NEW YORK | HDSN (418 11th Ave) | FT | 70 & 40 FLOORS

[TonyNYC]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Can't do that with the 7 train vent building on the corner of 11 Ave. Could have if the MTA had had the sense to build a structural load transfer foundation as a feature of the vent building design and then sell the right to use it. But that would have taken foresight and planning and stuff.

And that is asking WAY TOO MUCH of the MTA!! LOL (:

[Busy Bee]

Its really inexcusable though. The 7 extension cost ten figures and they knew that all of those west side lots would see high rise development. It's incomprehensible to me why they wouldn't accomodate future development when they could profit from it as they own the land where the vent building sits as well as an easement along 11 Ave. The MTA makes me want to scream for a lot of reasons but their blatant incompetance when it comes to real estate is up near the top. Compare to how an agency like Hong Kong MTR develops housing and commercial themselves on top of heavy rail investments. Zero excuse for why MTA shouldn't be thinking along these lines where they do in fact have an ownership stake in the land.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Was that broadcast before Hochul caved into the affordable housing demands?

I really hope that this gets built.

That was yesterday. He hasn’t changed his plans, and already said they will rebid when the process restarts. Hochul will likely include a residential requirement as part of the bid, which doesn’t necessarily have to be built on this particular site.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Can't do that with the 7 train vent building on the corner of 11 Ave. Could have if the MTA had had the sense to build a structural load transfer foundation as a feature of the vent building design and then sell the right to use it. But that would have taken foresight and planning and stuff.

How does the vent preclude them from building affordable housing, when they’re able to build hotel space?

I thought that the RFP was rescinded in order to insert an affordable housing requirement?

[Busy Bee]

^ I was responding to this comment:

Originally Posted by Raysiri

Yeah. I wanted it to be built. Would be better if they decided to change the design to make it look like a normal 1,600’ skyscraper.

...and addressing why the crazy engineering is in fact an unfortunate outcome of an avoidable situation due to the lack of foresight of the MTA. Had they provided a load point for future development a lot filling tower could have taken full advantage of this site by spanning over the Amtrak tunnel and still provided for the opportunity for bold visual interest. I'm firmly in the camp with those that feel the cantilever is at best psychologically disconcerting and aesthetically iconoclastic (in a repulsive way) and at worst structurally unsound. Honest question, what would happen to this tower in a hypothetical earthquake? Are you saying there isn't the possibility of a shear point where this building literally falls over? And for what? To look "bold" and "edgy" while ignoring every natural and ancient human instinct that going inside that thing may not be the best of ideas?

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ I was responding to this comment:



...and addressing why the crazy engineering is in fact an unfortunate outcome of an avoidable situation due to the lack of foresight of the MTA. Had they provided a load point for future development a lot filling tower could have taken full advantage of this site by spanning over the Amtrak tunnel and still provided for the opportunity for bold visual interest. I'm firmly in the camp with those that feel the cantilever is at best psychologically disconcerting and aesthetically iconoclastic (in a repulsive way) and at worst structurally unsound. Honest question, what would happen to this tower in a hypothetical earthquake? Are you saying there isn't the possibility of a shear point where this building literally falls over? And for what? To look "bold" and "edgy" while ignoring every natural and ancient human instinct that going inside that thing may not be the best of ideas?

"cantilever is at best psychologically disconcerting" Not even slightly.
"aesthetically iconoclastic (in a repulsive way)" I have yet to see how.
"at worst structurally unsound" Structural integrity is a bit more complicated than what you can eyeball from a render.
"Are you saying there isn't the possibility of a shear point where this building literally falls over?" Oh there definitely is. Just like with every skyscraper in the city. Just like with every building ever made by man, in history.

"while ignoring every natural and ancient human instinct that going inside that thing may not be the best of ideas?" This statement is profoundly stupid.
Natural and ancient human instinct would tell you not build or live in tall buildings, at all, period. Natural and ancient human instinct would tell you to stay away from the several thousand pound machines that move at speeds no animal can match. Guess what? Natural and ancient human instinct has virtually no bearing on any modern life at all besides the bare necessities such as food and dealing with human waste.

[Busy Bee]

You're so right man. Now which prize from behind the counter would you like?

Also, going around calling people profoundly stupid is really bad form.

To address your incensed skreed, I will just say that using the fact that all buildings can be destroyed if pushed to a breaking point, and people used to be scared to go that high or go that fast in a scary steel motor carriage are totally disingenuous and does little to refute that people will likely rightfully and yes naturally have a repulsion to this design if built. But thats just my OPINION. You're entitled to yours and even though I disagree I don't find it "profoundly stupid." Subjectivity is a thing in life.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

How does the vent preclude them from building affordable housing, when they’re able to build hotel space?

What you're not getting is that the affordable housing is a portion of the allowable housing to be built, which itself can only be about half of the
total building program. So you're looking at a complicated program on a very limited site where the costs has to work to make it even worthwhile for any developer. You need elevator and lobby space for the various programs. Which is why it would make sense for the governor to put the affordable housing on the much larger and uncomplicated site.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

To look "bold" and "edgy" while ignoring every natural and ancient human instinct that going inside that thing may not be the best of ideas?

You'd be amazed at what people can build - and yes occupy - these days.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by NYguy

What you're not getting is that the affordable housing is a portion of the allowable housing to be built, which itself can only be about half of the
total building program. So you're looking at a complicated program on a very limited site where the costs has to work to make it even worthwhile for any developer. You need elevator and lobby space for the various programs. Which is why it would make sense for the governor to put the affordable housing on the much larger and uncomplicated site.






You'd be amazed at what people can build - and yes occupy - these days.

I agree that AH should be elsewhere, but it seems that the Governor wants it in the new RFP for political purposes.

[Busy Bee]

With what evidence do you defend that assertion? I ask because you've said it repeatedly as if its settled fact. What I see is a governor, a good one by the way, who was reminded that state sites like this have affordible housing requirements. But yes I do agree it needs to be transferred to another site as a swap.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

With what evidence do you defend that assertion? I ask because you've said it repeatedly as if its settled fact. What I see is a governor, a good one by the way, who was reminded that state sites like this have affordible housing requirements. But yes I do agree it needs to be transferred to another site as a swap.

I speculate that political considerations motivate her. I have no evidence.

[Busy Bee]

"Political considerations" motivate every politician. By definition that's the beginning and the end of it. That said there is nothing inherently bad about political considerations unless a corrupt motive is present.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

"Political considerations" motivate every politician. By definition that's the beginning and the end of it. That said there is nothing inherently bad about political considerations unless a corrupt motive is present.

I didn’t attribute any nefarious motives, but she wants to please people in order to get elected.

[Busy Bee]

Again "wants to please people in order to get elected" is in fact a central motivation and driving force of every politician no matter their rank. That's like saying there's something untoward about an athlete wanting to score points and be admired by the fans. That's the whole point. The politician gets to serve the public. The athlete gets to exert their athletic prowess. In order to keep doing that they need to be liked. In order to be liked they need to deliver for their constituency.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I agree that AH should be elsewhere, but it seems that the Governor wants it in the new RFP for political purposes.

It was Governor Cuomo who offered the two sites for affordable housing in an address, but didn't demand it be a part of the RFP process. That's why some people are demanding it. But it doesn't make a lot of economic sense for this site in particular, or one of the firms would have included it in the process. It would have been a way to get ahead.

The other site was going to have a separate RFP process to be developed, but it would make sense to combine the two. Or maybe Hochul will issue the RFP for the other site first, to get some affordable housing on the table before a hotel/office tower with no housing is approved. Don't know how she will go, but almost sure affordable housing will be required at some point to get these sites built on. They are the only sites the state controls there, besides the convention center itself. (The railyards, a separate process, won't have affordable housing either).

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I agree that AH should be elsewhere, but it seems that the Governor wants it in the new RFP for political purposes.

"I want affordable housing, just not here" is the central thesis of NIMBY.

NYC and the entire country is in desperate need of more housing. Build it everywhere, at all income levels.

[gttx]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

"I want affordable housing, just not here" is the central thesis of NIMBY.

NYC and the entire country is in desperate need of more housing. Build it everywhere, at all income levels.

Sure, but in this case the "just not here" is not because the neighbors are rich or obnoxious or anti-development. The reason you wouldn't build affordable housing here is because of the complexity - and cost - of building over all that infrastructure. The premium placed on any building on a site like this makes the subsidy required for affordable housing even higher, when there are plenty of terra firma sites all over the city (even, like, two blocks away from this site) that work better. The city even has the mechanism for this already with the provision of off-site affordable housing, allowing it to be funded in another building in the neighborhood.

[Busy Bee]

Correct

[JMKeynes]

I agree with this, but I thought that the current RFP was rescinded due to a desire to reissue one with an affordable housing requirement for this site despite the fact that it might not be viable.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I agree with this, but I thought that the current RFP was rescinded due to a desire to reissue one with an affordable housing requirement for this site despite the fact that it might not be viable.

You don't know that it's for this site in particular. There are options that would make the affordable housing more practical.