed upon, before work starts. This can progress as 2 or 3 separate projects, at more or less the same time. After all, isn't that what the WTC ultimately comes down to, anyway?

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 06:48 PM

Works for me. We all rooted for this one until Ross and Roth made our eyes bigger than saucers with hints of a bigger plan.Not everyone. Some from the beginning.

That was their mistake.I don't think so. Related has no rights to the MSG/ Penn St site, and Plan A will not give them any. It seems to me their proposal was cleverly calculated to coincide with the publicity generated by the original agreement.

pianoman11686

September 23rd, 2006, 07:10 PM

From the gross proceeds. Through design I doubled the gross of a current project's pro forma, while increasing its cost by well less than 100%. Bank, investors, developer and city planners all agree it's now a more attractive proposition.

Everybody's going to make more money, which makes them happy. Everyone agrees the project now looks terrific, which makes me happy.

.

Are you just talking about size, or were there more drastic changes made in design and usage?

In any case: is there any doubt that the same thing could be accomplished here? I don't think so, especially given the fact that any additional private contributions to what was essentially a public project will offset certain costs, for one reason or another. The question is: will we like what we (literally) see?

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 07:19 PM

Are you just talking about size, or were there more drastic changes made in design and usage?
Size didn't change a bit; that's why cost went up only modestly.

The developer sensed a market. As is usual in such cases he consulted realtors, who looked at comparables, which are descriptions of what is.

When you're trying to improve something, you're by definition not doing what is, so it makes much more sense to cook up a fantasy instead and see if it flies. In this case everybody agreed the fantasy would fly, and the realtors exactly doubled what they estimated the units would bring.

The difference was entirely in the design, but the zoning had to be slain.

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 07:24 PM

I agree that something just doesn't smell right, and there is a lot to be worked out in the financing. But why is Hevesi all of a sudden injecting himself into this?
Hevesi is the Commptroller.

Why should Cablevision be an obstacle? Their tax-breaks are subject to change no matter what happens, for the simple reason that Bloomberg just doesn't want them to have it anymore. I didn't say they were an obstacle, but that they are an added entity that makes Plan B more than an addition to Plan A,

I think it's pretty safe to assume that they would benefit from the move regardless, and profit handsomely off of selling the air-rights to Vornado/Related.Does Cablevision control the air-rights? Last thing I had heard was that the issue was not resolved.

Federal funding? What about it? I thought the Post Office was already transferred to the city, and the nominal amount was already finalized. As far as I recall, the city's already been spending some of the grants in prepping the site/paying for consultants, etc. Funding was contingent on the Post Office preserved as a landmark. Do we know what the new MSG will look like?

Here's what we do know: contracts for Moynihan are in place for construction to start there, and the developers have an agreement for the air rights. Why don't we let them work out the transaction with Cablevision, pay for the air rights, and let that project progress independently Cablevision does not own the air-rights over Farley; Cablevision has no involvement in that project at all.

Meanwhile, let the developers do what they do best: work out the agreements behind closed doors, and start the other components of Plan B when they're ready. There will be at least $1 billion in public funding for Plan B.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: there is no need for a delay. And I don't agree that we need a comprehensive plan for everything to be in place, and agreed upon, before work starts. This can progress as 2 or 3 separate projects, at more or less the same time. After all, isn't that what the WTC ultimately comes down to, anyway?If you are looking at it only from a physical standpoint, which was my point from the beginning. Physically, the WTC buildings will be phased, but a big part of that project is the overall financial agreement that was recently signed.

Disagreements or misunderstandings over finances stop more projects in their tracks then anything else.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 07:35 PM

Disagreements or misunderstandings over finances stop more projects in their tracks then anything else.
Exactly why the long-approved little project should be allowed to puff merrily down the track. Half a loaf, you know, ....

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 07:52 PM

^
After giving this some thought over the last few months, I've come to agree with those that said the "little project" is too little.

It always looked good before the MSG move was proposed, but now it pales in comparison. Plan B is the more important - as a railroad hub, and economic generator.

ablarc

September 23rd, 2006, 08:01 PM

It always looked good before the MSG move was proposed, but now it pales in comparison. Plan B is the more important - as a railroad hub, and economic generator.
That's right, and it may never come to pass.

(Hope I'm wrong.)

pianoman11686

September 23rd, 2006, 09:10 PM

Hevesi is the Commptroller.

Right, but up until very recently, we haven't heard so much as a peep out of him. Just saying that the timing, along with Silver's accepting his letter as an expression of his own agenda, was a little suspicious.

I didn't say they were an obstacle, but that they are an added entity that makes Plan B more than an addition to Plan A,

Semantics. The fact that you're bringing it up as "more than an addition" implies that it'll make the plan more difficult and lengthy.

Does Cablevision control the air-rights? Last thing I had heard was that the issue was not resolved.

As far as I know, they do control the air rights above MSG, even though Amtrak controls the land underneath.

Funding was contingent on the Post Office preserved as a landmark. Do we know what the new MSG will look like?

Again, why assume that MSG will change things? It can be built next door without infringing on the Post Office.

Cablevision does not own the air-rights over Farley; Cablevision has no involvement in that project at all.

I was talking about the one million square feet in air rights that the developers already have arranged to be transferred from Moynihan to the Duane Reade site.

There will be at least $1 billion in public funding for Plan B.

Are you suggesting we delay it even further by subjecting the plan to a lengthy public review process?

If you are looking at it only from a physical standpoint, which was my point from the beginning. Physically, the WTC buildings will be phased, but a big part of that project is the overall financial agreement that was recently signed.

That was only for the towers, and even then, there was still some question about the viability of the Freedom Tower. But even putting that aside, you still have the transportation hub, which was worked out a long time ago, and the Memorial, which is proceeding on its own timetable, with its own funds. Physically, and financially, the WTC is split up into at least 3, if not 4 or 5, different projects at the same time.

Disagreements or misunderstandings over finances stop more projects in their tracks then anything else.

Well, at least we can all agree on that. But again, why does that mean we need to wait for a comprehensive plan? Why can't it be segmented?

ZippyTheChimp

September 23rd, 2006, 11:58 PM

pianoman11686

September 24th, 2006, 02:55 PM

It isn't semantics.

The two plans do not follow one to the other because you can't assume what Cablevision will do. There is no agreement on MSG moving to the annex. Plan A develops the station and the annex. Under Plan B, the annex is not developed, and used for the arena.

Here's a thought: does Plan A specify that the annex will be worked on at the exact same time as the Post Office? I don't think so. Start work on the station, and hold off on the annex. If MSG ends up moving there, it'll be its own project. If not, then...well, Plan A.

Dolan has stated he wants a presence for the arena on 8th Ave - entry, ticketing. That has not been resolved. We have no idea what the arena will look like.

Some signage and a few ticket booths. This is not a concern that should cause a project of such magnitude to be delayed. As for the arena, I don't think it can look any worse than the current incarnation. Anything new will be a vast improvement.

There are two plans. If the arena is to be moved, there will have to be a review process.

Right, more delays. Isn't that all the more reason to put aside the one we're currently debating?

Citytect

September 24th, 2006, 03:45 PM

What about the intermodal hall? Are we suppose to build it now knowing that if MSG moves into the Annex, it will have to be replaced to make room for the arena? Would be a waste of public money, don't you think? You know Vornado, Related, and the Dolans aren't going to reimburse the public for cost of building that space. It's a sizable portion of the current Moynihan Station plan.

ablarc

September 24th, 2006, 06:56 PM

What about the intermodal hall?
What was that all about anyway? Is that really an essential part of the scheme? Why not just think of it as a land bank until something comes along and says, "I want to be in this space"?

Citytect

September 24th, 2006, 07:59 PM

What was that all about anyway? Is that really an essential part of the scheme? Why not just think of it as a land bank until something comes along and says, "I want to be in this space"?

Whether or not it is essential is another subject. The plan that is in place now calls for building the intermodal hall. Unless someone (ie. Vornado-Related) steps forward with an amendment to the plan and reason for amendment, going ahead with the smaller plan we have now means building this questionable part of the station. Shouldn't the question be answered before we begin? Or should approval be given despite the potential waste of public money?

ablarc

September 24th, 2006, 08:16 PM

Or should approval be given despite the potential waste of public money?
If you don't build something, where's the waste of money?

ZippyTheChimp

September 24th, 2006, 08:17 PM

Here's a thought: does Plan A specify that the annex will be worked on at the exact same time as the Post Office? I don't think so. Start work on the station, and hold off on the annex. If MSG ends up moving there, it'll be its own project. If not, then...well, Plan A.
Here's a scenario that is very possible.

The annex development is is an integral component of Plan A. It allows development of the complex to extend out to 9th Ave. Related has no intention of completing that part of Plan A, or there will be no place for MSG to go, and Related will not get access to 5 million sq ft of development space.

If, for some reason, Cablevision pulls out of Plan B, it would be in the best interest of Related for them to stall going forward with the annex development, knowing that once it is begun, there is no chance of developing those air-rights. It could sit in limbo for years.

Which brings me back to the point I keep making, and you seem to be missing. You are talking about the nuts and bolts of building the arena; I am talking about the money.

ablarc

September 24th, 2006, 08:27 PM

You are talking about the nuts and bolts of building the arena; I am talking about the money.
Money's not my forte. Let folks think about that whose forte it is: Ross, Roth, Dolan (and maybe Zippy, eh? ;)).

But when folks use nuts and bolts for smoke and mirrors, it's good for someone to blow the whistle (on at least that aspect of it).

krulltime

September 24th, 2006, 09:20 PM

Deadline set on Moynihan Station railroad project

Published on September 25, 2006

Advocates of the Moynihan Station railroad project say the state must close on the purchase of the James A. Farley Post Office building by Dec. 31 or risk losing the site. The U.S. Postal Service has given officials four extensions on the deadline and is impatient to rid itself of the expense of the underused facility. Last week, top state Democrats blocked a vote to move forward with the project.

©2006 Crain Communications Inc.

Citytect

September 24th, 2006, 09:22 PM

If you don't build something, where's the waste of money?

Is that suppose to be an answer to the question you quoted?

Your question is too vague to answer. What is "something"? And what money are you referring to? Are you talking about any or all parts of the plan(s) or specific ones? Or are you talking about the potential that the whole project will be shelved, or the price of postponing construction?

Clarification?

ablarc

September 24th, 2006, 09:31 PM

Clarification?
If you don't build something, you've spent no money. If you've spent no money you've wasted no money.

If you haven't built the intermodal you can't have wasted money on it.

pianoman11686

September 24th, 2006, 10:05 PM

Here's a scenario that is very possible.

The annex development is is an integral component of Plan A. It allows development of the complex to extend out to 9th Ave. Related has no intention of completing that part of Plan A, or there will be no place for MSG to go, and Related will not get access to 5 million sq ft of development space.

If, for some reason, Cablevision pulls out of Plan B, it would be in the best interest of Related for them to stall going forward with the annex development, knowing that once it is begun, there is no chance of developing those air-rights. It could sit in limbo for years.

Which brings me back to the point I keep making, and you seem to be missing. You are talking about the nuts and bolts of building the arena; I am talking about the money.

Clearly, we're not seeing eye to eye on this, but I don't think it has anything to do with anyone "missing the point." Your view is that financing has to be put in place, for everything, right now. My view is that the reasons you (and others) put out (the fate of the annex, Cablevision's involvement, ticket booths, etc.) are insufficient to delay this further, for the purpose of hammering out a comprehensive financial agreement.

Now, it's very likely that your view is more educated, and more likely to be correct. But it doesn't change the fact that we are basically talking about the same thing, with one big exception: you treat financing and construction as two separate birds, whereas I think they go hand in hand. In other words, you can't start any kind of construction on, for example, just the Moynihan Station, without having secured the funds to pay for it.

My point is: scrap Plan A entirely, and proceed with a Plan B that gets the ball rolling on Moynihan right away. Then, no one is obligated to take action on the annex until that part is fully agreed upon. It doesn't mean (unless I'm horribly mistaken) that arranging a financial plan to build the station is impossible. It further assumes that even if Plan B isn't realized, we still get the new Moynihan, which is what we've wanted from the very beginning.

Citytect

September 24th, 2006, 10:10 PM

If you don't build something, you've spent no money. If you've spent no money you've wasted no money.

If you haven't built the intermodal you can't have wasted money on it.

Right. But you seemed to have missed the point of my previous post. The current plan is to build the intermodal hall and the rest of the station inside the Farley PO. If they approve the current plan, work begins toward building these parts of the project. If we go along with this and approval is given to the smaller version of the project now without considering the likelihood that the Vornado-Related-Dolans will want to take the intermodal hall in the future to make room for MSG, we could be wasting a lot of money.

At any rate, the project has issues that need to be resolved before approval can be given for any version of the project. If a plan were drawn up to scrap the intermodal hall and just build the portion of Moynihan Station within the Farley PO, I'd agree with you on the point that that can start work on the station now without regard to the bigger plan being hatched by the development team. But that's not the plan they're trying to get started.

ablarc

September 24th, 2006, 10:52 PM

Just leave out the intermodal hall. Make the small project even smaller. But build something, for gosh' sake.

ZippyTheChimp

September 24th, 2006, 11:21 PM

My point is: scrap Plan A entirely, and proceed with a Plan B that gets the ball rolling on Moynihan right away.
That's exactly right, but there is no Plan B until Cablevision agrees to it.

Don't assume this is a no-brainer done deal. MSG sits on an attractive spot right now. It may look like crap, but it is very successful, in spite of two woeful teams. The site on 9th Ave is less ideal, and Cablevision will pay significantly higher taxes. I can't find it, but there was a WSJ or Crains article months ago that stated the entire plan could collapse because of financing.

It further assumes that even if Plan B isn't realized, we still get the new Moynihan, which is what we've wanted from the very beginning.It looked good in a vacuum, but a lot of the appeal is driven by a sentimental wish to correct the error of Penn Station. In reality, Amtrak is not there, and it will only handle 20% of the volume. 8 out of 10 people will still use the dump.

TonyO

September 25th, 2006, 09:26 AM

It looked good in a vacuum, but a lot of the appeal is driven by a sentimental wish to correct the error of Penn Station. In reality, Amtrak is not there, and it will only handle 20% of the volume. 8 out of 10 people will still use the dump.

I've read conflicting stories on this. The opposing one was that NJ Transit has ridership in the hundreds-of-thousands per day where Amtrak has 30-50K. I don't think LIRR traffic was mentioned (and no estimate was made about LIRR ridership post-east-side access).

ZippyTheChimp

September 25th, 2006, 09:53 AM

Of those hundreds of thousands of passengers, under 70,000 travel to Penn Station.

LIRR is the busiest RR in the US, over 280,000 passengers. The majority travel to Penn Station.

Penn Station is Amtrak's busiest nationwide.

Eugenious

September 25th, 2006, 10:30 AM

That's exactly right, but there is no Plan B until Cablevision agrees to it.

I can't find it, but there was a WSJ or Crains article months ago that stated the entire plan could collapse because of financing.

You hit the nail on the head, by shooting down the Moynihan plan Silver & Hevesi has played right into Cablevisions hands, who now hold all the cards. Since the public wont accept giving the Dolans a huge tax break again or financing the project using billions of public money, this project maybe as good as dead...or atleast delayed indefinitely.

NYguy

September 25th, 2006, 01:50 PM

That's certainly plausible, but it's not exactly right.

I agree the revised plan should be released, and I'm as anxious as anyone to see it.

But I don't think it's a reason to delay forging forward with Moynihan as presently designed --though "professional" wisdom doubtless insists that it is. You're listening to the tut-tuts of constrained minds.

The problem is, we're talking about building a completely new building in and on top of the Farley building. You're saying it should get approval without even seeing what even a prelimary design would look like. Not to mention the huge complex accross the street. But the details for that side of 7th Ave can wait. The developers are asking for $1 Billion dollars. Sure the Farley project can proceed now, but why rush into something that the developers have no intention of building?

Again, release Plan B already! It doesn't matter if Cablevision has agreed to it or not, at this point it's just a proposal. It won't hurt to see it. Or at least get the specifics of the plan. I expect Pataki will lean on the developers, as his time is running out.

Citytect

September 25th, 2006, 06:02 PM

Just leave out the intermodal hall. Make the small project even smaller. But build something, for gosh' sake.

That would require a revised plan and no one is presenting such a plan. The intermodal hall-less plan doesn't exist, so it's surely not going to get built.

Vengineer

September 26th, 2006, 12:50 AM

That would require a revised plan and no one is presenting such a plan. The intermodal hall-less plan doesn't exist, so it's surely not going to get built.

Sure it does. The intermodal hall-less plan has been in existence for 4 months now. Under-developed... but in existence.

lofter1

September 26th, 2006, 12:59 AM

Are you ^^^ saying that there is a proposal on the table that doesn't include building the inter-modal hall?

Or that they should just drop the inter-modal portion of the existing plan?

Vengineer

September 26th, 2006, 01:17 AM

There has been, in existence, an 'alternate' set of plans which limits the design space to account for only the east building... that is minus the annex and minus the intermodal hall. It's been neglected for the longest time however. The plan for a complete Moynihan station, that is the east building plus intermodal plus annex (retail) has been in full swing for 2 months. As a matter of fact, a design addendum is due this wednesday for the west building (retail and usps).

Unfortunately this reveals very little about the whole MSG soap opera because sadly, engineers are the manwhores of their architect masters. We only feed on what is given to us and must scrap years of work in a single command. In turn, architects are loyal bitches of developers and clients. If they want the damn MSG then they'll get an MSG. If they don't then they won't. I just wish they would agree on something so that I know the overtime hours I put in would actually mean something in the end. Sorry I'm straying off into my personal frustrations with this whole ordeal.

Something I did sense however is that the architects themselves seemed to be in a motivational limbo. This whole insecurity of uncertainty seems to be taking a toll on them as well. Architects work on vision. If their vision includes... maybe this or maybe that or maybe not this at all but all that instead... it seems to confuse them and sap them of their drive. So yeah, the design process at least is progressing towards a sans MSG Moynihan but it really means nothing because a goal hasn't been established by man with the checkbook. Unfortunately, the man with the checkbook in this case is the government. As for the alternate plan, it is very under-developed at least from my perspective... it can barely be considered a schematic at this point. Can it serve as a proposal? Perhaps. Why aren't they proposing it? Only God knows.

ablarc

September 26th, 2006, 10:14 AM

Vengineer

September 28th, 2006, 05:03 PM

Jesus, from what I'm looking at right now, we better pray the MSG plan gets approved and gets transferred over onto Moynihan. Many people seem to have great ambitions and tall plans for the MSG site. Forget Ground Zero and the Con Ed Site, this plot of land on Midtown can have amazing results.

aural iNK

September 28th, 2006, 05:13 PM

Any chance for another "Wired NY Exclusive", Vengineer?

londonlawyer

September 28th, 2006, 05:15 PM

Jesus, from what I'm looking at right now, we better pray the MSG plan gets approved and gets transferred over onto Moynihan....

Vengineer,

As you predicted ground zero's designs better than Nostradamus could have, I am curious about your insight into this project. When you say: "from what I'm looking at right now...," are you looking at a model or actual plans? By the way, didn't you confirm that the crappy Penn Plaza on 7th won't come down? That's a shame.

Vengineer

September 28th, 2006, 06:32 PM

Vengineer,

As you predicted ground zero's designs better than Nostradamus could have, I am curious about your insight into this project. When you say: "from what I'm looking at right now...," are you looking at a model or actual plans? By the way, didn't you confirm that the crappy Penn Plaza on 7th won't come down? That's a shame.

I might be wrong but I don't recall saying anything about Penn Plaza. Anyways, its way too early to "predict" anything. If the MSG scheme gets passed, then we can talk but nothing too serious for now. What I saw was merely a stacking diagram. What excited me however was how lavish it was. I feel like Vornado and Related, one of... or probably the biggest developer in NYC right now, is looking to take advantage of the booming Midtown market by adding over 5 million square feet onto that plot of land. Lets just put it this way, if it gets passed and MSG is outta there, we can be looking at some serious action in Midtown in terms of development. Serious.

BPC

September 28th, 2006, 07:15 PM

It would be the perfect place for the extra space. Real estate around transit hubs should be used for commercial high rises, not for basketball arenas.

ablarc

September 28th, 2006, 07:19 PM

Real estate around transit hubs should be used for commercial high rises, not for basketball arenas.
Best of all: a combination of the two. Keep those trains functioning productively day and night.

ablarc

September 28th, 2006, 07:20 PM

Real estate around transit hubs should be used for commercial high rises, not for basketball arenas.
Best of all: a combination of the two. Keep those trains functioning productively day and night.

Atlantic Yards needs more office space.

krulltime

October 2nd, 2006, 12:46 AM

Moynihan Station's final push
Pataki aides argue that delays threaten funds, bigger project

By Anne Michaud
Published on October 02, 2006

Gov. George Pataki's economic development chiefs are preparing a final push to win approval for the Moynihan Station rail terminal, a once-popular project that top state Democrats are challenging in the final days of the Republican governor's term.

Officials of the Empire State Development Corp., the governor's economic development agency, continue to field financial questions from state Comptroller Alan Hevesi. They hope that Mr. Hevesi will soon acknowledge that he's satisfied. A spokesman says that the comptroller is reviewing ESDC's latest response.

At the same time, ESDC is meeting with the project's developer, a joint venture of The Related Companies and Vornado Realty Trust. The parties are hammering out the final details of an agreement that will allow the developer to publicly support quick action on the project.

West Side destination

The plan for Moynihan Station--a $900 million effort to create a destination terminal out of the Farley Post Office and ease crowding at neighboring Pennsylvania Station--could unravel if it's not approved by the end of this year, argues ESDC Chairman Charles Gargano. "If we don't move this project right now, this project could die," he says.

Mr. Gargano adds that if the project falls through, a far more ambitious plan would also be endangered.

That scheme involves relocating Madison Square Garden and developing a commercial and transportation hub on West 34th Street that would outstrip the scale of the World Trade Center site. Skyscrapers would be built in place of the current Garden, and Penn Station, now located underneath the Garden, would be made roomier and opened up with skylights. Commuter rail and subway lines would meet in one concourse.

Other parties are so enamored of the broader possibility that it's tripping up the progress of Moynihan Station: They're pushing to delay the rail terminal and advance the more ambitious project. Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver--who has twice declined to vote to approve the station--wants more details about the bigger project, which he refers to as "Plan B."

Mr. Gargano says that it's not a question of Plan A versus Plan B: It's really Phase I and Phase II. The bigger plan cannot proceed without Moynihan Station, since the rail terminal must be operating before parts of Penn Station can be shuttered.

"There is no Plan B," Mr. Gargano says. "Out of courtesy, the developers showed a model of what they're envisioning down the road. Moynihan Station is the only plan that's gone through the process and has the funding."

It's unclear why Messrs. Hevesi and Silver are holding up the rail station. GOP gubernatorial candidate John Faso has accused Mr. Silver of trying to rob Mr. Pataki of the credit for bringing Moynihan Station this far. Some speculate that the Democrats are stalling so that the Pataki administration can't saddle the new governor--presumably Democrat Eliot Spitzer--with an agreement that gives away the store to Related and Vornado.

Another motive could be that Mr. Silver is playing for time to help a friend: Cablevision Corp., owner of Madison Square Garden. By delaying the project, Mr. Silver strengthens Cablevision's leverage with the Bloomberg administration, which favors moving the Garden but not allowing it to retain a property tax exemption.

Seeking common ground

Some parties are trying to find common ground so that both projects can move forward.

Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, wants Moynihan Station to proceed, but only if the developers and the governor commit to moving the larger proposal through a public review process. The bigger idea has enormous potential, she says.

"The door's got to be open so the developers can make that commitment [to the larger plan]," Ms. Wylde says. "Otherwise, it's just talk."

The Moynihan Station plan has been dragging on so long that its namesake and main champion, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has died in the interim. His daughter, Maura Moynihan, follows project developments closely and brought in an architect, David Childs, to handle the design. Some $100 million has been spent so far for engineering, security upgrades and more.

Advocates say that further delay could cost New York the $130 million in federal transportation funds now promised.

The New York and New Jersey congressional delegations--including Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton--had to fight efforts in 2003 and 2004 to have the project declared inactive and seize the funding for other purposes. The legislators also argue that some $1 billion needed for the broader plan would be more likely to materialize if New York uses the money committed now.

Mr. Gargano says that if Moynihan Station is not approved this year, he will recommend that the U.S. Postal Service sell the Farley building to the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey rather than to ESDC. The Port Authority has invested $50 million, which it would lose if the project were to fall through. Far better to use the money as a down payment for the $230 million facility and refurbish it to meet increasing transportation needs. Mr. Gargano says that Port Authority ownership, too, would endanger the more ambitious plan.

"There are other valuable uses for that building," Mr. Gargano says. "Better rail service is important for the economic viability of downtown Manhattan. New rail stations don't get built every day."

©2006 Crain Communications Inc.

ablarc

October 2nd, 2006, 07:48 AM

Let's get this show on the road before the allocated funds evaporate.

Vengineer

October 2nd, 2006, 09:40 AM

That scheme involves relocating Madison Square Garden and developing a commercial and transportation hub on West 34th Street that would outstrip the scale of the World Trade Center site. Skyscrapers would be built in place of the current Garden, and Penn Station, now located underneath the Garden, would be made roomier and opened up with skylights. Commuter rail and subway lines would meet in one concourse.

Outstrip the scale of the WTC site... that sounds real promising. They're looking to build more if not the same amount of office/retail space using a site less than half the size of ground zero. Only way to accomplish that must be to stack'em up high. Real high.

Vengineer

October 2nd, 2006, 10:09 AM

Commuter rail and subway lines would meet in one concourse.

That is an amazing proposition. LIRR, NJ Transit, Amtrak, PATH and Subway lines A,C,E,1,2,3 all on one concourse that stretches out to two facilities.

posterboy

October 2nd, 2006, 10:24 AM

so, you guys all know a thing or two about engineering, architecting and planning in general - would anyone like to venture a guess when we will see an actual plan/ renderings for that glorious phase II, based on what you know about how long SOM usually takes to come up with plans of that scale (presuming that it hinges on SOM's readiness to unveil a plan)?

nick-taylor

October 2nd, 2006, 10:45 AM

What I've never understood is why don't NJT and LIRR get together and operate a few Crossrail or RER type services - naturally not every single branch line would be part of this network, but I'd bet you could get a good few operating so that capacity is drastically improved.

What makes the situation worse for New York is that there are really only two central termini - Penn & GCT, other cities have several - Paris has around 8 I think, London 13. So a capacity problem at one affects a large proportion of the network.

NYguy

October 2nd, 2006, 12:42 PM

That is an amazing proposition. LIRR, NJ Transit, Amtrak, PATH and Subway lines A,C,E,1,2,3 all on one concourse that stretches out to two facilities.

That's pretty much the way I see it now.

NYguy

October 2nd, 2006, 12:47 PM

Mr. Gargano says that it's not a question of Plan A versus Plan B: It's really Phase I and Phase II. The bigger plan cannot proceed without Moynihan Station, since the rail terminal must be operating before parts of Penn Station can be shuttered.

"There is no Plan B," Mr. Gargano says. "Out of courtesy, the developers showed a model of what they're envisioning down the road. Moynihan Station is the only plan that's gone through the process and has the funding."

Mr. Gargano says that if Moynihan Station is not approved this year, he will recommend that the U.S. Postal Service sell the Farley building to the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey rather than to ESDC. The Port Authority has invested $50 million, which it would lose if the project were to fall through. Far better to use the money as a down payment for the $230 million facility and refurbish it to meet increasing transportation needs. Mr. Gargano says that Port Authority ownership, too, would endanger the more ambitious plan.

I still don't see a problem with getting that info (phase I, phase II) out to the people who must approve it. Gargano is being clever with is wording, but it really is one large development. It seems the state is willing to risk turning the building over to the Port Authority. That would just bring more headaches.

I'm sure the second phase could be approved later, but why not present the overall plan now? It would just be another option for later.

pianoman11686

October 2nd, 2006, 03:17 PM

Dynamicdezzy

October 2nd, 2006, 05:03 PM

I used to think (a while back) that we would see the far west side and the atlantic yards developed before the WTC (with the way it was going). Funny....

Eugenious

October 2nd, 2006, 05:18 PM

At this point, I just don't think they have anything concrete to show. But it is reassuring that Gargano considers this to just be an extension of the current plan, and not an alternative.

Silver's the one who started referring to it as Plan B. Did he unintentionally cause some confusion, or was it deliberate?

Nothings unintentional when the stakes are this big. Silver and Hevesi and Cablevision all know that they want a bigger piece of the action and they don't want to be a part of anything that doesnt guarantee cablevision tax breaks or huge payoffs for the developers.

The loosers unfortunatelly are the public which have to use an outdated and overcrowded facilty. The Moynihan station would have relieved some of the overcrowding even if not all of it.

This project has been hijacked by special interests, and thus new york looses another project to improve quality of life in the city.

TonyO

October 11th, 2006, 08:04 AM

Fate of Moynihan Rail Station Will Be Handed Over to Silver

BY DAVID LOMBINO - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 11, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/41333

Governor Pataki on Friday will put the fate of the troubled Moynihan Station transit project in the hands of the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, for the third and potentially final time.

After about eight years of planning, the governor and his development team have pushed to start construction before they leave office at the end of December. The $900 million project would remake the Farley Post Office building on Eighth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets into a transit hub that would accommodate some passengers from the crowded and dingy Penn Station.

Leveraging his critical vote on the Public Authorities Control Board, Mr. Silver blocked final approval in August and September, citing several outstanding financial questions and information gaps in Mr. Pataki's plan, and referring to an analysis produced by state comptroller Alan Hevesi, a fellow Democrat.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Silver, Eileen Larrabee, said yesterday that to date, those concerns have not been resolved. She said Mr. Silver favored a vote at a regularly scheduled PACB meeting on Wednesday, October 18, not the Friday, October 13, date that the Pataki administration is seeking.

The state's leading development official, Charles Gargano, said specific questions raised by Messrs. Silver and Hevesi had been answered in detail.

"We've tried everything," Mr. Gargano said. "They will probably say they have more questions."

"We have the money in place to build it. Any further delays will increase the cost and that could threaten the project," he said. "I don't think they will take the responsibility for killing the project."

This spring, the developers for the Moynihan Station project, the Related Companies and Vornado Realty Trust, introduced a more ambitious plan to move Madison Square Garden into the west side of the Farley building from its current location over Penn Station. The move would allow the existing Penn Station to be expanded and opened up to daylight, a public benefit applauded by many elected officials, urban planners, and real estate experts.

Pataki administration officials contend that the Moynihan project is much further along in terms of financing and environmental review, and that renovating the Farley building is a prerequisite for moving ahead with the Garden relocation.

The assemblyman who represents the local district, Richard Gottfried, a Democrat, said yesterday that he prefers to wait on approving the state's plan until "a major decision" is made about moving Madison Square Garden and rebuilding Penn Station. He said that the latest plan for Moynihan Station falls short of what was promised and amounts to little more than a "shopping mall" with "new ticket booths for New Jersey Transit."

"It is a far cry from the grand vision that it started out as, " Mr. Gottfried said. "This is a nice idea, but it is not the glowing new gateway to New York City."

State officials say that the Assembly leadership has been influenced by Madison Square Garden's lobbyist, Patricia Lynch, who is Mr. Silver's former chief of staff. They say that the owners of Madison Square Garden, the Dolan family, are holding the Moynihan Station project hostage in order to expedite the approval of their larger plan.

"When the Pataki administration doesn't have anything substantive to say, they accuse you of being political," Mr. Gottfried said.

October 11, 2006 Edition > Section: New York > Printer-Friendly Version

kliq6

October 11th, 2006, 01:50 PM

Vote on Friday by board run by Silver expect him to block project or delay vote at least

Eugenious

October 11th, 2006, 02:09 PM

"It is a far cry from the grand vision that it started out as, " Mr. Gottfried said. "This is a nice idea, but it is not the glowing new gateway to New York City."

State officials say that the Assembly leadership has been influenced by Madison Square Garden's lobbyist, Patricia Lynch, who is Mr. Silver's former chief of staff. They say that the owners of Madison Square Garden, the Dolan family, are holding the Moynihan Station project hostage in order to expedite the approval of their larger plan.

October 11, 2006 Edition > Section: New York > Printer-Friendly Version

Well, isn't that a sweetheart deal! nothing like good old fashioned family business looking out for eachother.

These people should be ashamed of themselves!

If Moynihan station is not a glowing grand gateway to New York, then I don't know what you call the current Penn Station! It's a hundred times better then the current situation and Moynihan would have been a good start to re-building the penn station.

what a joke.

Now it's going to take another 10-15 years for whatever they are planning.

antinimby

October 11th, 2006, 02:11 PM

We've put up with it this long, what's another 15 years?

Anyway, the delay could be a good thing.
Maybe now plan B for moving MSG can be done at the same time.

Eugenious

October 11th, 2006, 02:17 PM

We've put up with it this long, what's another 15 years?

Anyway, the delay could be a good thing.
Maybe now plan B for moving MSG can be done at the same time.

You're kidding right! Silver is a whore controlled by the Dolans which are only concerned with profits and monopoly rights, why is this a good thing?

antinimby

October 11th, 2006, 02:20 PM

Because even the money grubbers sometimes do the right thing.

In this case, moving the god awful MSG away from Penn Station.
I don't care who profits from this, ultimately this move is better for the city.
That's why.

kliq6

October 11th, 2006, 02:49 PM

Dolans wont move MSG unlesss property tax breaks from the city stay( something Silver does not control) and after they went after the adminstration and killed Jets, i dont think they will help them keep there breaks if they move, so dont bet on MSG moving unless Cablevision sells

Eugenious

October 12th, 2006, 09:04 AM

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=5&aid=63381

Sheldon Silver May Axe Moynihan Station Project
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/images/homepage/video_icon_02.gif October 11, 2006

It seemed that no one was opposed to the planned Moynihan Station, a $900-million project that would serve as an expanded Penn Station, easing overcrowding creating a majestic new transit hall in the old Farley Post Office building across the street. But now, some of the project's backers said that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is on the verge of killing it altogether.

"If it is voted down, the project is dead,” said Chair of the Empire State Development Corporation, Charles Gargano. “A whole new process would have to begin, right from the beginning."

Silver has already twice delayed a vote by the Public Authorities Control Board, this is the same state panel that killed a nearby Jets stadium last year. Governor George Pataki wants to hold a vote Friday, at a specially called session of the board. But Silver said he still has unanswered questions.

Silver has said he would prefer to wait and see what comes of a more ambitious proposal, one that would move Madison Square Garden one block to the west, to Ninth Avenue, allowing parts of Penn Station to be opened up to sunlight and allowing for a complex of office buildings to be built here.

The expanded plan is a concept favored by Silver's fellow Democrat, the frontrunner for governor, Eliot Spitzer.

"It's a spectacular project,” said Spitzer. “And it is something that longer-term, inevitably, must happen for that portion of midtown."

But Gargano said the expanded plan is really little more than a model and a conceptual drawing. Moynihan, by contrast, is a project years in the planning. Environmental reviews are complete, the funding is in place, and Moynihan Station would have to be built first anyway.

"This project, we can start construction now, creating 10,000 construction jobs immediately, have the project built in four to five years,” said Gargano. “If we start all over again, this project may not be built for a minimum of ten years or more."

Wasting any more time, said Gargano, means the funding now in place could be lost. But others disagree, arguing the federal funding is not subject to re-appropriation.

In any case, what is clear is that until Sheldon Silver's concerns are addressed, Moynihan Station is not getting off the ground.

-Bobby Cuza

Vengineer

October 12th, 2006, 09:13 AM

... son of a bitch

kliq6

October 12th, 2006, 09:34 AM

ablarc

October 12th, 2006, 09:40 AM

An enemy of the city.

kliq6

October 12th, 2006, 09:44 AM

problem is he is the "cities" rep in Albany and he does more to hurt us then help. What the people in his district are thinking when they elect him i have no idea

Vengineer

October 12th, 2006, 10:14 AM

he will kill it for two simple reasons, one this project will make it easier to develop the Hudson Yards area, something he does not want and two he is livid that the City and the MTA did a deal for those Yards that make funding for 7 train availible. He wanted to block the 7 Train to truly kill any chances of the area being built out but cant now since that project has been taken away from his grasp

I am not too familiar with politics. He seems to oppose all that is good for the city and its people. Why is he like this? Is he pure evil or just plain dumb? Are there personal or political motives behind his actions? I want to choke him.

Wrightfan

October 12th, 2006, 10:16 AM

It's a ridiculous design by a talentless archictect- and a porkbarrel waste IMO. The money is FAR better spent on developing the yards and 7 extension.
Better also that ultimately MSG be torn down and a superior Penn Station design built on the original site between all the subways.

pianoman11686

October 12th, 2006, 10:31 AM

I am not too familiar with politics. He seems to oppose all that is good for the city and its people. Why is he like this? Is he pure evil or just plain dumb? Are there personal or political motives behind his actions? I want to choke him.

He's a representative for Downtown, so unless something's on the table that he thinks will directly benefit Lower Manhattan, he won't vote for it. I'm pretty sure he'd be in favor of some kind of catastrophic event in Midtown, if only it resulted in more people and businesses flocking to Downtown.

I'll never understand how people can have the gall to accuse Bloomberg of not being active enough in Lower Manhattan, while this guy basically has carte blanche to prevent any significant investment of state money in Midtown - and does. It's hypocrisy at its worst.

ZippyTheChimp

October 12th, 2006, 11:41 AM

An enemy of the city.He also stopped the football stadium over the railyards.

Or do you think that was a good urban idea?

Eugenious

October 12th, 2006, 12:26 PM

He also stopped the football stadium over the railyards.

Or do you think that was a good urban idea?

I think it was a great idea, it would have spurred development for the whole area, would have diminished the power and influence of cablevision and would have increased the urgency to rebuilt transportation infrastructure in the whole of midtown. It would have also have transformed the otherwise dead area.

lofter1

October 12th, 2006, 12:47 PM

I'll be very surprised if the Moynihan Station does NOT move forward in some way, shape or form ...

Right now you're all buying the PR put out by Silver's foes ...

Silver is playing hardball to get certain specifics set down.

PS: The stadium scheme was ridiculous for any number of reasons. Great for NYC that it died.

ZippyTheChimp

October 12th, 2006, 12:50 PM

I think it was a great ideaOf course, you're weighing that analysis against the potential of what it could be, right?

ZippyTheChimp

October 12th, 2006, 12:54 PM

Silver is playing hardball to get certain specifics set down.I said this pages ago. There is more to this than meets the eye.

It is being overlooked that Gargano and the EDC are not models of fiscal responsibility. It was under their watch that the MTA was going to give away the railyards.

lofter1

October 12th, 2006, 01:01 PM

Eugenious

October 12th, 2006, 01:26 PM

The current Silver-stomping is similar to all the vilification that was heaped upon Silverstein not long ago -- the opposition gets crazy & desperate and stoops to name calling & cut-throat tactics (mainly revealing their true nature).

So, as Zippy points out, you might want to investigate who are the real enemies of NYC -- and what do they personally have to gain?

So you're saying this guy is good for New York eh? let me remind you this is the same guy that shot down the sex offender law which would have required the sex offenders to register.

He's a typical albany politician who wields huge power and only acts out of his own self interest.

ZippyTheChimp

October 12th, 2006, 01:40 PM

^
What is "his own sefl-interest" in this case?

Is Gargano a "typical Albany politician?"

nick-taylor

October 12th, 2006, 02:33 PM

I shall be arriving in New York in a few weeks time for some recreation and cleaning....

antinimby

October 12th, 2006, 03:00 PM

Cleaning?

ZippyTheChimp

October 12th, 2006, 03:34 PM

Maybe it's dental cleaning.

Citytect

October 12th, 2006, 06:22 PM

If he votes it down, oh well. It's really not a great loss, in my opinion.

Maybe the rejection will get developers to step it up and be more aggressive at pushing for a larger development plan. I don't see a 'no' vote being the end of this. Why have Vornado-Related been so quiet?

londonlawyer

October 12th, 2006, 06:55 PM

...I don't see a 'no' vote being the end of this. Why have Vornado-Related been so quiet?

I agree. Vornado has a lot riding on this.

It's a shame though that Vornado doesn't plan to raze the horrible Penn Plaza building on 7th. It would have been nice if it were torn down, and the 7th Avenue facade of the old Penn Station were reconstructed. Obviously, that won't occur, but it would be nice.

ablarc

October 13th, 2006, 08:17 AM

I shall be arriving in New York in a few weeks time for some recreation and cleaning....
Both are better in London. :cool:

btw, what is "cleaning"? :)

kliq6

October 13th, 2006, 10:14 AM

Silver Says He'll Again Oppose Moynihan Station

By DAVID LOMBINO - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 13, 2006

Ahead of a showdown in Albany Friday over the fate of the Moynihan Station project, Speaker Sheldon Silver said he would vote against the proposed train station because it would benefit only riders from New Jersey.

Using his seat on the Public Authorities Control Board, Mr. Silver has twice blocked final approval of the $900 million plan to remake the Farley Post Office building on Eighth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets into a transit hub to accommodate some passengers from Penn Station across the street.Yesterday, he said in a statement he would not support the plan because it would benefit only "non-New Yorkers."

New Jersey Transit would be the anchor tenant in the proposed station. Amtrak backed out of an earlier agreement. State officials said the station would also provide access to both the Amtrak and Long Island Rail Road platforms and alleviate the overall congestion of Penn Station by as much as 30%.

Yesterday, Mr. Silver endorsed a plan that has been outlined by developers Vornado Realty Trust and the Related Companies to move Madison Square Garden into the back of the Farley Building and to renovate Penn Station.

"We need to move ahead with phase two in order to ensure that Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North, Amtrak and subway riders are all afforded an updated, safe and modern transportation facility," Mr. Silver said.

Governor Pataki, at a press conference yesterday intended to drum up support for his plan, said delays are costing between $5 million and $10 million a month. He said the state would lose the opportunity to buy the post office building from the federal government if the project is not approved by the end of the year.

The state's leading development official, Charles Gargano, called the delays "politics at its worst."

He said a plan to relocate Madison Square Garden "is merely an idea which is years, years away."

ablarc

October 13th, 2006, 11:19 AM

^
What is "his own sefl-interest" in this case?

Yesterday, Mr. Silver endorsed a plan that has been outlined by developers Vornado Realty Trust and the Related Companies to move Madison Square Garden into the back of the Farley Building
Fill in the blanks.

Dynamicdezzy

October 13th, 2006, 11:24 AM

"he said in a statement he would not support the plan because it would benefit only "non-New Yorkers.""

I guess they should scrap the WTC hub while they're at it.....oh wait...that's in lower manhattan...

kliq6

October 13th, 2006, 11:39 AM

Excellant point

krulltime

October 13th, 2006, 03:46 PM

Silver Misses Moynihan Vote
FILE UNDER: Amtrak, Penn Station

Matthew Schuerman
Friday October 13, 2006

The representative for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on the Public Authorities Control Board never showed at today's emergency meeting. Without him (or her--we're searching for a name here, and Senate spokesman Mark Hansen told us, "We're not sure who he was planning on not sending to the meeting" ), there was no quorum and no vote could be taken.

copyright © 2006 the new york observer, L.P.

antinimby

October 13th, 2006, 03:47 PM

It figures.

NYguy

October 13th, 2006, 06:17 PM

Silver Misses Moynihan Vote

Thus giving Pataki and his gang more time to get their act together on this.

NYguy

October 13th, 2006, 06:21 PM

I don't see a 'no' vote being the end of this. Why have Vornado-Related been so quiet?

Here are quotes from two different articles:

NY Times

Mr. Silver said he favored a nascent, but far more comprehensive proposal to modernize and expand Penn Station on both sides of Eighth Avenue, between 31st and 33rd Streets, by demolishing Madison Square Garden and building a new arena at the back of the post office building.

Charles A. Gargano, the state’s top economic development official, said that the Moynihan Project was the only one up for state approval. The larger proposal, which is referred to as Plan B or Phase II, must still wend its way through the approval process and requires another $1 billion for station renovations.

Further complicating the matter, the Garden has lobbied in Albany against approving the Moynihan project now in the hope of preserving its leverage in negotiations with both the developers and the city. At the same time, the developers, who must put down $150 million when the deal closes, have curried favor with Mr. Gargano and separately with Mr. Spitzer, while trying to stay out of the line of fire.

Mr. Silver said that Plan B provides far more transportation benefits for Metro North and Long Island Rail Road riders, as well as New Jersey Transit commuters, than does the Moynihan project. As for the estimated $1 billion cost of rehabilitating Penn Station, Mr. Silver said the developers should help pay for it.

Here's a little more:

NY Post

Silver repeated his past objections that the plan backed by Pataki doesn't include a revised proposal to build a new Madison Square Garden. As a result, he said, he'll likely boycott the PACB vote.

Charles Gargano, Pataki's economic-development director, warned that if the project wasn't approved at the PACB meeting, "we risk losing millions of dollars of approved funding."

But Silver responded that further delay would not endanger funding for the massive project because "we've checked with Washington, and there's no indication that the financing would be threatened."

Silver also had this to say:

"So, while the governor is putting on rallies, instead he should be putting together a presentation of the full plan," Silver added.

Regardless of today's vote, Silver said, "I'm confident of the full plan being implemented."

Citytect

October 14th, 2006, 02:59 AM

I know a lot of you guys hate Silver, but, frankly, I think he's right on this one. With the Jets stadium fiasco, I thought his reasoning behind ending the project was wrong, but I didn't complain about it because I think the stadium was a terrible idea. However, with Moynihan, I think his decision AND his reasoning are right. I have no complaints about postponing the project; the current proposal just isn't what it should be.

ablarc

October 14th, 2006, 06:49 AM

We'll end up with nothing. Maybe they'll turn part of the empty post office into a flea market while they wrangle for the next twenty years.

Eugenious

October 14th, 2006, 10:25 AM

We'll end up with nothing. Maybe they'll turn part of the empty post office into a flea market while they wrangle for the next twenty years.

What people dont understand is that Moynihan will be relegated to history now and we probably will not see anything done for this part of town for a LONG time. This is basically a missed opportunity to start the work, Farley post office should not be used to house the new Garden a huge stadium. The new garden should be placed on the other side of 9th avenue where it belongs and the whole of Farley converted to better uses.

But I have no doubt about this, Moynihan is dead, and it's dead because of Silver. Infact I think the whole concept of a new Penn Station is also dead. Whatever happens now will be based on moving the MSG and putting commercial towers at its place. Commercial interests always prevail in NY.

lofter1

October 14th, 2006, 11:12 AM

Eugenious

October 14th, 2006, 12:08 PM

It is not dead -- Silver's non-appearance at the PACB on Friday simply delayed the vote on "Plan A" -- there was no quorum as required so a vote could not be taken.

If Silver had appeared and voted NO then "Plan A" would have been rejected (aka dead).

This is smart move on Silver's part and forces those involved to reveal their plans for the entire MSG / Farley site -- plans that they clearly have worked on, as the ideas surrounding "Plan B" have been discussed (although not yet made available either to the officials responsible for oversight or to the public).

There is no plan B, whatever plan they have is obviously NOT anywhere close to being finished or they would have shown it to the public already. It take years to finalize designs especially ones involving whole blocks of prime real estate.

Silver didnt show up to the vote because he didnt want to look bad in the papers.

We'll see ...

ZippyTheChimp

October 14th, 2006, 05:58 PM

No one has asked for a full-blown plan (with an EIS), ready to be shown to the public. That is an exaggeration by Gargano. What was requested was more details on the larger plan, especially the financing.

Silver didnt show up to the vote because he didnt want to look bad in the papers.If the tactic is not understood, not showing up actually makes you look bad in the papers.

NYguy

October 14th, 2006, 07:05 PM

We'll end up with nothing. Maybe they'll turn part of the empty post office into a flea market while they wrangle for the next twenty years.

The project will happen. As Silver suggested, the funding isn't going anywhere. I also agree that he was wrong on the stadium, but as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Silver is right on this one, the proposal is just incomplete. If anything, the developers should have waited until this was approved to start showing presentations of the larger plan, or at least shown the presentation to Silver, Bruno, and Pataki.

Silver is also right about another issue:

"It has become increasingly difficult to understand the lack of an explanation as to why we are not moving ahead with the broader plan for Moynihan Station.

Under the proposal for phase one presented to the Assembly for approval, only commuters from out of state would benefit from a new facility. We need to move ahead with phase two in order to ensure that Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North, Amtrak and subway riders are all afforded an updated, safe and modern transportation facility. As the proposal stands now, with all the transportation benefits going to non-New Yorkers, I cannot support it."

We already have the (beautifully) planned PATH terminal Downtown that essentially will be a NJ commuter terminal. As NJ Transit will be the only tenant of the Farlery conversion, the plan as it is presented now will be the same thing. I'm for the larger plan, if we're going to make the effort to improve at all.

NYguy

October 17th, 2006, 07:58 AM

NY Sun

Pataki, Silver Spar Over Moynihan Station's Future

October 17, 2006

Governor Pataki and Speaker Sheldon Silver sparred yesterday over the future of Moynihan Station at a press event to celebrate a ground breaking for the expansion of the Javits Convention Center.

Final approval of the $900 million Moynihan Station project to convert the Farley Post Office building into a transit hub was delayed again last week by Mr. Silver.Yesterday, Mr. Silver said that he would not approve Moynihan Station until it contained a grander plan to build a new Madison Square Garden in the back of the post office and renovate the existing Penn Station. Mr. Pataki compared Penn Station to a "subterranean rat passage" and urged Mr. Silver to approve the plan for Moynihan Station that will come before him at a Wednesday meeting of the Public Authorities Control Board.

Messrs.Pataki and Silver, along with Mayor Bloomberg and City Council speaker Christine Quinn were on hand yesterday to announce the start of construction on the $1.68 billion plan to increase and expand the Javits Center, which is expected to be completed by 2010.

— Staff Reporter of the Sun

NYguy

October 17th, 2006, 08:14 AM

NY Post

DOLANS BEHIND BID TO DERAIL STATION: STATE

By TOM TOPOUSIS
October 17, 2006

Gov. Pataki's economic-development czar yesterday blasted Madison Square Garden's owners for blocking approval of the $900 million Moynihan train station, charging that they want the Farley Post Office site for a new sports complex that would be built for free.

"I think there are some aggressive postures or action being taken by Madison Square Garden where they're looking for a free arena within the Farley building," said Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corp., referring to Jim and Charles Dolan, who own Cablevision and the Garden.

Gargano, who is spearheading the station project, said the Dolans are behind state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's refusal to approve the conversion of the post office into a new train terminal linked to Penn Station.

"There's no question," Gargano said of their role in blocking the project.

The Moynihan plan is due to go before the state's Public Authority Control Board tomorrow. Silver, Pataki and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno each control a vote on the three-member board, which must reach unanimous decisions for projects to go forward.

Silver, who last year lined up with the Dolans to block a proposed West Side football stadium, has yet to signal that he's ready to back the project.

Yesterday, Silver continued to insist that he will support a Moynihan station plan only when all its pieces are presented together.

But Gargano said there is no reason to delay approval of the train station plan to wait for a second phase that could be considered later.

"The excuses are silly," he said.

Silver, Pataki, Gargano and Mayor Bloomberg were together at the groundbreaking for the Javits Convention Center expansion yesterday, where the governor and speaker traded mild jabs over the Farley project.

Pataki, pointing out the limited space at the current convention center, said, "This, like the current excuse for a Penn Station, is not worthy of this city."

Silver shot back: "When the plan for the Moynihan station is the project before us, we will approve a first-class Moynihan station."

The current plan to convert Farley into a train station does not include the arena proposal, which has been put forward by Cablevision and a tandem of developers that won the right to redevelop Farley as a train station and mega-commercial complex.

Gargano said the arena component, which also includes a major overhaul of the current Penn Station and construction of office towers where the Garden now stands, could be considered later as a second phase of the project.

Gargano said he believes Cablevision's deal would land them a new $750 million arena paid for by developers anxious for the air rights to build 7 million square feet of office towers over Penn Station, where the arena is now located.

Barry Watkins, a spokesman for the Garden, declined to comment.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10172006/photos/news002.jpg

James Dolan

lofter1

October 17th, 2006, 09:01 AM

Eugenious

October 17th, 2006, 12:07 PM

Gargano ^^^ "thinks" and "believes" all sorts of dastardly sh*t, but doesn't offer any proof.

Gargano (http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/contributorsandpaybacks/pioneer_profile.cfm?pioneer_ID=842) himself is not necessarily deserving of the public trust -- but sure has proven himself to be an A+ crony ...

btw: Where / What is Plan B?

Fess up, Charlie ...

You know what I don't even care anymore, this project is a joke and this whole deal is a joke. Even if they build the Moynihan now (which they won't) it has lost all it's luster to me. The only reason I cared in the first place is because I've seen (I bought the great books) on the old Penn Station and really was inspired by it. I don't feel that Moynihan restores even a fraction of the old stations timeless architecture, it's just a box with Doric Columns.

All the parties here have disgraced themselves by attacking eachother and not working together to build a great project for New York.

pianoman11686

October 17th, 2006, 12:19 PM

btw: Where / What is Plan B?

Fess up, Charlie ...

I thought we had already clarified that. Plan B is not a plan at all; it's only Silver's description of the MSG/New Penn Station/Office Towers proposal.

Moynihan can and should proceed as planned, for one main reason:

No one is considering tearing the Post Office down and building either a new arena or office towers there. The landmark building will remain, and should be put to better use as a train station.

It has taken - how many? 10? - years to get just the Moynihan station fully planned, funded, and ready to start construction. It should proceed as planned. If Dolan wants to negotiate a deal with the developers to move, and complete a blockbuster air rights deal, then they'll do it on their own schedule. Otherwise, this will get killed - just as the West Side Stadium did - and it will be a long time before anyone is willing to approach the topic again.

I can understand your distrust of Gargano, but Silver's no better. It is almost painfully obvious that he does not have the city's interests in mind. He is primarily concerned with his district, and will help out anyone who can throw a wrench into Midtown West's expansion. In this case, it's Dolan.

To put it more bluntly: Gargano wants to get something done for the city, and Silver doesn't. I vote for Gargano.

Vengineer

October 17th, 2006, 03:15 PM

NY Post

But Gargano said there is no reason to delay approval of the train station plan to wait for a second phase that could be considered later.

"The excuses are silly," he said.

Actually, it's not that silly at all. This is what kills Gargano's credibility. There's no (fiscally responsible) way you can build Moynihan and decide to add Phase 2 in the future. Although the train station and the MSG annex are seperated, they share crucial connections such as the intermodal hall and numerous service lines. You can't build a multi-million dollar intermodal hall just to have it demolished 3-5 years down the road to make room for MSG. That would just be idiotic. If there is even a possibility of a Phase 2 augmentation, that'll require drastic revisions to the current Moynihan design which is ready for construction. It defeats the entire point.

Upon careful consideration, I would have to (reluctantly) admit that Silver's reasons are justified. Either Gargano is feeding false information to the public or he himself is uninformed of the technicalities of the situation.

BPC

October 17th, 2006, 04:50 PM

This is all about Pataki's desparation to get this project off the ground before he leaves office, so that he can claim credit for it. Gargano is just a Pataki mouthpiece. Unfortunately for the Guv, a far better plan has come along and it is going to take some time to work out the details. We;ve waited this long for this project, so let's wait a little longer and get it done right for future generations.

NYCDOC

October 17th, 2006, 05:41 PM

I agree with Eugenious. This entire project is really pathetic and I'm actuall glad to see it in the process of falling apart as the conversion of the post office that has been proposed is seriously lacking. True it is better than the existing Penn Station, but is that what NYers should settle with?

And even worse than the proposed new Penn Station is the suggestion of using the annex for a new MSG! I can't believe anyone would even consider this. It really is like repeating the same mistakes of the past. I walked on the ninth avenue side of the annex a few weeks ago and was shocked to find that it is really as nice as the eighth avenue exterior. Why would we want to combine a new stadium into this structure? I just can't understand it. Sure moving MSG would be great, but there certainly are better optionsn than just dropping it into this classic, beautiful building.

So I'm glad this garbage deal is falling through and hopefully braver politicians will step forward in the coming years to work on a plan that really has as it center ambition the creation of GREAT public places.

NYguy

October 17th, 2006, 05:57 PM

I thought we had already clarified that. Plan B is not a plan at all; it's only Silver's description of the MSG/New Penn Station/Office Towers proposal.

Apparently it wasn't clarified. Plan B is the plan that the developers have been showing to various people in the business community to gather support, which they have gotten. It involves relocating Madison Square Garden to the back (9th Ave) side of the Farley building, giving the developers an extra 5.8 msf of development rights on the Garden site.

But more importantly, it will also renovate and open up the actual Penn Station itself - not just the planned NJ Transit terminal that the current plan calls for. The coice is obvious, or it certainly should be for New Yorkers. And that's coming from someone who uses NJ Transit often.

"It has become increasingly difficult to understand the lack of an explanation as to why we are not moving ahead with the broader plan for Moynihan Station.

Under the proposal for phase one presented to the Assembly for approval, only commuters from out of state would benefit from a new facility. We need to move ahead with phase two in order to ensure that Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North, Amtrak and subway riders are all afforded an updated, safe and modern transportation facility. As the proposal stands now, with all the transportation benefits going to non-New Yorkers, I cannot support it."

Silver is the only one providing the sound argument on this one.

NYguy

October 17th, 2006, 05:58 PM

NY Post

DOLANS BEHIND BID TO DERAIL STATION: STATE

By TOM TOPOUSIS
October 17, 2006

Gov. Pataki's economic-development czar yesterday blasted Madison Square Garden's owners for blocking approval of the $900 million Moynihan train station, charging that they want the Farley Post Office site for a new sports complex that would be built for free.....

Yesterday, Silver continued to insist that he will support a Moynihan station plan only when all its pieces are presented together.

.....Gargano said the arena component, which also includes a major overhaul of the current Penn Station and construction of office towers where the Garden now stands, could be considered later as a second phase of the project.

Gargano said he believes Cablevision's deal would land them a new $750 million arena paid for by developers anxious for the air rights to build 7 million square feet of office towers over Penn Station, where the arena is now located.

We have the makings of another West Side showdown tomorrow. This time it's Pataki who's willing to throw the whole thing out the window...

(Crain's NY)

Pataki throws down the gauntlet on Moynihan

by Anne Michaud
October 17, 2006

In what appears to be a final show-down over the Moynihan Station rail terminal, Gov. George Pataki issued a letter saying that if the project is not approved on Wednesday, he will recommend tossing out the current plan at the risk of losing $130 million in promised federal funding.

The $900 million project to expand overcrowded Pennsylvania Station has become a battleground between the outgoing Republican governor and Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who holds the deciding vote on the Public Authorities Control Board.

The PACB is scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon.

"Please be advised that [tomorrow] ... is the deadline," Mr. Pataki wrote in a letter to Mr. Silver. The state "will have no realistic choice but to invalidate the existing award .... It would erode the confidence of our state and federal partners, it will put at risk existing funds, result in the expiration of our option to purchase the Farley Building and will betray the memory of the project namesake."

The governor was referring to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who championed converting the James A. Farley Post Office building into a rail terminal to relieve crowding at Penn Station. The station was designed to accommodate 200,000 passenger trips a day but now handles more than twice that.

In recent days, Mr. Silver has challenged the project, saying that it would only benefit New Jersey and Pennsylvania commuters. Mr. Pataki argues in his letter that the main beneficiaries would include subway and Long Island Rail Road travelers.

Instead of the Moynihan Station project, Mr. Silver says he wants the state to elaborate on another proposal, not yet drawn in detail, which would relocate Madison Square Garden, open Penn Station's ceiling to daylight and allow commercial and residential towers at the current MSG site. This more ambitious plan would create a central concourse for rail and subway commuters.

In his weekly radio address last Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg also urged passing the current Moynihan Station plan to pave the way for the larger development eventually.

"The truth of the matter is that Plan A we could get going right now, and it would be great for this city," Mr. Bloomberg said. "It should not have anything to do with who is governor. It should not have anything to do with who is in which party."

NYguy

October 17th, 2006, 06:07 PM

NY Post

http://www.nypost.com/img/cols/stevecuozzo.jpg

Tomorrow the state's Public Authorities Control Board - meaning Gov. Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno - will vote on the Moynihan station proposal for a glamorous new train depot and glass dome atop the Farley Post Office.

Silver is expected to veto the plan, thus sending it into limbo.

The designated developers, a partnership of Related Cos. and Vornado, have proposed a much larger scheme that would move Madison Square Garden onto the Farley site and create new office towers on the current Garden site.

Because some have suggested that the developers' zeal for the larger "Plan B" means their heart was never really in the original plan, and might even pull out if they can't do the bigger one, we wondered: are they still on board if the PACB were to approve the more simple scheme?

Howard Rubenstein, the spokesman for both Related and Vornado, said, "Their preference is certainly for the larger plan, but they would certainly go ahead with the smaller plan if it is approved."

tmg

October 17th, 2006, 07:41 PM

(Crain's NY)

Pataki throws down the gauntlet on Moynihan

by Anne Michaud
October 17, 2006

In what appears to be a final show-down over the Moynihan Station rail terminal, Gov. George Pataki issued a letter saying that if the project is not approved on Wednesday, he will recommend tossing out the current plan at the risk of losing $130 million in promised federal funding.

Well, if Pataki wants "slash-and-burn" to be his legacy, I guess that's his prerogative. Too lazy to actually lead the way toward development, he prefers to tear down the work of others as he storms out of office in a snit.

Could he please consider taking the JFK-Downtown Boondoggle down with him as well?

Eugenious

October 17th, 2006, 08:30 PM

I see two issues if Silver votes no.

1. State and NYC lose fed funding (not 100% on this one).

2. The Dolans and the developers will want the whole Farley site to themselves thereby destroying it (save the Doric columns).

I'm pretty sure about the second one. Can you say deja vu all over again.

If they do approve it coming to a compromise (no chance of this one).

1. NYC gets a mediocre train station for nj commuters that looks realy awesome from eigth avenue side.

2. Something actually gets done for the city.

Ofcourse the chances of the second happening are about as high as the Detroit Tigers winning the World Series.

In other words nill.

pianoman11686

October 17th, 2006, 11:15 PM

Apparently it wasn't clarified. Plan B is the plan that the developers have been showing to various people in the business community to gather support, which they have gotten. It involves relocating Madison Square Garden to the back (9th Ave) side of the Farley building, giving the developers an extra 5.8 msf of development rights on the Garden site.

But more importantly, it will also renovate and open up the actual Penn Station itself - not just the planned NJ Transit terminal that the current plan calls for. The coice is obvious, or it certainly should be for New Yorkers. And that's coming from someone who uses NJ Transit often.

Silver is the only one providing the sound argument on this one.

That's not what I was saying. Those of us that have been following this project know what Related/Vornado have proposed. In fact, I've alluded to it in some of my own posts. The issue at hand is whether that is an entirely different proposal (i.e., Plan B), or just an expansion/addition to the current plan for Moynihan. I believe it's the latter, and that Silver is responsible for creating the confusion by forcing the issue of choosing between two plans. Do you really think Gargano, Bloomberg, Pataki, and, most importantly, the developers, are wrong when they say that the current Moynihan can go forward as planned, and then the grander aspects of the MSG plan can be worked out later? I don't think so.

As for the NJ vs. NY argument: it's a crock, and you know it. The Path Terminal being built downtown, which costs more than twice as much as Moynihan, will serve only New Jersey commuters as well, and a much smaller number of them. Where's the outrage from Silver there? Oh wait, I know: there's no reason to get upset, because money's being poured in to his district. If Moynihan were not such an integral step in opening up Hudson Yards and the far West Side to commercial development, he would have much less reason to oppose it. That's not to say anything about his private connections to Cablevision.

jp1

October 17th, 2006, 11:23 PM

sorry, to quibble, but the Tigers will win it all. ROAR !!!

NYguy

October 18th, 2006, 07:55 AM

I believe that Silver is responsible for creating the confusion

Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it was Silver presenting the plans for this "alternate" MSG development. For some reason I thought it was the developers. Must have something to do with the fact that I'm right, and it was the developers.

Do you really think Gargano, Bloomberg, Pataki, and, most importantly, the developers, are wrong when they say that the current Moynihan can go forward as planned, and then the grander aspects of the MSG plan can be worked out later? I don't think so.

I really don't give a rats a$$ whether it can go forward as "planned", because the fact of the matter is that's not what the developers are planning to build - you know it, I know it, and most importantly Silver knows it. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

As for the NJ vs. NY argument: it's a crock, and you know it. The Path Terminal being built downtown, which costs more than twice as much as Moynihan, will serve only New Jersey commuters as well, and a much smaller number of them. Where's the outrage from Silver there?

I know Penn Station very well, and Silver is very accurate when he says turning the Farley building into a NJ Transit terminal only benefits residents of one state. Everyone knows and has complained for years about the current conditions at Penn Station. Now is not the time to pretend they don't exists. And your "two wrongs make a right" argument is ridiculous.

It would be foolish of Pataki to think Silver is bluffing when he says he will not approve the project at this time, especially considering he was the one who sabotoged the Westside stadium.

NYguy

October 18th, 2006, 07:57 AM

NY Sun

Pataki Tells Silver He's Down To Last Chance on Station
Sides May Have To Start From Scratch

By DAVID LOMBINO
October 18, 2006

Governor Pataki says he will trash his $900 million plan to build Moynihan Station if Speaker Sheldon Silver does not back the project today at scheduled vote in Albany.

In a letter yesterday to Mr. Silver, the governor said that if the speaker rejects the project before him today at a meeting of the Public Authorities Control Board, the state would "invalidate the existing award" and start a new station plan from scratch.

That would mean two of the city's most powerful developers, Vornado Realty Trust and the Related Companies, could be forced to compete again for the project in an open bidding process, and that the state and city would lose some of the government funds it has culled together to remake the Farley Post Office building on Eighth Avenue between 31st and 33rd streets into a Grand Central-like transit hub.

The governor does not favor that course of action, writing that a new plan "would erode the confidence of our state and federal partners, it will put at risk existing funds, result in the expiration of our option to purchase the Farley Building and will betray the memory of the project namesake."

The Moynihan Station project seemed to be sailing toward final approval after eight years of planning.Earlier this year, though, the selected developers, Related and Vornado, introduced a more ambitious plan, known as Plan B, to move Madison Square Garden into the west side of the Farley complex from its current location over Penn Station, renovate the existing Penn Station, and build three commercial towers on top of it. Sources familiar with that plan say it would require about $1 billion in public subsidies.

Mr. Silver says he prefers Plan B, and, leveraging his vote on the Public Authorities Control Board, he has delayed the final approval of the state plan for more than two months. Albany Democrats have criticized the governor for attempting to rush through a mediocre Moynihan Station project before he leaves office at the end of the year, a move they say is designed to bolster his legacy.

State officials have said that Mr. Silver has been swayed by Madison Square Garden officials, who are holding out for about $1 billion in public subsidies for the large plan to renovate Penn Station. Madison Square Garden employs lobbyist Patricia Lynch, a former chief of staff to Mr. Silver.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Silver, Eileen Larrabee, said yesterday that the speaker does not agree with many of the statements in Mr. Pataki's letter.

A spokesman for the developers, publicist Howard Rubenstein, said in a statement that the state could not void the current agreement with Vornado and Related.

"Our development agreement with the State unambiguously remains in effect regardless of the current outcome at PACB," Mr. Rubenstein said. "Our agreement and our RFP response before it pertain to both phases of the project, and the project must and will continue for the good of all New Yorkers."

On Friday, during his weekly radio address, Mayor Bloomberg said the state plan should be approved, and that the larger plan faces several significant challenges.

"The city is going to have a very tough time doing Plan B. I hope we get help from the state, but the truth of the matter is that Plan A we could get going right now and it would be great for this city," Mr. Bloomberg said.