by Petra Todorovich, Associate Planner and Chris Jones, Vice President for Research, RPA
As the controversy heats up over the proposed New York Sports and Convention Center (NYSCC) on Manhattan's Far West Side, RPA has issued a report that challenges the contention that the choice for the Hudson Yards is between a stadium and a gaping "hole in the ground." The study demonstrates that there are viable alternatives to the stadium that fit within the larger context of the City/State plan to rezone and redevelop the Far West Side. Specifically, it argues that a mixed-use alternative, consisting primarily of residential uses on the Western Yards and a mix of residential and commercial uses on the Eastern Yards, would more effectively spur development on the Far West Side, integrate with the surrounding neighborhood fabric and better promote connections to the waterfront. Finally, a mixed-use development would produce more net revenue to the City, State and the MTA than the proposed sports and convention facility.
Stadium proponents are fond of repeating the mantra that no other option is viable because, in spite of years of talk, nothing has been built on the site. But the City, State and MTA have never before proposed making the type of public investment that the City and State are offering to the Jets, nor have they initiated a process to determine developer interest in the site. Though the MTA completed a Master Plan study of the Rail Yards in 1989, that Plan was abandoned shortly after its release at the onset of the recession in the early 1990s. Today the strong residential market presents a different reality. With an initial public investment of about $400 million to build a platform over the Western Yards and building tower footings (and without the need for a $225 million for a football stadium roof) developers are likely to wait in line to build condominium and apartment buildings on this prime waterfront location, even before the Number 7 subway is extended west. One example of developer interest in the area is Silverstein Properties' 921-unit apartment tower at 42nd Street and 12th Avenue, where advertised rents are running in the $49-54 per square foot range, and the building is 95% occupied.
Assuming the projects were judged on their merits alone, how exactly does a mixed-use alternative measure up to a thirty-story football and convention facility? First, a mixed-use master-planned community with generous park space and well designed buildings (think Battery Park City or better) does more to animate the surrounding district, promote connections to the waterfront and east-west movement, and provide foot traffic and vitality, than a monolithic stadium. While the mixed-use alternative would be phased in over time, with the entire build-out extending from 2005 - 2020, some of the first buildings could be constructed as quickly as the proposed stadium, by 2009.
Secondly, the RPA's report demonstrates that a mixed-use alternative would produce more net revenues to the City, State and the MTA over a thirty-year period than the stadium, assuming an initial public investment in building a platform over the rail yards. Using the same assumptions as in the City's plan for development elsewhere in the district, RPA calculated that the Western Yards would be worth at least $436 million more with housing than with a stadium. Based on today's strong residential market and the site's desirable location on the Hudson River waterfront, developers of both condominium and apartment buildings could pay at least $100 per square foot of FAR for development rights, or ground lease payments of 7% that price - money that would go to the MTA - in addition to residential and commercial property taxes paid to the City, and the income tax revenues and spending power generated by some 6,000 residential units.
This being New York City, the merits of a particular project--monetary or otherwise--are frequently tied to other agendas. In this case, the City's fervor for the stadium is integrally linked to bringing the Olympics to New York in 2012. The Olympics are an admirable goal, and there is still time to find an alternative location that could enhance the City's chances. In any event the primary goal for redeveloping the Far West Side is to provide space for Midtown to expand, and the proposed stadium would compromise that goal.
Judged on the merits, the RPA mixed-use alternatives outperform the Stadium plan on urban design criteria, financial value, and in providing a more suitable and more effective catalyst for development on the Far West Side. Without legislative review, it is now up to a few public officials to insure that the stadium decision is based on a fair evaluation of all the options for this important site.
RPA's new report, "Urban Development Alternatives for the Hudson Rail Yards" can be downloaded at www.rpa.org.
As the controversy heats up over the proposed New York Sports and Convention Center (NYSCC) on Manhattan's Far West Side, RPA has issued a report that challenges the contention that the choice for the Hudson Yards is between a stadium and a gaping "hole in the ground." The study demonstrates that there are viable alternatives to the stadium that fit within the larger context of the City/State plan to rezone and redevelop the Far West Side. Specifically, it argues that a mixed-use alternative, consisting primarily of residential uses on the Western Yards and a mix of residential and commercial uses on the Eastern Yards, would more effectively spur development on the Far West Side, integrate with the surrounding neighborhood fabric and better promote connections to the waterfront. Finally, a mixed-use development would produce more net revenue to the City, State and the MTA than the proposed sports and convention facility.
Stadium proponents are fond of repeating the mantra that no other option is viable because, in spite of years of talk, nothing has been built on the site. But the City, State and MTA have never before proposed making the type of public investment that the City and State are offering to the Jets, nor have they initiated a process to determine developer interest in the site. Though the MTA completed a Master Plan study of the Rail Yards in 1989, that Plan was abandoned shortly after its release at the onset of the recession in the early 1990s. Today the strong residential market presents a different reality. With an initial public investment of about $400 million to build a platform over the Western Yards and building tower footings (and without the need for a $225 million for a football stadium roof) developers are likely to wait in line to build condominium and apartment buildings on this prime waterfront location, even before the Number 7 subway is extended west. One example of developer interest in the area is Silverstein Properties' 921-unit apartment tower at 42nd Street and 12th Avenue, where advertised rents are running in the $49-54 per square foot range, and the building is 95% occupied.
Assuming the projects were judged on their merits alone, how exactly does a mixed-use alternative measure up to a thirty-story football and convention facility? First, a mixed-use master-planned community with generous park space and well designed buildings (think Battery Park City or better) does more to animate the surrounding district, promote connections to the waterfront and east-west movement, and provide foot traffic and vitality, than a monolithic stadium. While the mixed-use alternative would be phased in over time, with the entire build-out extending from 2005 - 2020, some of the first buildings could be constructed as quickly as the proposed stadium, by 2009.
Secondly, the RPA's report demonstrates that a mixed-use alternative would produce more net revenues to the City, State and the MTA over a thirty-year period than the stadium, assuming an initial public investment in building a platform over the rail yards. Using the same assumptions as in the City's plan for development elsewhere in the district, RPA calculated that the Western Yards would be worth at least $436 million more with housing than with a stadium. Based on today's strong residential market and the site's desirable location on the Hudson River waterfront, developers of both condominium and apartment buildings could pay at least $100 per square foot of FAR for development rights, or ground lease payments of 7% that price - money that would go to the MTA - in addition to residential and commercial property taxes paid to the City, and the income tax revenues and spending power generated by some 6,000 residential units.
This being New York City, the merits of a particular project--monetary or otherwise--are frequently tied to other agendas. In this case, the City's fervor for the stadium is integrally linked to bringing the Olympics to New York in 2012. The Olympics are an admirable goal, and there is still time to find an alternative location that could enhance the City's chances. In any event the primary goal for redeveloping the Far West Side is to provide space for Midtown to expand, and the proposed stadium would compromise that goal.
Judged on the merits, the RPA mixed-use alternatives outperform the Stadium plan on urban design criteria, financial value, and in providing a more suitable and more effective catalyst for development on the Far West Side. Without legislative review, it is now up to a few public officials to insure that the stadium decision is based on a fair evaluation of all the options for this important site.
RPA's new report, "Urban Development Alternatives for the Hudson Rail Yards" can be downloaded at www.rpa.org.
@RegionalPlan