May 17, 2007
City Wants Mega Buildings on the Far West Side
The city's Far West Side dreams are at stake as the MTA will auction off the buildings rights to the West Side railyards. The NY Times takes a broad look the 26-acre swath of land where Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff says the Bloomberg administration wants to create the "21st century Rockefeller Center." Well, a Rockefeller Center with many huge buildings, as the article's lede calls the lots "where the Bloomberg administration envisions the equivalent of five Empire State Buildings rising..." Some interesting details about the post-West Side Stadium hopes for the railyards:
- The city expects five developers to bid for the land: A partnership of Durst & Vornado Realty; Extell; Brookfield Properties; and Tishman Speyer.
- The western part of the railyards will still need to be rezoned, and it will happen under a public review process.
- It will cost around $1 billion to build a platform over the railyards (on top of which all other buildings would be built)
- The fate of the High Line is questionable, as developers aren't inclined to include it in their plans since they believe it will be costly to design around.
- Hold-ups with approval for the Javits Center expansion are also complicating the plan.
The auction for the MTA's railyards will begin next month. Here is the city's website about the development of the area known as Hudson Yards. The Hudson Yards Development Corporation released a draft conceptual land use for the area (PDF) last week. Curbed called it "dizzying" and "dark" given how massive the buildings would be; a map and summary of the draft conceptual land use follow after the jump.
From the original photograph of a single Empire State Building by Skaines on Flickr
From the Hudson Yards Development Corporation:
Summary:
- Plan for WRY will be coordinated with the entire Hudson Yards area
- Plan allows for mixed-use development
- Plan will include generous open space and relate to the existing Hudson River and High Line parks
- Plan will include on and off-site affordable housing
- On-site – up to 20% of the rental units would be affordable through
the 80/20 program
- Off-site locations:
- West 54th Street / MTA Site
- West 48th Street / DEP Site
- Plan will include a PS/IS school
- Plan will include office space for arts and non-profit uses
- Parking will be allowed, but not required, for WRY site
- Plans should incorporate green building standards
- WRY development plans are subject to ULURP and environmental review
- Guidelines should be flexible and promote compelling architectural design
|
as long as they're not using prime river property to build low-income housing or a stadium i'm all for it.
Screw that, we have enough goddam buildings as it is, we need more PARKS, with REAL GRASS and trees.
Move upstate if you want more trees. This is New York City, not Binghamton.
Good. Jersey commuters could use more office space near Penn Station, since they won't get access to Grand Central any time soon.
it should be 100% affordable housing
i hate greedy developers and landlords
we have a right to live here too!
Sorry, free rent people, you aren't entitled to prime Manhattan property because you're poor. I'm all for building affordable housing, in the Bronx.
Next complaint will be the standard "the buildings are too tawwlll". Can't wait for that one.
there are enough condos and luxury housing in manhattan!!
why should i have to commute from the bronx just cuz i'm not a lawyer...
and i have every right to live here, even on so-called "prime property"...i'm a human being. housing is a human right
new york is nothing w/o regular people like me
keep pushing us out..whose gonna be left??
I remember being amazed that people actually expected cheap apartments with harbor views in Battery Park City. Then I thought about it and concluded that chutzpah is not bad if others are foolish enough to fall for it. Never hurts to ask.
Where do I sign up for my subsidized river front apartment?
these monstors will cast a shadow over half of manhattan...gotham city was a ficticious city in a comic book, but seems like our urban planners wnat to reproduce that in the real world...good bye new york
these monstors will cast a shadow over half of manhattan...gotham city was a ficticious city in a comic book, but seems like our urban planners wnat to reproduce that in the real world...good bye new york
it should be 100% affordable housing
i hate greedy developers and landlords
we have a right to live here too!
You have the right to live here if you can afford it. No one should subsidize your rent just because you make $7/hr flipping burgers. Move to Queens or Bronx if you can't afford Manhattan.
7: housing is not a right, you have to work and pay for it. Without money to pay for it, you are homeless - get it?
Nothing entitles you to living in the most expensive part of the most expensive city in America. Go live upstate or in the midwest, I hear they have great deals on rent there.
Capitalism is not the scapegoat when you can't afford to live exactly where you want to. That's life right? We can't all have the best car, or the prettiest woman, or the best home just because we think we deserve it.
Ugh! That "rich and damn proud of it" sentiment (and, with a vehemence, I might add) is so '80s. Boy, is that boring! Not to mention faux nationalistic. "This land is for those who can afford it. If you don't like it, get lost" What a shallow perspective. A healthy market is inclusive, not exclusive. You may have money, but you don't know anything about economics.
this site is ideal for big box stores...costco, walmart, etc...thats what manhattan desparately needs...its too expensive here
plus it will create jobs
"You may have money, but you don't know anything about economics."
that is probably the most ridiculous statement i've ever seen coming out of someones mouth who with the same breath is demanding subsidized housing. WTF? LOL
13: I'm not rich. I can afford to live in Manhattan through my own efforts and hard work.
I have no objection to some affordable housing on this site. What I cannot stand is idiots saying "100% affordable housing!!!" I probably shouldn't respond but these people appear to believe that's a viable option.
Ultimately, the desire to live in Manhattan (the pressure of high prices) is the same pressure that causes people to complain about the high prices and want a free ride. The free ride is, of course, impossible and it's childish to ask for it.
"You may have money, but you don't know anything about economics."
that is probably the most ridiculous statement i've ever seen coming out of someones mouth who with the same breath is demanding subsidized housing. WTF? LOL
I also think that some of the demands for affordable housing in the middle of Manhattan are ridiculous and for that to happen would require changing existing economic structures, which TPTB have no interest in changing.
But...some of you dont realize that even the *Bronx* is getting expensive for people now. Salaries have not kept pace with even market rate apartments in the outer boroughs. And it's not feasible or sustainable to push all the burger flippers and retail workers (news flash, those are usually jobs that are not careers, and many of those people are young and studying to do something else that will make them more $) farther and farther out into the metro area and then ferry them in. Someone has to do those jobs (not even counting nurses, teachers, taxi drivers, etc.), they are actually important to keeping the city running and they should have a decent affordable place to live. Or they will leave-and there is not enough incentive-i.e. decent affordable housing-for someone to come in and replace them.
So, dismissing them and telling them to live in an outer borough is becoming less and less of a feasible option. The whole metro area is becoming a joke on the order of a Third World city with the economic and housing disparities.
18, by subsidizing housing all you do is move the employers salary costs to the tax payer. If the employer cannot get any employees to fill a position due to the salary being inadequate to find housing in an qrea, they either have to raise the hourly rate or close down. By subsidizing housing, all you are doing is keeping the wages depressed and have the tax payer foot the difference. A truly dumb solution in my book.
I know a broad swath of land where the Bloomberg administration should build: GROUND ZERO.
Remember Ground Zero? It's still nothing. Dan Doctoroff and Bloomberg care more about building luxury buildings uptown than actually rebuilding the symbol of our broken New York.
Dan Doctoroff is included in the Bloomberg package you voted for: Luxury projects masquerading as affordable housing, funded on the taxpayer's dime--this is what you voted for (they've already done this many times. Those new luxury high-rises going up around the city have been given subsidies originally intended for affordable housing).
there should be a law that mandates all new cosntruction include housing for people making
20 - you should write for the Onion. You're hysterical!
ok this is what should be built
10-12 apt buildings, 100% affordbale housing for families making 30-60K / per year
adequate parking for all residents
some retail like grocery a store (like finefare, keyfood..NOT another whole foods)
as someone else posted, a store like walmart or costcos would be nice
a movie theatre
a good variety of restaurants, ranginf from mcD's to Olive Garden, Red Lobster
priority job opportunities for and job openings in the city, so that these residents are fully employed
at least one church
medical center (east side hospitals are too far)
me! its as if you just got back from socialist fantasy-camp.
hey dont knock socialism
equality for all, got a problem with that?
personally i think the entire site would make a great park...on par with central park & prospect park...but with wtarefront! . . maybe some towers at the east edge overlooking it all, mixed income with retail
Dear 17
I never said anyting about supporting subsidized housing.
if you like the socialism, go to Venezuela. i recently got out of there to America. we not need more housing project like there. please excuse my English is bad,
You should not raise your family in Manhattan if you are "families making 30-60K / per year". duh!
jenna: socialism works so well in France doesn't it?
Face it, you love NY because people love to be here. They love to be here because of the satisfaction they gain from "making it" here, which is all about earning money. Take that away (socialism) and NY would die.
there was a time, not long ago, when the satisfaction of living here came from participating in the diverse culture and community of NYC, not the rat race to make piles of money and basking in self satisfaction and perceived superiority.
SP: that's such a straw-man argument. Of course part of the draw here is all that NY encompasses. My point is that the underlying engine is the dollar. That doesn't soil the great culture and diversity that is here. The "rat race" as you call it makes those things possible.
SP, give me a break. NYC has been this way since the beginning. Achievers always came here. Housing was always scarce and expensive (tenements and projects anyone). It is part of Americana - if you can make it here you can make it anywhere... this line didn't come out last year... LOL. NY has always been where achievers go to make there place in the world. The city would not be what it is if this was not the case. Creating public subsidies which was tried in the 50s and 60s did not help the problem and created permanent areas of poverty crime and segregation. Can we finally move on? Let the market play out.
Well, I don't know about subsidized housing, but we have to all realize that if they keep building buildings like this then we will all see cheaper housing. Do you guys no see this happening with the sheer amount of luxury condos popping up? Sure it will take a lot of construction before there can be a vacancy rate that actually would lower prices somewhat. But more housing is what New York needs, at any price. The market will adjust. The rich folk living elsewhere in the city will move in and make room in the places they leave vacant. It's supply and demand, folks, if they can't fill the houses then they'll lower the prices.
"a good variety of restaurants, rangin from mcD's to Olive Garden, Red Lobster"
What a variety!
"NYC has been this way since the beginning. Achievers always came here. Housing was always scarce and expensive (tenements and projects anyone)"
#32, not true. Manhattan ALWAYS had very affordable neighborhoods until the late 80s/early 90s. Tenements were built as housing for workers; they were cheap. Housing projects were built to provide affordable housing and to replace crumbling tenements.
What's happened is that the pricing distinctions between neighborhoods has vanished. While it is true that New York has always been a magnet for the smart and ambitious, there was a time when those people could live cheaply until they made it (think Soho in the 60s), and then usually moved to higher rent areas. That process of creative experimentation was responsible for the cultural center that NYC has become.
Unfortunately, that is no longer true. How much longer can NYC remain a cultural incubator without being able to attract and retain innovators? Without substantial funding on the part of select individuals (trust funds), it's pretty unlikely. Not a good sign for the next 50 years.
"a good variety of restaurants, ranginf from mcD's to Olive Garden, Red Lobster"
Uhhhhh . . .
Uhmm.. change of topic a bit..I hope they build a collection of GREAT ARCHITECTURE over there (low-rise, midrise, highrise and yes, supertall to megatall) and not the same boring, banal "contextual" buildings and boxes. It really pisses me off how some developers advertise their projects as "the best of" in development when all they are are fugly structures borne out of myopia and lack of ambition (well, except to just exclusively make money).. Im disappointed with WTC's blah architecture (except for the GORGEOUS calatrava station) so I hope the HY would shine..