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 6 of 128 FirstFirst ... 23456789101656106 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 1906

Thread: Hudson Yards

  1. #76
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVNYC
    I like the 60 story high rises! So what if its a 6th avenue like canyon, thats part of what makes NY NY!
    I have to disagree. Sixth Ave from 42nd Street north is horrific. All those corporate "plazas", no retail, dead except when Radio City has a show - it is the perfect example of what and how NOT to build in NY.

    Although they were allieved of the setback zoning rules, the "new" Times Square buildings are much more apropos. Bottom level retail creating well lit sidewalks at night, inviting retail spaces, and an opportunity for life beyond 9AM - 5PM. No, no - no more Sixth Avenue types.

  2. #77

    Default

    Oh, I apologize Brooklyn. I thought that they were talking about the sheer height of the buildings. I didnt know about those plazas. I hate those plazas as well. Sorry for my ignorance.

  3. #78
    Architectural Padawan
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Turtle Bay
    Posts
    319

    Default

    I've been thinking about the 7 extension a lot today (very boring day in the office). The extension to just the javits center I think is being extremely shortsighted. Looking at the subway map, I'd propose that the 7 train should go down 11th ave to chelsea piers then cut across to 14th and greenwich (9th Ave). It should then follow greenwich all the way to the southern tip of manhattan meeting up with the 4 and 5 at Bowling Green, possibly joining the 4 and 5 trains to one or both of their termini (8 train?).

    Stops would be at: Javits Center, 34th Street - Penn Station, 23rd Street, Chelsea Piers, 14th Street (Transfer to L), Christopher Street, Houston Street, Canal Street, Chambers Street, World Trade Center, Rector Street (Transfer to 1 and 9), Bowling Green (Transfer to 4 and 5)

    This extension would provide better access to the far west side allowing for the eventual development to not be constricted in mass transit options. It would also help out with the new development in the west village, and give a fourth connection from Queens to the World Trade Center.

    Any thoughts on this?

  4. #79

    Default

    Hey, while we're dreaming, the 7 train could turn west on Christopher Street and head out the PATH tunnel, creating the long discussed link from New Jersey to Grand Central. The PATH is built to IRT standards, after all. Of course, it would require the cooperation of the Port Authority and the MTA; like that would ever happen!

  5. #80
    Architectural Padawan
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Turtle Bay
    Posts
    319

    Default

    well today is even slower than yesterday, so time to add more money to the 7 expansion project again.

    New 7 train stops:
    32nd St, 11th Ave - NYSCC, Jacob Javits Center: Transfer to 8 (see below for more on this)
    23rd St, 11th Ave - Chelsea Piers
    14th St, 9th Ave: Transfer to L
    Bleeker St, Greenwich St
    Christopher St, Greenwich St: Transfer to PATH
    Houston St, Greenwich St
    Canal St, Greenwich St
    Chambers St, West St - Battery Park City
    Liberty St, West St - World Trade Center, World Financial Center, Battery Park City
    Battery Pl, West St - Battery Park City

    New 8 train Stops:
    Split from 7 train tracks at 1st Ave on 42nd Street
    33rd St, 2nd Ave - Transfer to T
    32nd St, Park Ave S - Transfer to 4,5,6
    32nd St, 6th Ave - Transfer to N,R,Q,W,B,D,F,V
    32nd St, 7th Ave - Transfer to 1,2,3,9, Amtrak, NJ Transit, LIRR
    32nd St, 8th Ave - Transfer to A,C,E
    32nd St, 11th Ave - Transfer to 7

    After Battery Pl, the 7 and 8 will then join the 1 and 9 at South Ferry and continue on to join the 4 and 5 trains under the East River into Brooklyn. I don't know brooklyn at all, so I don't know what to do with the trains beyond this list.

    Any thoughts on this revised proposal.... Projected budget should be somewhere around $30 Billion. This would provide a crosstown subway access at 34th street, hopefully alleviating some road traffice on the heavily travelled 34th st. corridor. This will also increase the accessibility of brooklyn to the world trade center and give better access to midtown for residents of battery park city.

  6. #81
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    At $30 billion, I think they'll jump at it.

  7. #82

    Default

    Why not extend the Shuttle? the shuttle should be extended down 42st to 11th Ave with another stop at 9th Ave. They also should extend the shuttle to 1/2nd Ave on the East side and connect to the SAS. 5th Ave should have a shuttle stop too. The 7 is already overcrowded, why make it more crowded?

  8. #83
    Architectural Padawan
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Turtle Bay
    Posts
    319

    Default

    The shuttle won't be that easy to extend... keep in mind that it's just the middle part of the original IRT line that was basically the 6 train below 42nd street and the 1 and 9 above 42nd. If you follow tracks 3 and 4 of the shuttle beyond the times square station, you'll see that they merge w/the 1 and 9 tracks.

  9. #84

    Default

    No train line would be easily extended. The shuttle could dive under the 1/9 to run under 42st. The 7 will be overpacked for the west side. Do you think the 8th Ave lines will recieve more ridership due to the development?

  10. #85
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    I think it is time to come up from underground. Build a Disney-like monorail - rubber wheels or maglev - running above ground along 3rd and 1st Aves. Snake it back and forth from 59th to 42nd to 34th to 14th to Houston to Chambers and across the East River. Run it along the Belt Parkway for One-Stop ride to JFK.

    I don't get the desire to build more stuff underground, when building above would seem to be cheaper, quieter and more modern.

    Or, am I full of S##*%T?

  11. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider
    I think it is time to come up from underground. Build a Disney-like monorail - rubber wheels or maglev - running above ground along 3rd and 1st Aves. Snake it back and forth from 59th to 42nd to 34th to 14th to Houston to Chambers and across the East River. Run it along the Belt Parkway for One-Stop ride to JFK.

    I don't get the desire to build more stuff underground, when building above would seem to be cheaper, quieter and more modern.

    Or, am I full of S##*%T?
    Most people think that above ground rapid-transit would decrease property values. That's why they took down the Manhattan Els. And it would be best for the city if the transit for the West Side was intergrated into the rest of the city. I think the subway is and always will be the best way to expand transit in and the city.

  12. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Phila / Connecticut
    Posts
    521

    Default

    NYguy posted at SSP that zoning regulations on a few of the sites will allow towers more than 80 stories tall!


    I think they're taunting us, no companies in manhattan want 80 story buildings

  13. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PHLguy
    NYguy posted at SSP that zoning regulations on a few of the sites will allow towers more than 80 stories tall!


    I think they're taunting us, no companies in manhattan want 80 story buildings
    I wouldn't start poppin' the prozac just yet. I think once the saftey tech comes around, companies will look to go high. I think we will see 80-100 story buildings in Manhattan again. After all, any building could be bombed, so why not make the most of your space? I think it's status, not height, that makes buildings a target. After all, they didn't take down the Library tower (LA), Sears tower (CHI), or ESB. The WTC was a symbol for more than just it's height.

  14. #89

    Default

    January 11, 2005

    Mayor and Council Reach Deal on West Side Development

    By CHARLES V. BAGLI and MIKE McINTIRE

    Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's ambitious plan to transform part of the West Side into a new high-rise business district took a significant step forward yesterday after his administration reached an agreement with City Council leaders over housing, development rights and financing.

    The mayor's plan calls for replacing the brick warehouses, factories and parking lots that dominate the area with office towers, parks and a new boulevard, while extending the No. 7 subway line one mile, from Times Square to 11th Avenue and 34th Street. The Council agreed yesterday to reduce the total cost of the 30-year plan to $3 billion from $4 billion by appropriating money from the city's operating budget to make early interest payments annually over the first decade.

    In exchange, the Council won an agreement from the administration that a quarter of the 13,600 new apartments planned for the 59-block district would be affordable for moderate- and low-income New Yorkers. That compares with only 16 percent, or 2,176 units, in the mayor's original plan.

    At the same time, the Council's leaders took steps to sever any connection between the redevelopment of the West Side and a separate but far more disputed proposal to build a $1.4 billion football stadium with a retractable roof for the Jets over a rail yard on the west side of 11th Avenue between 30th and 34th Streets. Under the agreement, none of the money appropriated for the redevelopment can be used for the stadium.

    The local community board and other critics, however, were disappointed that the compromise did not cut the density of the commercial development planned for the district more sharply. Both sides agreed to allow for 24 million square feet of office space, down from 26 million, within a district west of Eighth Avenue that stretches from 28th to 42nd Streets.

    Mr. Bloomberg yesterday called West Side redevelopment "probably the single most important economic project that this city has undertaken in decades." He said it would revitalize the neighborhood and create thousands of jobs.

    His initiative is picking up steam, with the approval last month of state legislation for the $1.4 billion expansion of the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, and now, the pending rezoning of the West Side, the largest in recent city history.

    Still, in both cases, legislators moved to break any links between the respective projects and the stadium. The compromise reached yesterday also prohibits the city from using revenues generated by new development on the West Side to pay for projects west of 11th Avenue, such as a $30 million tunnel connecting the proposed stadium to the Javits Center, or two nearby pedestrian bridges over 12th Avenue.

    "We've effectively divorced the stadium from the financial resources that his plan will generate," said Councilwoman Christine C. Quinn, who was active in the negotiations and represents the West Side.

    The move may have been more symbolic than substantive. The Bloomberg administration has been vague about how it would pay for either the tunnel or the pedestrian bridges.

    The Empire State Development Corporation is expected to approve the stadium project this month. But construction is not assured. It still needs approval by legislative leaders in Albany. The project also faces two lawsuits challenging the stadium on environmental grounds.

    The mayor emphasized yesterday that the stadium was one element of a multipart plan in which development would progress more slowly "if you don't do any one of the parts."

    For its part, the Jets said the idea that the stadium was linked to West Side redevelopment was a concoction of Cablevision, which has waged a multimillion-dollar campaign against the stadium. Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden, sees the stadium as competition.

    "The Sports and Convention Center financing was never part of the rezoning process," said Matt Higgins, a vice president of the Jets. "But if Cablevision wants to claim a hollow victory, so be it."

    Council members and stadium opponents wanted to make clear that redevelopment was in no way dependent on the stadium.

    Council Speaker Gifford Miller said yesterday that the Council's support for the West Side plan did not temper his opposition to the stadium. He said Council leaders could have shown their opposition to the stadium by voting down the rest of the West Side project, but decided not to because they support its objective of revitalizing that part of Manhattan.

    "We're not going to cut off our nose to spite our own face," he said, adding: "The financing we're talking about has nothing to do with the stadium. It's neutral to the stadium. I believe that this agreement will move forward whether the stadium moves forward or not."

    The Citizens Union, a civic group, said the Council should be part of the approval process for the stadium, a position Mr. Bloomberg opposes. While it favors development, the group said the Council might have lost a chance to influence the decision to build a stadium by giving up its leverage on the redevelopment.

    The entire Council is scheduled to formally adopt the plan on Jan. 19.

    Under the agreement reached yesterday, the number of affordable apartments would rise to 3,400. The two sides also reduced the proposed commercial density on 11th Avenue, between 36th and 41st Streets, by one million square feet, or 14 percent.

    "This is a step in the right direction," said Walter Mankoff, chairman of Community Board 4. "We were never against the development of the Hudson Yards. We wanted it done correctly. The only area where we don't see much gain is the density issue."

    The city will begin making payments for public works projects in the $3 billion redevelopment plan in fiscal year 2006, with an initial payment of about $6 million. The payments will peak at $162 million after five years and then fall to $25 million by 2015. At that point, the remainder would be paid with tax revenues from new commercial projects.

    William C. Thompson, the city comptroller and a critic of the city's financial scheme, called the new plan more stable and cost-effective.

    The money will come from the city's $47 billion operating budget, meaning that the mayor and the Council need to find a way to pay that extra expense while grappling with multibillion-dollar deficits projected for the foreseeable future. Mr. Bloomberg recently abandoned plans to spend $200 million a year to cut long-term interest costs on $13 billion in school construction projects, saying the city could not pay for it with operating funds.

    Mr. Miller said the new financing structure would save the city at least $620 million, and possibly as much as $1.3 billion, over the life of the project, and he criticized the Bloomberg administration's earlier plan to delay debt payments as needlessly costly. He said he had always favored making payments immediately, to eliminate "the fiction that the city isn't on the hook" for the project's success.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

  15. #90

    Default

    I think any proposal to run new subway through the west village would meet with an unstoppable amount of preservationist opposition, landmark buildings would need to be razed to make stations, increasing development (they're already so unhappy about morton square & the Meier towers), increased population, the construction noise and distruption, yadda, yadda, yadda

    And I'm not sure I'd disagree with them.

Page 6 of 128 FirstFirst ... 23456789101656106 ... LastLast

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