View Poll Results: What proposal would you like to see built for Hudson Yards?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • Brookfield: SOM, Field Operations, Thomas Phifer, SHoP Architects and Diller Scofidio & Renfro

    64 65.98%
  • Durst / Vornado / Conde Nast: FXFowle and Rafael Pelli

    11 11.34%
  • Extell: Steven Holl

    8 8.25%
  • Related / Goldman Sachs / NewsCorp: Kohn Pedersen Fox, Arquitectonica and Robert AM Stern

    8 8.25%
  • Tishman Speyer / Morgan Stanley: Helmut Jahn

    6 6.19%
Page 52 of 128 FirstFirst ... 24248495051525354555662102 ... LastLast
Results 766 to 780 of 1906

Thread: Hudson Yards

  1. #766
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    ^brooklyn's yards are addressing your concern

  2. #767
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Wouldn't you know it?

    The least-liked project according to the poll above is the one that ultimately wins out.

    I can't believe they're going to devote half of buildable space on this site to condos.

    What a waste of a prime site for meeting the city's future commercial space expansion needs.


    New Developer Signs $1 Billion Deal to Transform West Side Railyards



    By CHARLES V. BAGLI
    Published: May 20, 2008

    Less than two weeks after the collapse of a billion-dollar deal to develop the railyards on Manhattan’s Far West Side, a new developer has agreed to salvage the plan and help keep alive the Bloomberg administration’s campaign to transform the area into a major business district.

    Stephen M. Ross, chief executive of Related Companies, signed an agreement Sunday night with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to develop 12 million square feet of office towers, apartment buildings and parks over the 26-acre railyards, which sit on both sides of 11th Avenue, between 30th and 33rd Streets.

    It was a welcome turnabout for the authority, which is counting on the railyards deal to provide hundreds of millions of dollars for new trains, stations and rail work. The speed of the new agreement, occurring 10 days after the collapse of the authority’s earlier deal with Tishman Speyer Properties, is also a measure of how much Mr. Ross, one of the city’s most prolific developers, wants control over the railyards.

    Mr. Ross, who had bid on the yards before and clearly suffered loser’s remorse, essentially agreed to the same tentative $1.054 billion deal that Tishman had signed in March. The deal requires the approval of the authority’s board, which will vote on the agreement at a special meeting on Thursday. The two sides will take the next four months to complete a contract to buy the development rights.

    “We knew we had this one opportunity,” said an elated Mr. Ross, who sealed the deal with an $11 million deposit. “We weren’t going to start negotiating.”

    “It’s not often that you get a second chance at a dream of a lifetime,” added Mr. Ross, who returned from China on Saturday for the last round of negotiations. “We will create New York’s next great neighborhood: the Hudson Yards.”

    Tishman Speyer, which had won a bidding war with four other developers, abandoned the deal amid growing concerns about the softening economy, tightening credit markets and the lack of an anchor tenant.

    Gary Dellaverson, the authority’s chief financial officer, vowed to strike a new deal with one of the other bidders within a week, a promise that many real estate executives scoffed at. Even Elliot G. Sander, executive director of the transportation authority, conceded on Monday that he had been unsure Mr. Dellaverson could make good on his vow.

    Mr. Ross had effectively abandoned the bidding for the railyards in March when his partner and anchor tenant, News Corporation, dropped out. But even without an anchor, he said he “jumped on” a second chance to grab the largest undeveloped site left in Manhattan, one that offers unobstructed views of the Hudson River and New Jersey.

    Mr. Ross’s financial partner is Goldman Sachs.

    “The selection of Related demonstrates that even in an uncertain credit market, the ability to unlock the value of this area can substantiate the price the M.T.A. is seeking,” said Ross Moskowitz, a real estate partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan L.L.P.

    Under the agreement, Related is required to pay $18.8 million at the closing on the eastern part of the railyards later this year. The company would close on the section west of 11th Avenue once it completed environmental and land use reviews — a process that could take 18 months. At that closing, Related would pay another $24.7 million.

    The transportation authority’s agreement with Tishman Speyer had fallen apart because the company wanted to delay payments on both the eastern and western portions until after the land review was done. Under the new deal, Related can suspend its annual rent payment for up to two years because of a recession or a lack of tenants, a clause intended to keep it in the deal, people on both sides of the talks said. But the deal also requires the company to pay penalties if it suspends rent payments.

    Though the profits from the project are potentially huge, it is not without great risk. The developer must spend about $2 billion erecting platforms, columns and foundations over a working railyard before it can build the first tower. The company will also be competing for commercial tenants against three big developers: Brookfield Properties, which plans to start construction at a site at Ninth Avenue and 33rd Street; Larry Silverstein, who is building three towers at the World Trade Center site; and the Port Authority, which is building the Freedom Tower there.

    Related Companies, like the four other teams competing for the project, spent millions of dollars hiring architects to design the towers that would sit atop the platform. Although News Corporation is no longer part of the deal, Mr. Ross and Related plan to use the same general layout and design, although few executives expect any of the 13 towers to look like the images distributed by Related Companies.

    The plans call for about 5.5 million square feet of commercial space, including a hotel, and about 5,500 apartments, as well as a park and a cultural center. The architects include Kohn Pedersen Fox, Arquitectonica and Robert A. M. Stern.

    Much as he did on March 26, when the authority selected Tishman Speyer, Gov. David A. Paterson said yesterday that the railyards deal represented “a renewed commitment to the future of the city and the region.”

    “This agreement highlights the resilience of public-private partnerships in the face of the national economic downturn that we are experiencing,” Mr. Paterson said in a statement. “An alliance between Related Companies, one of the country’s premier real estate firms, and Goldman Sachs, a global financial leader, will lay the foundation for a reimagined Far West Side.”

    Deputy Mayor Robert C. Lieber said the city had worked hard with the transportation authority to revive the agreement. “This is such a unique project with such a long-term upside,” Mr. Lieber said. “We had to strike quickly. The outcome speaks for itself.”

    But critics of the project were not so quick to embrace Related.

    “Until we get a handle on the level of subsidies involved, there’s no way to determine whether this is a good deal or a bad deal,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester who is holding a hearing on West Side development on Friday.

    Some residents of the area derided the design as a grassy yard surrounded by tall towers.

    “The giganticism of the proposed developments on the yards and the speed with which the M.T.A. and the city seem to be rushing to adopt a plan are a great concern,” said Andrew Berman, a member of the Hudson Yards Community Advisory Committee. “Development of this scale could completely transform our neighborhoods, overwhelm our infrastructure and offer very little in return in terms of affordable housing or other much-needed amenities.”

    But transportation and city officials were relieved yesterday, particularly since a number of projects on the West Side have stumbled in recent months. Earlier this year, the state abandoned long-awaited plans to expand the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center. More recently, plans to demolish Madison Square Garden in order to build a monumental train station and a half-dozen skyscrapers also collapsed.

    “The fact that developers are willing to put money in to this project shows that New York will certainly need more office space in the near future,” Senator Charles E. Schumer said. “It now makes it even more important that the 7 train extension is built, and built on time.”

    Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

  3. #768

    Default

    Ugh!

    I Hope this does not turn into another Con-Ed site scenario, which is sort of like Murphy's law to good development. Come to think, I forgot about the Con Ed site for a while until reading about the news at this site.

    I would suspect that at least the final design won't turn out as pathetic based on the different nimby population at the hudson yards.

  4. #769
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    I can't believe they're going to devote half of buildable space on this site to condos.

    What a waste of a prime site for meeting the city's future commercial space expansion needs.
    places a greater premium on financial district, downtown bk and LIC space i guess

  5. #770
    Jersey Patriot JCMAN320's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jersey City
    Posts
    4,444

    Default

    dont forget JC too.

  6. #771

    Default

    Where?

  7. #772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCMAN320 View Post
    dont forget JC too.
    No one has, hence the calls for more commercial space in Manhattan.

  8. #773
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    Antinimby said "What a waste of a prime site for meeting the city's future commercial space expansion needs"

    I couldn't agree with you more. That area of Manhattan is perfect for and ready for prime commercial construction. If we blow that there really is not many other places to go in Manhattan where space can be built on a scale that's needed.

    We are over 20 million sf short of what we will need by 2025 and that's including the new WTC.

    Ross is primarily a residential developer, he would have made TWC all residential to if he could but was forced into the deal he eventually agreed to.

    As a commercial broker, im very concerned about the economic future o this city if its leadership don't see the importance of creating prime "modern" office space when needed at a more significant space them more condo choices for millionaires and foreigners

  9. #774
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynLove View Post
    places a greater premium on financial district, downtown bk and LIC space i guess
    Companies are not intersted in going to those areas in the outer boro's and their are no more places to build commercial in Lower Manhattan. With the taxes and cost to work in BK and LIC basically the same as Midtown, these firms will just go to Jersey or to the south which is happening at a more increasing rate lately.

  10. #775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stroika View Post
    The renderings are really depressing, aren't they? Is there any innovation in that at all? Any push to make things better than they are, to push even the slightest boundary? Any vision for an exciting new frontier of Manhattan?

    It looks like somebody took one of the least inspiring stretches of Midtown, cloned it, and plunked it down on the Far West Side. The unordered hodgepodge of buildings is united only in the consistent mediocrity of the constituent pieces, as if Costas and O'Hara had their say, then the floor was handed to some schmucks from a big corporate firm hired by a Trump or Moinian.

    Pray for dramatic changes now that Rupie is (hopefully) out.
    My thoughts exactly.

    Do they have a plan for incorporating the High Line?

  11. #776
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    FYI, Costas designs all of Trumps buildings. Not sure what point your trying to make in the above post

  12. #777
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Yeah, seems like kliq and I both see a big mistake in the making: you can't devote what essentially is the last 26 developable acres of Manhattan land to more condos surrounded by grassy fields.

    Condos can go anywhere because they don't require large footprints. You can build condos on a sliver of land. Office towers, particularly ones now, require much, much larger footprints.

    Related plans for only 5.4 million sf of commercial space and the other 5.5 million sf for residential.

    So essentially in 26 acres, they're only going to provide the city with basically two One Bryant Parks (2.1 msf x 2 = 4.2 msf) and about one 11 TS (1.1 msf).

    Keep in mind that even the WTC is only 16 acres and yet it yields roughly 10 msf of office space.

    Talk about terrible vision and planning but oh well, whatcha gonna do?
    Last edited by antinimby; May 21st, 2008 at 08:40 PM.

  13. #778
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kliq6 View Post
    Companies are not intersted in going to those areas in the outer boro's and their are no more places to build commercial in Lower Manhattan. With the taxes and cost to work in BK and LIC basically the same as Midtown, these firms will just go to Jersey or to the south which is happening at a more increasing rate lately.
    this makes no sense - how is JC more convenient to midtown than LIC? how is JC more convenient to downtown than downtown bk? just look at the pipleine of commercial development in the works now in lic and downtown bk.

    also, please explain what you mean by taxes being the same.
    Last edited by BrooklynLove; May 21st, 2008 at 08:56 PM. Reason: added another thought

  14. #779
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    BL, read more carefully. You are relatively new but kliq have said this for many years and it is true.

    You would be taxed in LIC and DTBK the same as you would be if you were in Midtown since they are both in NYS, offering no advantage in those places.

    JC is more convenient to Lower Manhattan than both Brooklyn and Queens. Cheaper and faster on the PATH than subways from BK and QNS.

  15. #780
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    BL, read more carefully. You are relatively new but kliq have said this for many years and it is true.

    You would be taxed in LIC and DTBK the same as you would be if you were in Midtown since they are both in NYS, offering no advantage in those places.

    JC is more convenient to Lower Manhattan than both Brooklyn and Queens. Cheaper and faster on the PATH than subways from BK and QNS.
    i understood kliq's statement to mean than but was asking for confirmation - i'll take it from you though. his/her argument fails to consider the econ incentives given to employers in return for building and/or moving to the boros.

    re convenience, JC is not more convenient to midtown that LIC is. and as a practical matter, downtown bk is more convenient to the financial district than JC unless you're coming from jersey.

Similar Threads

  1. Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2014, 05:21 PM
  2. Pier 57 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: December 17th, 2013, 04:00 PM
  3. Pier 64 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2013, 08:07 PM
  4. Pier 45 - Hudson River Park
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: July 10th, 2012, 10:58 PM
  5. Replies: 573
    Last Post: May 11th, 2012, 05:40 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software