Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner
Penn Station is WAY more important to the city than MSG is. Penn simply cannot properly serve the city unless MSG is completely out of the way. There is just no way around that. If MSG ceases to exist anywhere in the city, so be it.
|
That is not accurate. They could move MSG today, and it would do nothing to improve the circulation of pedestrian or rail traffic. Now, it would greatly improve the
appearance, but MSG doesn't hinder the operation of Penn Station. Which is one of the main reasons they aren't moving it. The theater can be removed, because theaters are everywhere. You don't just pick up a massive arena and plop it down somewhere else. Especially if there's no real reason to do so, other than appearance. As was pointed out by the ESG, that would add unnecessary time and costs to the development. MSG is horrible to
look at, but Penn Station still operates underneath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa
The more I learn about this proposal, the more I hate it.
Keeping the repugnant eyesore that is MSG. Putting lipstick on a pig for Penn Station. Destroying a dozen historic buildings (all pre-wars), replacements are likely blue-clad boxes, no knockout towers.
|
So you're argument is basically that you prefer pre-wars to glass buildings. Got it. Still makes no sense, and again - this was NEVER about MSG. This entire plan revolves around the expansion of Penn Station, pre-wars or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson11
The 60s urban renewal vibes are very concerning. They had better not demolish buildings and turn the land into parking lots for ten years while they build the project in phases.
|
This project is definitely being built in phases, and much of it is already parking lots. As far as urban renewal, well the Vornado controlled sites were going to be redeveloped anyway. We've known this for years, and it's why that area exists as it does today. And the expansion site speaks for itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyNYC
We are looking at somewhere around 16 million SF of office space here on the 7 Sites.. are they planning on building without anchor tenants?
|
Of course not.
Quote:
15 Penn was put on hold since the financial crisis, ten years and counting because they haven't landed an anchor tenant. That building was only 2 mill sf.. with no anchor tenant.
|
It was put on hold after they
lost their anchor tenant, due to the financial crisis. And it hasn't been built because Vornado hasn't committed to doing so.
Quote:
16 million SF of new office space.. Sounds like wishful thinking that these buildings will get built especially with the continued build out around the Hudson Yards, 4 supertalls still in construction
coming online within a year or two.
Then you have the rezoning/upsizing going on around Grand Central.. 1 Vanderbilt, 270 Park, 350 Park, 343 Madison, Roosevelt and Commodore Hotel sites..
Doesn't bode well for the Empire Station office market..
Will the City need another business district with that much new office SF?
|
Well, did it bode well for the Hudson Yards to rezone for 30 msf? Did it bode well for midtown east to rezone for massive office towers there? There are always critics who say what "you don't need", as they did with those rezonings. And yet here we are, watching towers get built in both districts. That's why I'm so happy that we have people in place that know you have to plan for these things - that planning takes years - and won't sit around waiting until there is a need to find locations where you can suddenly put up massive office towers. That's now how a world class city operates. There will always be new office towers in New York City. What there
won't always be is new land on which to build them. That's where the zoning comes in, and why you ignore the critics who only think in terms of today, and not the future.