Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
mtattrain

More MTA Headquarter Buildings for Sale...

Recommended Posts

In a move that is expected to generate significant revenue for its capital program, the MTA will vacate its headquarters buildings in Midtown Manhattan by the end of next year and award a long-term lease to a developer expected to demolish the buildings and redevelop the premier location with modern Class A offices, a hotel, residential tower, or a mixture of uses.

The buildings, 341, 345, and 347 Madison Avenue, occupy a full block front between 44th and 45th Streets. On June 25, 2013, the MTA issued a request for proposals to the real estate development community seeking bids for the site. The bids are due August 14.

The decision to relinquish the site was announced in April 2011. It is part of a larger effort the MTA is undertaking that is projected to generate $600 million in cost savings or new revenues through reduction of office space and capture of maximum possible value from its real estate holdings. The effort includes a number of elements. Highlights include:

  • The MTA has agreed to relinquish the former New York City Transit headquarters at 370 Jay Street in downtown Brooklyn for use by New York University, saving the agency $184 million in renovation expenses.
  • Following administrative staff reductions in 2010, by 2015 the MTA will have reduced its office space needs by 18% or 524,000 square feet.
  • Working with the New York City Economic Development Corporation, the MTA is seeking or reviewing proposals from developers for eight properties in New York City that are owned by the City of New York and controlled by New York City Transit under a 1953 master lease agreement. Those sites include a triangular parking lot at Houston Street and Broadway in SoHo, and a former golf driving range at Gun Hill Road and the New England Thruway in the Bronx.

 

Read more here: http://new.mta.info/mta-offers-its-headquarters-site-lease

 

Nothing to say, except the MTA may get rid of everything except for the 2-Broadway headquarters building...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially, everything except 130 Livingston Street and (for Metro-North) its space in the Graybar building is being vacated. I would hope that the MTA has the option to buy 2 Broadway at some point (it currently leases all but the retail space in the ground floor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta side with TWU on this one... what. the. f**k?

 

The MTA is giving up buildings they lease from the city for near nothing for a privately-owned luxury Lower Manhattan high-rise with views of the water, where they pay millions in rent every year. So what, you're in some smaller office building and your offices are spead across multiple locations. At least you're not paying big bucks for them and they do a good job housing our region's transit execs.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short of rare legal maneuvers to take property, the MTA will never be able to buy these properties back again. They should think carefully. A building isn't worth a month of funding for running the trains. They are ongoing costs which require ongoing revenue. Instead of selling, the MTA should manage the property itself, but not for transit purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short of rare legal maneuvers to take property, the MTA will never be able to buy these properties back again. They should think carefully. A building isn't worth a month of funding for running the trains. They are ongoing costs which require ongoing revenue. Instead of selling, the MTA should manage the property itself, but not for transit purposes.

Right because they've done a FANTASTIC job with that.... *Sarcasm*  <_<  If they can't even find tenants for some of the current property they own and aren't being proactive about it, why would this be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta side with TWU on this one... what. the. f**k?

 

The MTA is giving up buildings they lease from the city for near nothing for a privately-owned luxury Lower Manhattan high-rise with views of the water, where they pay millions in rent every year. So what, you're in some smaller office building and your offices are spead across multiple locations. At least you're not paying big bucks for them and they do a good job housing our region's transit execs.

 

It's more because of political pressure.

 

Right because they've done a FANTASTIC job with that.... *Sarcasm*  <_<  If they can't even find tenants for some of the current property they own and aren't being proactive about it, why would this be any different?

 

That's because they're cheap and don't know how to do business. I know the retail spaces they put into the Jackson Heights hub are completely inappropriate for any sort of reasonable store size and layout wise, and apparently they told restaurants looking into the space that they would have to do even the most basic work for setting up a kitchen (building an actual enclosed kitchen space, putting gas lines and electricity to run a kitchen, etc.)

 

MTA should hire a realtor to do the renting and pay him a commission of whatever the rent is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more because of political pressure.

 

 

That's because they're cheap and don't know how to do business. I know the retail spaces they put into the Jackson Heights hub are completely inappropriate for any sort of reasonable store size and layout wise, and apparently they told restaurants looking into the space that they would have to do even the most basic work for setting up a kitchen (building an actual enclosed kitchen space, putting gas lines and electricity to run a kitchen, etc.)

 

MTA should hire a realtor to do the renting and pay him a commission of whatever the rent is.

Not cheap... More like too greedy... They want maximum rent for some of these spaces that simply aren't worth it.  I mean people aren't doing tons of shopping in the subway stations... In fact that's the furthest thing from my mind when I'm underground.  I'm just focusing on not touching anything and getting skeeved out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the above posts--the MTA's record of acting as a landlord has been pretty shoddy. Plus, the last few years have shown the MTA that the market's drops can really cut into their budget, so they probably want to cut their losses now that the market has become more favorable for sellers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not cheap... More like too greedy... They want maximum rent for some of these spaces that simply aren't worth it.  I mean people aren't doing tons of shopping in the subway stations... In fact that's the furthest thing from my mind when I'm underground.  I'm just focusing on not touching anything and getting skeeved out.

Well, as it stands a good portion of foodservice establishments in the city (I'd say 10%) are vermin infested crapholes. If you're going to be buying a slice of pizza with roaches and mice running around, might as well do it while commuting, LOL.

 

 

But I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right because they've done a FANTASTIC job with that.... *Sarcasm*  <_<  If they can't even find tenants for some of the current property they own and aren't being proactive about it, why would this be any different?

When you realize that it's a one-time payment, even a shoddy job of generating revenue is better than nothing. By keeping the properties, they can still:

A. Make little to nothing on the properties with their crappy way of doing business.

B. Make what the guys they would have sold the properties to by stepping up their game.

By selling the properties:

A: Get a large one-time payment.

 

They don't really have options once they sell their properties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you realize that it's a one-time payment, even a shoddy job of generating revenue is better than nothing. By keeping the properties, they can still:

A. Make little to nothing on the properties with their crappy way of doing business.

B. Make what the guys they would have sold the properties to by stepping up their game.

By selling the properties:

A: Get a large one-time payment.

 

They don't really have options once they sell their properties.

Believe it or not real estate isn't always what it's cracked up to be.  I think the (MTA) would be better off selling the buildings because it's a lot of hassle to find tenants often times with the properties being in such high end areas and in these economic times tenants don't have the money for the high rents.  330 Jay Street was a mess and I know first hand because I worked there for two summers with the (MTA).  That building with the scaffolding for years was an eyesore and a money pit with all of the renovations needed.  They got out of that deal pretty good.  The properties along Madison will fetch a nice price and since work would be needed on those buildings too they're better to sell them off.  I believe price wise that Madison is right along with 5th and Park as some of the priciest real estate in New York City, particularly in the Midtown area.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one can look at it both ways. The (MTA) can sell their properties but I think they would be better off if they pull off a Port Authority style idea and just lease them out. If the PA can do it with the World Trade Center than why can't the (MTA) do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one can look at it both ways. The (MTA) can sell their properties but I think they would be better off if they pull off a Port Authority style idea and just lease them out. If the PA can do it with the World Trade Center than why can't the (MTA) do it?

 

Isn't leasing Shel Silverstein's gig?

 

The MTA should honestly hire a company to manage the space, since you can't trust the MTA to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't leasing Shel Silverstein's gig?

 

The MTA should honestly hire a company to manage the space, since you can't trust the MTA to do it.

 

Not really. The Port Authority leased the World Trade Center to Silverstein. It's Silverstein's job to lease out the buildings and the Port Authority is supposed to collect money from Silverstein afterwards since he has leased the site, but this wasn't always the case. Before 9/11 the Port Authority owned and leased the World Trade Center out themselves. So of course the (MTA) can do it. The problem is are they dedicated enough?

Edited by Roadcruiser1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it seems as if some of you don't know, the MTA, has people for this, they have a whole real estate department. Anyways, while yes, the buildings may need rehabs, that's better in the long term, because I have no doubt, after the MTA's lease is up at 2 Broadway, if they don't have any other buildings left, the rent is going to be jacked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.