Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 246

Thread: Proposed Jets Stadium on West Side

  1. #136

    Default

    Lets hope for skyscrapers in a little forest. I love watching areas develop over time, like times square. although i like it even more if it happens in a few years.

  2. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TLOZ Link5
    A major reason that the skyscrapers haven't been built is because there isn't sufficient transportation in that area. The extension of the 7 train, which would go along 42nd Street, turn down to the Javits Center, and then loop around to Penn Station, will make or break large-scale development in the area. A light-rail loop is also waiting in the wings.
    This makes some sense. Still, subways alone are not always enough. One need only look at the neighborhood around the Worldwide Plaza (which is far more centralized and better served by public transportation) to understand just how badly these sorts of projections can go awry. At a minimum, I hope that, before the MTA spends a billion or more dollars to run a subway to nowhere (for the time being), it will complete (or at least commit to fully fund) the Second Avenue subway, which would serve one million New Yorkers desperately underserved by public transportation.

  3. #138

    Default

    An article from this thread on transit choices:

    November 26, 2003

    Weighing Transit Possibilities, New Study Follows the Money

    By MICHAEL LUO

    The wish list of mass transit projects that local, state and federal politicians have drawn up for the city is long and ambitious: the Second Avenue subway, Long Island Rail Road service to the East Side, the No. 7 subway extension, a relocated Pennsylvania Station, a transit hub for Lower Manhattan, and the list goes on.

    More important, the projects are expensive, with the potential of costing more than $50 billion. Although everyone has a favorite, money is limited, and some will probably lose out. So how to choose?

    One of the city's leading business groups, the Partnership for New York City, has weighed in on the question with a study that evaluates seven of the proposals on whether they pay off economically.

    Among the report's conclusions, already generating controversy: the price tag for the Second Avenue subway exceeds its economic development benefits by nearly $2.7 billion, largely because it would take 17 years to build.

    The report, conducted for the partnership by the Boston Consulting Group and the Urban Transportation Research Center at the City University of New York, assesses economic development by incorporating real estate development, the increase in property values, jobs and income and sales and tourism. The subway project would produce $12.6 billion in benefits, but it would cost $15.3 billion, it says.

    A proposed passenger rail tunnel under the Hudson, connecting New Jersey and Midtown, and an extension of the PATH system to Newark Liberty International Airport would also yield little economic benefit for the city, according to the report, although it does not consider the benefits for New Jersey.

    Some of the study's clear winners include the transit hub for Lower Manhattan, the extension of the No. 7 subway line and the relocation of Penn Station.

    Both Gov. George E. Pataki and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have been emphasizing the Second Avenue subway and the East Side Access project, which would connect the Long Island Rail Road to Grand Central Terminal.

    "The M.T.A.'s committed to a full build of the Second Avenue subway," William Wheeler, director of special project development and planning for the authority, said yesterday.

    He pointed out that the project, along with the East Side Access proposal, had won support under the criteria set up by the Federal Transit Administration. The criteria include the number of customers benefited and the reduction in crowding.

    The Second Avenue subway also has a powerful advocate in the speaker of the State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, who represents the Lower East Side. The report fails to fully recognize the project's economic benefits, Mr. Silver said. This includes its impact on Lower Manhattan, sparing commuters from an overcrowded Lexington Avenue line.

    Decisions about transportation infrastructure, however, are too often politically based, said Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the partnership.

    "It's not thinking about how investment should be designed to grow the economy and to open up the next generation of economic activity," she said.


    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

  4. #139
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    live on the upper east side and should presumablly benifit the most with less crowding on the 456 trains, however this is a waste of time, it will destroy hundreeds of business along the route and the last i looked no office development is really on second avenue, but the Far westside is NYC last chance to try to gain back its status as a business city and try to keep the finacial industry here

  5. #140

    Default

    The best argument I've heard for the 2nd Ave. subway is that it will carry more people than the entire rail transit system of any other american city.

    I'm not so sure how hundreds of businesses will be displaced either. I can see that happening only in the space where the actual stops are built.

  6. #141

    Default

    I would also add that the value of the commercial real estate along the route, and particularly around the actual stops will skyrocket, as it will now be accessible to a whole new range of consumers. So for every business that gets displaced (though I don't see why they can't still function while construction proceeds), there is a better, more upscale business waiting to move in when construction completes.

  7. #142

    Default

    This makes some sense. Still, subways alone are not always enough. One need only look at the neighborhood around the Worldwide Plaza (which is far more centralized and better served by public transportation) to understand just how badly these sorts of projections can go awry.
    Can you explain what you mean by go awry? the west side above chelsea has had a major resurgence in the 10 years I've been in the city. Granted it's not the prettiest area, but decent, and getting nicer every year.

    It's not until you get to 10th or 11th ave that it gets kind of ugly, which goes to show how important subway access is. Once you get more than 2 avenue blocks from a subway, developers lose interest in an area (presumably because they assume renters/buys will also).

  8. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMGarcia
    The best argument I've heard for the 2nd Ave. subway is that it will carry more people than the entire rail transit system of any other american city.

    I'm not so sure how hundreds of businesses will be displaced either. I can see that happening only in the space where the actual stops are built.
    From what I've gleaned, they're assumming that the tunneling will tear up blocks of 2nd ave. above ground for months (or even years) at a time, making business in- or less accessible from the street. The drop-off in business will bankrupt many small businesses.

    (All I know, is the MTA's been replacing an escalator at the Borough Hall stop for literally 2 years. They finally unveiled it, and it only works sporadically now. I ask you, can you imagine this situation happening at say, a Saks Fifth Avenue store? I'm sure Saks can get an escalator fixed in a week, it takes the gov't to screw a project up this bad.)

    It kinda makes me wonder how bad they'd screw up the 2nd ave. subway (although I'm totally in favor of it).

  9. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kliq6
    live on the upper east side and should presumablly benifit the most with less crowding on the 456 trains, however this is a waste of time, it will destroy hundreeds of business along the route and the last i looked no office development is really on second avenue, but the Far westside is NYC last chance to try to gain back its status as a business city and try to keep the finacial industry here
    It would benefit far more than just the Upper East Side. A Second Avenue Subway would also be a great boon for the Downtown economy, as well as to anyone else who (like me) rides the overcrowded 4/5/6 everyday, which includes lots of Brooklynites. As for disruptions, any construction project will have those. It is usually the affected community(ies) which are best able to determine whether the benefits from the proposed project justify those costs. In this case, the idea of a Second Avenue Subway is very popular with Downtown and East Siders, as reflected by the fact that our elected officials have been screaming for decades for this project to go forwaerd. Contrast that with community opposition to the West Street tunnel, as reflected in recent news reports and in the near unanimous opposition of local elected officials.

  10. #145

    Default

    lol - gotta give you credit, you're a man (or woman) with an agenda.

  11. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMGarcia
    lol - gotta give you credit, you're a man (or woman) with an agenda.
    I'm playing to win, bro.

  12. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clarknt67
    This makes some sense. Still, subways alone are not always enough. One need only look at the neighborhood around the Worldwide Plaza (which is far more centralized and better served by public transportation) to understand just how badly these sorts of projections can go awry.
    Can you explain what you mean by go awry? the west side above chelsea has had a major resurgence in the 10 years I've been in the city. Granted it's not the prettiest area, but decent, and getting nicer every year.
    Sure. Back in the last real estate boom in the mid to late 1980s, the City convinced some unfortunate developer and some noteworthy tenants (most prominently, the law firm Cravath) to build and locate at Worldwide Plaza over on 8th Avenue around West 50th Street. The plan was that this would be part of a grand new office development, a sort of Midtown West. All the same kind of propaganda we're hearing now about the Javitz neighborhoood. Anyway, it never happened. That tower remains in its lonesome. Even the movie cinemas in the building could not survive. Eventually, in the late 1990s, another real estate boom came around, and the area around it did perk up, as you correctly point out, BUT as a residential neighborhood. The grand predictions about a Midtown West never happened. I believe that the same kind of organic development could eventally happen around Javitz. Those industrial buildings can make good art galleries, loft space, etc. Take a look at what is going on in the Lower East Side, with no subways anywhere even remotely in the vicinity, and without a billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies. But the fall of the Soviet Union should have taught us that the free market usually triumphs over this kind of central planning.

  13. #148

    Default

    Daily News...

    Rush to get ball rolling

    By MICHAEL SAUL

    Construction of a new Jets stadium on Manhattan's far West Side could begin before the summer of 2005, a top City Hall official told the Daily News yesterday.

    Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff said yesterday that the city wants to begin work before July 2005, when the International Olympic Committee selects the host city for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games.

    "That's certainly our goal," said Doctoroff, founder of the city's Olympic bid.

    Charles Gargano, who is working on the stadium project at the behest of Gov. Pataki, said the state supports the quick construction timetable.

    "If we don't do something by July 2005, if we don't have a concrete plan, we can't bid for the Olympics," Gargano said. "I support what Doctoroff said."

    Gargano said the city, the state and the Jets have a tentative deal that calls for the football team to pay $800 million for the construction of a new stadium. The city and the state would pay roughly $300 million each for a retractable roof and for a platform on which the stadium would stand.

    Doctoroff said the Jets' investment will be the "largest single investment in a comparable facility in world history."

    "The city and state are both very confident that the incremental taxes generated out of that facility will more than pay for the investments we have to make in the platform and the roof," Doctoroff said. "It's a great investment for the city."

    Opponents of the stadium said yesterday they are outraged that the city is going forward with what they call a massive boondoggle.

    "It takes an hour to get to the Lincoln Tunnel now. Can you imagine an 85,000-seat stadium emptying into the area after an event?" said Walter Mankoff, chairman of Manhattan Community Board 4, representing Chelsea and Hell's Kitchen.

    "We think it would be a serious mistake if it went through," Mankoff added. "We're very upset about it."

    John Fisher, who heads the Clinton Special District Coalition, said the city can ill afford to spend money on a new stadium that the neighborhood neither wants nor needs.

    "Neighborhoods have a right to exist. Communities have a right to exist," Fisher said. "The West Side is not a wasteland."

    Doctoroff and other city officials met yesterday with investment banks interested in underwriting a $2 billion bond sale to pay for the extension of the No. 7 line from Times Square to the West Side as well as the construction of a platform on which a park and office buildings would stand.

    The disclosure of the planned bond was revealed in yesterday's Daily News.

  14. #149

    Default

    Daily News...

    Count the costs to land the Jets

    City Hall and Albany are charging ahead with a scheme to build a $1.4 billion, 75,000-seat football stadium on Manhattan's West Side - a new home for the Jets. Let's call a timeout to review the game plan.

    The three players here, the team and the Bloomberg and Pataki administrations, are moving fast - each looking at the stadium as an element in a different long-range plan. The net effect could be to breathe life into a dead zone on the Hudson and form a cornerstone of the city's bid for the 2012 Olympics.

    The natural question is: At what cost to taxpayers? State economic development czar Charles Gargano and Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff promise they will not put up a dime of public money unless a stadium will produce enough revenue to cover the public's investment. That's a sound starting point. They must hold to it.

    As for the stadium itself, on paper and in artist's renderings it's a fabulous-looking creation that would be built on a platform over the Long Island Rail Road yards at 33rd St.

    The structure would have a retractable roof, generate power from wind and sun and could be converted into convention space and a 20,000-seat indoor arena, both of which would boost the nearby Javits Convention Center. There would be new parkland along the river and underground parking for the trucks that now service the Javits facility.

    The costs break down as follows. The Jets kick in $800 million, the largest private investment ever in such a stadium. The city and state each pony up about $300 million to pay for the platform and the retractable roof.

    Those are huge public investments and would normally be rejected out of hand because the state and city, both fiscally strapped, have far better uses for the money - school construction, for one. However, Doctoroff and Jets President Jay Cross insist that a stadium will bring an estimated $80 million a year in new revenue into the city, more than financing the project.

    Doctoroff cites, for example, income taxes on player salaries New York would collect if the team returned home from New Jersey, sales taxes on tickets and increased hotel taxes generated by greater Javits center business. These assumptions cry out for closer analysis before the project gets the go-ahead.

    The Jets, Doctoroff and Gargano will have to convince the public on another crucial issue: parking. The proponents swear up and down that the stadium can be built without adding a single parking space in Manhattan. They contend that most fans would arrive by mass transit or leave cars in Jersey to take a new ferry service across the river. Skepticism is clearly in order.

    Why are they in such a rush? Because the Jets want to return to New York as quickly as possible, Gargano wants a much-needed expansion of the Javits Center and Doctoroff wants construction underway by 2005, when the city's Olympic bid will be voted on. And he emphasizes how the stadium would help spur the creation of a newly vibrant and vital neighborhood.

    We're all for that - as long as the price is right.

  15. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clarknt67
    Quote Originally Posted by JMGarcia
    The best argument I've heard for the 2nd Ave. subway is that it will carry more people than the entire rail transit system of any other american city.

    I'm not so sure how hundreds of businesses will be displaced either. I can see that happening only in the space where the actual stops are built.
    From what I've gleaned, they're assumming that the tunneling will tear up blocks of 2nd ave. above ground for months (or even years) at a time, making business in- or less accessible from the street. The drop-off in business will bankrupt many small businesses.

    (All I know, is the MTA's been replacing an escalator at the Borough Hall stop for literally 2 years. They finally unveiled it, and it only works sporadically now. I ask you, can you imagine this situation happening at say, a Saks Fifth Avenue store? I'm sure Saks can get an escalator fixed in a week, it takes the gov't to screw a project up this bad.)

    It kinda makes me wonder how bad they'd screw up the 2nd ave. subway (although I'm totally in favor of it).
    Saks closes down every night, for something like 12 hours. That gives the maintenance staff a huge amount of time in calm, deserted surroundings to fix any mechanical problem. Subways work 24/7. In addition, the subway escalators take much more of a beating than the in-store ones. People don't run at Saks, nor do they litter indiscriminately.

    As for the bankrupting of 2nd ave. businesses, the thing that would actually do the bankrupting would be the high cost of retail space in relation to the reduced shopping traffic during construction. Since high rents will not be sustainable during the construction period, the rents will come down, allowing stores to remain in business. In the end, the people whose bottom line will suffer will be the landlords. But then, those are the people who will most benefit from a completed subway line, so it's a fair trade-off.

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fading Into History: The Jewish Lower East Side
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 8th, 2014, 09:44 PM
  2. Lower East Side Tenement Museum fights for expansion
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 6th, 2010, 06:38 PM
  3. Hotel On Rivington - 107 Rivington Street - Lower East Side
    By Kris in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: October 12th, 2004, 12:19 PM
  4. Financing Plan Adds Complexity to Remaking of West Side
    By Fabb in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 11th, 2003, 05:55 AM
  5. Rich and Poor, Side by Side
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 5th, 2003, 07:11 AM

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