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

[chris08876]

The site will get developed, so in some form, something will rise. An active proposal (from the sense of the redevelopment of the parcel) awaiting the bids.

[C.]

Originally Posted by NYguy

No, it isn’t the only proposal for the site. Right now there are 6. You only know about the Affirmation Tower because the developer released renderings. The state didn’t release anything. This thread has always been about what will get built in this site. One proposal will be selected, and the others will remain visions. We DON’T know that Affirmation Tower will be selected, though it will be nice if it is. BTW, if any of the other proposals are released, they will also be in this thread.

Would a FOIA be able to get the packages for the other 5 bidders? It's all a matter of public record I would presume.

[Busy Bee]

Maybe they read my rant about the Empire Connection tunnel Kind of a bad idea to go to a development team after a year of engineering work and say "oh by the way we might need to widen that tunnel running underneath your building."

[NYguy]

https://champ.gothamist.com/champ/gothamist/news/hochul-scuttles-plan-skyscraper-near-javits-center

Hochul Scuttles Plan For Skyscraper Near Javits Center


BY JON CAMPBELL
DEC. 22, 2021

Gov. Kathy Hochul is pulling back on Andrew Cuomo’s plan to reshape a vacant 1.2-acre lot near the Javits Center, which a team of developers had eyed for a 1,600-foot skyscraper that would have been one of the city’s tallest.

Empire State Development, the Hochul administration’s economic-development branch, announced late Tuesday it would rescind a request for proposals for the site on 11th Avenue, just east of the convention center. The agency was not explicit in its rationale, but the state had been facing community pressure to require affordable housing options at the site as the city faces an ongoing housing crisis.

The state had billed the property – which is owned by a state entity and known as “Site K” – as one of the last remaining vacant lots in Midtown West.

In October, a team of Black-owned companies led by the Peebles Corporation unveiled a headline-grabbing proposal that called for a 1,663-foot Affirmation Tower with two hotels, commercial space, an ice-skating rink and an observation deck. The building, they claimed, would have been the tallest in the Western Hemisphere, though the spire height of One World Trade Center would have been taller.

But community organizations, including Manhattan Community Board 4, have been pushing for development in the area to include affordable housing. And the consortium’s proposal, which was the only one to be made public, included no residential housing.

In her statement, Knight said the state will “reassess development priorities” for the site and “solicit more input from the local community.”

Under Cuomo, the state had been seeking a developer or team of developers to build a commercial or mixed-use space on the vacant lot, which is between 35th and 36th streets and is part of the zoning district for the Hudson Yards development.

The state’s request for proposals made clear it was looking for someone to build a hotel on the space, though it wasn’t necessarily a requirement. And it also made clear the community board preferred residential housing at the site, but that wasn’t required either.

If a bidder decided to propose a building that included residential use, they would have been required to make 30% of units affordable for those making 80% of the area’s median income, according to the state’s request.

Lowell Kern, chairman of Manhattan Community Board 4, said the board would prefer the state make affordable housing a requirement for development at Site K moving forward.

He pointed to plans for a nearby 11th Avenue lot – known as the Slaughterhouse Project because it once was home to the New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company – as a model. There, the city is advancing plans to build two skyscrapers with more than 200 residential units, all of which will be designated affordable housing.

“We are committed to affordable housing on [Site K],” Kern said. “And if there were no affordable housing proposals that were submitted that the state deemed acceptable, then we’re happy they are pulling the [request for proposals].”

[Steely Dan]

So does this news mean this project is completely dead, or just that they have to restart the process from the beginning?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

So does this news mean this project is completely dead, or just that they have to restart the process from the beginning?

The project is not dead, they want to redo the entire bid for the site. The Affirmation Tower proposal was just one of 6 bids for the site. No particular project was ever selected.

My guess is that they were close, and the governor said , “wait, where’s the affordable housing?” They issued a press release hinting at that, which is odd, because there’s no way for the public to know there weren’t any bids that offered it. They haven’t released anything.

For the developers part, no one did anything wrong, if that’s the case. It wasn’t a requirement of the bid. The problem is that Cuomo mentioned it as one of 2 sites that could have the affordable housing (while not requiring it). So maybe now, the new RFP will be for both sites, and maybe they will require affordable housing.

Empire State Development is rescinding the current RFP for Site K, one of the last remaining State-owned parcels in Manhattan, to reassess development priorities and solicit more input from the local community and other stakeholders.

It is critical that this site fulfill the Governor’s goal of delivering on the needs of New Yorkers today and into tomorrow.”

Definitely sounds like she wants housing included.

[chris08876]

Would be nice if the state would just sell this parcel without complicating the whole thing. Maybe use the proceeds to fund transit or some other needed things in the city.

[Steely Dan]

^^ gotcha.

From the former thread title, I thought that the stacked cantilevered boxes "affirmation tower" design had already been selected.

Maybe that design can be reprogrammed to include affordable housing, if that is to now be a hard requirement in the new RFP.

[Busy Bee]

So much of the "community engagement" is just going through the required theatrics before they get to do what they planned on all along. It's just a waste of time. Some of the ideas of "community members" are just so astonishingly bad and misguided. Can you imagine if they had any more power than they already do? That's just my opinion though.

As far as Affirmation Tower, clearly the "dislike/hate" camp is smaller than the "like/love/orgasm" camp on here, but I think we dodged a bullet. I think the design was absurd and it probably would have had cost overruns in the hundreds of millions. Also, and this is not designed to insight, but how come no one is asking the question why this completely African American led project, future home of the NAACP, in a city with a chronic affordable housing crisis.... didn't include an affordable housing component from the very beginning voluntarily?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

So much of the "community engagement" is just going through the required theatrics before they get to do what they planned on all along. It's just a waste of time. Some of the ideas of "community members" are just so astonishingly bad and misguided. Can you imagine if they had any more power than they already do? That's just my opinion though.

As far as Affirmation Tower, clearly the "dislike/hate" camp is smaller than the "like/love/orgasm" camp on here, but I think we dodged a bullet. I think the design was absurd and it probably would have had cost overruns in the hundreds of millions. Also, and this is not designed to insight, but how come no one is asking the question why this completely African American led project, future home of the NAACP, in a city with a chronic affordable housing crisis.... didn't include an affordable housing component from the very beginning voluntarily?

That particular proposal didn't include affordable housing because it was primarily designed as a commercial office and hotel tower. If it would have been a mixed-use residential/office or residential/hotel it would have included affordable housing.

As to why that particular team didn't include it, why should they above anyone else have included it? Was the affordable housing somehow going to be for minority residents only? That's not how it works. For one thing, "affordable" is one of those words that's thrown around to make people feel better. It would have been based on the area median income. That would be far different for Hudson Yards than it would be for somewhere like East New York.

Everyone put forward the best proposal that they thought would win the bid, and made the most sense for them to build on this complicated site.

[BK1985]

Also doesn’t the affordable housing plans typically use AMI? Take a look at the all the neighboring residential buildings with monthly rents ranging 4K-10k+ affordable housing here is never really “affordable”. This entire process is a joke, if the state wanted affordable housing to be included then it should have been mandated in the initial RFP, instead of of teams wasting money pulling together architects, engineers and capital partners.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by BK1985

Also doesn’t the affordable housing plans typically use AMI? Take a look at the all the neighboring residential buildings with monthly rents ranging 4K-10k+ affordable housing here is never really “affordable”. This entire process is a joke, if the state wanted affordable housing to be included then it should have been mandated in the initial RFP, instead of of teams wasting money pulling together architects, engineers and capital partners.

I agree. It's just a waste of time, and a new process likely won't even begin for a few more months (at least). So we're looking at maybe a year before we even get new bids. I know in the long scheme of things, the state has a lot to consider. There are RFPs that will eventually be issued for the Port Authority Bus terminal sites, as well as the Penn Station development sites. But those are future developments, years away from anything. This is a prime development site that is ready to be built on now. The Hudson Yards is blossoming. There's no need to put a lid on this site. Go big, regardless of what the development is. The issue of affordable housing can be focused on elsewhere. It's a great, big city.

Another question I have is what was the rush to make this particular announcement before Christmas?

[TonyNYC]

[QUOTE=NYguy;9485180]I agree. It's just a waste of time, and a new process likely won't even begin for a few more months (at least). So we're looking at maybe a year before we even get new bids. I know in the long scheme of things, the state has a lot to consider. There are RFPs that will eventually be issued for the Port Authority Bus terminal sites, as well as the Penn Station development sites. But those are future developments, years away from anything. This is a prime development site that is ready to be built on now. The Hudson Yards is blossoming. There's no need to put a lid on this site. Go big, regardless of what the development is. The issue of affordable housing can be focused on elsewhere. It's a great, big city.

Another question I have is what was the rush to make this particular announcement before Christmas?


Typical BS from the State. I agree 100% with you NY Guy, this is NOT the right Location/area for Affordable Housing component. The Hudson Yards/Manhattan West area is quickly becoming the #1 new business district anywhere, now is the time to build on this site.

I wasn't a fan of the Affirmative tower, would've liked to have seen those 5 other proposals.. but now.. doesn't really matter, unless they reconsider.

What a waste of time!

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by NYguy

If it would have been a mixed-use residential/office or residential/hotel it would have included affordable housing.

...

As to why that particular team didn't include it, why should they above anyone else have included it? Was the affordable housing somehow going to be for minority residents only?

This is pretty much exactly the answer I was hoping to avoid with my question. I wasn't trying to make this a race thing in any manner. I do think it is a totally fair to suggest though that, if the development had originally been proposed as residential or partial residential, an all black development team would prioritize an affordable component. Whether they would prioritize more than any others is a fair question in this current society of ours that need not be critically picked apart.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I do think it is a totally fair to suggest though that, if the development had originally been proposed as residential or partial residential, an all black development team would prioritize an affordable component.

There is nothing fair about that at all. Some would go as far to suggest such a statement as racist. I don't think that's your intent. But why would anyone think that an all-black team should build affordable housing over anyone else? For one thing, it is not just black people who lack affordable housing in the city. For another thing, as I've said earlier, it doesn't mean that it would be housing for black people. The suggestion makes no sense at all, and you should leave it alone.

Personally, I don't think this is the site for affordable housing at all. But whoever builds it builds it.

[Hudson11]

I don't think we've seen the last of Affirmation Tower. It was programmed with two hotels so I don't see why one of those can't be eliminated in favor of 100% affordable apartments in addition to the one hotel and the office space. They could also get rid of the observatory to free up more space. They don't need an observatory with The Edge so near.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Hudson11

Affirmation Tower was programmed with two hotels so I don't see why one of those can't be eliminated in favor of 100% affordable apartments in addition to the one hotel and the office space. They could also get rid of the observatory to free up more space. I don't think we've seen the last of it.

That building was designed as an office tower, with some hotel components, but it was mostly an office tower. It wasn't the half and half scenario that would make sense if you included 30% affordable housing. Developers carefully consider what uses to put in a building, and that directly affects design - and costs.

[Yackemflaber69]

Honestly, not a fan of this design. I hope they change it

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Yackemflaber69

Honestly, not a fan of this design. I hope they change it

You're in luck. According to the last few pages of this thread, Adjaye's design will likely not be the one chosen. Hopefully the others are both tall and decent looking, and aren't racially motivated to the point where it's a little strange.

[NYguy]

I hope this is not a mistake.



https://patch.com/new-york/midtown-nyc/a...n-skyscraper-should-be-revived-developer

Dropped Hell's Kitchen Skyscraper Should Be Revived: Developer
A developer wants Gov. Kathy Hochul to reconsider her decision to kill the gravity-defying skyscraper proposed for a Hell's Kitchen lot.




By Nick Garber
Jan 11, 2022

A developer who wanted to build a gravity-defying skyscraper on an empty Hell's Kitchen lot is pressing Gov. Kathy Hochul to reconsider her recent move to drop plans to redevelop the site — saying polling backs up their case.

Andrew Cuomo announced that the state was seeking proposals to build on the site — only for his successor Kathy Hochul to revoke that request last month, saying more community input was needed.

That abrupt move imperiled the one proposal for Site K that had been publicly revealed: a mind-bending, 1,500-foot-tall skyscraper developed by The Peebles Corporation. Known as "Affirmation Tower" and designed by star architect David Adjaye, the project was revealed last fall and pitched as Manhattan's first skyscraper to be built by an entirely Black team.

In a statement after Hochul revoked the request for proposals, the Affirmation Tower team called the move "a temporary setback," saying they were "confident" that the state would soon issue a new request.

On Tuesday, the developers escalated things by releasing a set of polls conducted on behalf of the Peebles Corporation, showing a majority of surveyed New Yorkers supported building the tower once they learned about it.

Conducted in December by Schoen Cooperman Research, the poll surveyed more than 1,000 people who planned to vote in this year's New York general election — and 475 who will vote in the June Democratic primary, where Hochul will be seeking a full term.

It found that about a quarter of general election voters already knew about the proposal, of whom 75 percent supported it. Support among all primary voters jumped to 68 percent when respondents were given a series of pro-development talking points, including that the tower would create "thousands of jobs," stimulate billions in economic output and empower Black developers and designers.

While the developers did not spell out their motive, the implication was clear: that Hochul's re-election bid would be boosted if she backed the tower. Still, if the proposal does not change, it might have a tough time winning support from local leaders, given its lack of housing.