City Council committee approves Midtown East rezoning - More development near subway stations

[Via Garibaldi 8]

City Council committee approves Midtown East rezoning

Vote tees up a version of the long-awaited plan for passage by the full council next month

By Joe Anuta

 

 

A City Council subcommittee approved the long-awaited rezoning of Midtown East Thursday. The new rules will allow developers to build larger office towers than currently allowed in exchange for improvements for pedestrians and commuters.

 

"The plan allows bigger development near subway stations all around East Midtown, and allows for density to be earned by doing transit improvements," City Councilman Dan Garodnick said during a council hearing. "This is certainly the right place to put lots of new density near Grand Central, one of our most important regional hubs."

The full council must still approve the plan, but the subcommittee's vote Thursday virtually guarantees that will happen.

 

Developers will be able to boost the size of their towers by purchasing unused development rights from landmarked properties in the area and, if they are near a subway station, committing to transit improvements. A portion of each air rights transaction will be taken by the city and put toward a public-realm improvement fund, which will be run by appointees from elected officials and community groups.

 

While the plan had much more consensus than an ill-fated attempt to rezone the area in 2013, a number of sticking points leading up to Thursday's vote compelled changes made by the council.

 

Among the tweaks is a new provision that requires developers to include public space, such as an indoor atrium or an outdoor pocket park, in sites topping 30,000 square feet. Lawmakers also nixed five blocks on the east side of Third Avenue from the upzoning after complaints from Turtle Bay residents.

 

Two of the most hotly contested elements of the plan concerned the sale of unused development rights by the owners of landmarked properties such as St. Patrick's Cathedral, and how much dough the city would take from each transaction. The city had proposed establishing a floor price as a guarantee that money would flow into the public-realm improvement fund. Landmarked property owners and the Real Estate Board of New York opposed the idea, saying it would stifle sales in soft markets.

 

The council lowered the floor price from what was being proposed, but critics said that it is still much too high, and was calculated through a flawed analysis. 

 

“The agreement […] regarding the Greater East Midtown Rezoning proposal is a step backwards in the ongoing effort the ensure Midtown Manhattan’s position as a premier global office district,” REBNY head John Banks said in a statement, later adding that the floor price will make it “less likely that the public improvements that are needed in Greater East Midtown will be achieved.”

 

After complaints that the public-realm improvements lacked specificity, the governing group is now required to draw up a list of projects and their costs by November.

 

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20170727/REAL_ESTATE/170729899/city-council-committee-approves-midtown-east-rezoning

[CenSin]

If this gets anywhere near 2 Avenue, the developers should foot the bill for preparing the area for a station cavern.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

If this gets anywhere near 2 Avenue, the developers should foot the bill for preparing the area for a station cavern.

It's just another example of how the City is in bed with the developers and why they should be contributing more to the .  We can't even handle the capacity now and they're re-zoning areas for more office space.  Smh

[RailRunRob]

It's just another example of how the City is in bed with the developers and why they should be contributing more to the .  We can't even handle the capacity now and they're re-zoning areas for more office space.  Smh

If Developers came together and footed some of the bills for Subway expansion we might have a chance. There building as if the Subways are an unlimited resource. These areas are desirable mainly because of access. Wouldn't be in their best interest to invest in transit and have there investments continue to have the best possible access?     

[Wallyhorse]

It's just another example of how the City is in bed with the developers and why they should be contributing more to the .  We can't even handle the capacity now and they're re-zoning areas for more office space.  Smh

And this is why I think eventually they may have to suck it up and over objections build BOTH a full SAS AND a rebuilt 3rd Avenue EL.  If the SAS gets as badly crowded as I think it could be from all the new development, then it may come down to the greater good (plus, by then technology probably will advance far enough make any new EL sleek and able to more easily fit in unlike the old ones). 

[RR503]

Désolé, a rebuild 3rd avenue el???

 

More likely 4 track SAS...

[Wallyhorse]

Désolé, a rebuild 3rd avenue el???

 

More likely 4 track SAS...

A four-track SAS would be preferred, but would that be possible?  

[RailRunRob]

A four-track SAS would be preferred, but would that be possible?  

Why wouldn't it? Over the years the SAS has gone from 6 to 4 and finally 2 with 3 track sections. Certainly enough room north of Houston at least. 

[CenSin]

Why wouldn't it? Over the years the SAS has gone from 6 to 4 and finally 2 with 3 track sections. Certainly enough room north of Houston at least.

 

To be fair, modern two-tunnel bores take up the space of four tracks from the 1900s. The express tracks are going to be so deep if built—or under private property.

And this is why I think eventually they may have to suck it up and over objections build BOTH a full SAS AND a rebuilt 3rd Avenue EL.  If the SAS gets as badly crowded as I think it could be from all the new development, then it may come down to the greater good (plus, by then technology probably will advance far enough make any new EL sleek and able to more easily fit in unlike the old ones).

 

With the modern requirements, the elevated structure can only take up more space. Have a look at CTA elevated lines for an example of sleekness. There are practically no walkways along the track.

[RailRunRob]

To be fair, modern two-tunnel bores take up the space of four tracks from the 1900s. The express tracks are going to be so deep if built—or under private property.

With the modern requirements, the elevated structure can only take up more space. Have a look at CTA elevated lines for an example of sleekness. There are practically no walkways along the track.

Well, south of 57th there's a mix of bores and Cut and Cover. Bores are what about 21' in Dia? Avenues in NYC's grid are 100 feet wide plus sidewalk. Not saying you don't have a point I just haven't done the Math. In context, I was speaking on ways to expand capacity vs the SAS and an elevated.Id take the four track.

[RailRunRob]

 Have a look at CTA elevated lines for an example of sleekness. There are practically no walkways along the track.

You find the CTA trackway's wider than NYC?  Chicago seems to have more width constrictions on Ave's and running thru alleyways and on ROW's between property lines. There a few sections that are a bit tight the Red and Purple section on the north end. And the State street tunnel area. Also, does the fact the CTA's use cab signaling dictate side walkways as opposed New York? Do Signaling and access for maintenance every few hundred feet dictate using them? Just asking?    

[BreeddekalbL]

Or why not build the other 2 tracks below

[Around the Horn]

And not a peep about SAS Phase 3? Or its potential additional capacity from the East Side to Queens?  What a disgrace...

[RailRunRob]

And not a peep about SAS Phase 3? Or its potential additional capacity from the East Side to Queens?  What a disgrace...

Right! Pre 1970's plan Queens capacity was a part of the plan correct? If so how much that was factored in with the Queens Bypass?

[Porter]

For the last time, Manhattan will never have elevated transit ever again. Their inboxes would explode with protest.

[Union Tpke]

It's just another example of how the City is in bed with the developers and why they should be contributing more to the .  We can't even handle the capacity now and they're re-zoning areas for more office space.  Smh

 

I like that there are incentives for transit, but development is getting out of control!

So many of these luxury apartments are vacant for most of the year, being owned by wealthy Russian and Chinese businessmen. Small businesses are being destroyed, and the shell companies that own these properties are cheating the city, the state, and the country out of their fair share of taxes. I do not think that subway improvements have to come through destructive development. This is not sustainable. While development is a sign that companies want to be in the city, these investments don't always pay off. http://nypost.com/2017/07/26/the-worlds-skinniest-skyscraper-might-never-get-finished/The skinniest skyscraper might never get finished.

 

We need to be careful with this rezoning, and the people involved should be probed for conflicts of interest.

 

"It risks social alienation. Traditionally, the city’s subway system, including its maintenance, is sustained by user fares and public subsidy, not by exactions from neighboring property owners. The proposed scheme invites first-class facilities in wealthy neighborhoods and lesser ones in poor communities."

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20170718/OPINION/170719889/zoning-for-sale-midtown-east-plan-is-recipe-for-trouble

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20170719/BLOGS01/170719857/greg-david-ignore-fake-news-about-crucial-midtown-east-plan

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I like that there are incentives for transit, but development is getting out of control!

So many of these luxury apartments are vacant for most of the year, being owned by wealthy Russian and Chinese businessmen. Small businesses are being destroyed, and the shell companies that own these properties are cheating the city, the state, and the country out of their fair share of taxes. I do not think that subway improvements have to come through destructive development. This is not sustainable. While development is a sign that companies want to be in the city, these investments don't always pay off. http://nypost.com/2017/07/26/the-worlds-skinniest-skyscraper-might-never-get-finished/The skinniest skyscraper might never get finished.

 

We need to be careful with this rezoning, and the people involved should be probed for conflicts of interest.

 

"It risks social alienation. Traditionally, the city’s subway system, including its maintenance, is sustained by user fares and public subsidy, not by exactions from neighboring property owners. The proposed scheme invites first-class facilities in wealthy neighborhoods and lesser ones in poor communities."

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20170718/OPINION/170719889/zoning-for-sale-midtown-east-plan-is-recipe-for-trouble

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20170719/BLOGS01/170719857/greg-david-ignore-fake-news-about-crucial-midtown-east-plan

Over development and price gauging is already happening.  Small businesses simply can't afford the rent, and the reality is small businesses make up A LOT of the business in this City, and we're alienating them.  There are only but so many large companies that can afford these rents.  Given the amount of vacant store fronts across the City and in the outer boroughs, the City really should be stepping in and forcing these developers to make concessions so that things like supermarkets and the like can remain in areas that they are needed.  What we're seeing is a glut of banks and other deep-pocketed businesses jump on deals and developers practically emptying out entire blocks of stores to build massive spaces to maximize rents.  Anyone that says that the City bears no responsibility for this over development and additional strain on the subway system is delusional.  Yes, industrial areas have seen a re-birth, but they've also added TONS of people in areas that weren't there before who have transit needs and other needs that the City is struggling to meet. Essentially, it's up to the City to find a balance between development and over development.

[Wallyhorse]

For the last time, Manhattan will never have elevated transit ever again. Their inboxes would explode with protest.

I said it would have to be over objections.  I also said if a full-lengths SAS proved to be so crowded that another line had to be built (which is what a new 3rd Avenue EL would be, but ONLY if the SAS winds up reaching the level of capacity on its full length I think it will IF all of these buildings that are planned are actually built).  

[MHV9218]

It's just another example of how the City is in bed with the developers and why they should be contributing more to the .  We can't even handle the capacity now and they're re-zoning areas for more office space.  Smh

 

That's bullshit lol, why on earth would the city agreeing to a rezoning of a dense neighborhood prove they should contribute more to the MTA, when the taxes from this development will go to the state? Which runs the MTA? You're confusing everything.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's bullshit lol, why on earth would the city agreeing to a rezoning of a dense neighborhood prove they should contribute more to the MTA, when the taxes from this development will go to the state? Which runs the MTA? You're confusing everything.

It's not bullshit.  It's bullshit to act as if the City isn't benefiting from this when the State has no say in rezoning matters in NYC.

[MHV9218]

It's not bullshit.  It's bullshit to act as if the City isn't benefiting from this when the State has no say in rezoning matters in NYC.

 

The City has no say in the MTA control, operation, or planning. The city gets no choice over the MTA head or leadership (de Blasio has requested more control/responsibility), has to sit around while Cuomo does dumb things like shutting the subway for storms, and has its own proposals (Utica Avenue extension) ignored while Cuomo does ridiculous shit like the bridge light shows with MTA money. So no, this is not the city's issue. On top of all this, the state has redirected money explicitly for the MTA to its own purposes. The $456 million that the state is requesting from the city is literally the exact same amount ($456 million) that the state redirected from the MTA a year or so back. This issue is so cut-and-dry I don't even know what to say. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The City has no say in the MTA control, operation, or planning. The city gets no choice over the MTA head or leadership (de Blasio has requested more control/responsibility), has to sit around while Cuomo does dumb things like shutting the subway for storms, and has its own proposals (Utica Avenue extension) ignored while Cuomo does ridiculous shit like the bridge light shows with MTA money. So no, this is not the city's issue. On top of all this, the state has redirected money explicitly for the MTA to its own purposes. The $456 million that the state is requesting from the city is literally the exact same amount ($456 million) that the state redirected from the MTA a year or so back. This issue is so cut-and-dry I don't even know what to say. 

Right.  So the City can encourage redevelopment, as it is here, but shouldn't be expected to contribute to improving transportation here aside from that $2.5 billion that de Blasio keeps talking about the City gave over two years ago? If ever I heard such a ridiculous comment...   It's the City that is rolling in dough now. In case you forget the State isn't just responsible for NYC. It's responsible for the entire State.

[MHV9218]

Right.  So the City can encourage redevelopment, as it is here, but shouldn't be expected to contribute to improving transportation here aside from that $2.5 billion that de Blasio keeps talking about the City gave over two years ago? If ever I heard such a ridiculous comment...   It's the City that is rolling in dough now. In case you forget the State isn't just responsible for NYC. It's responsible for the entire State.

 

The. M. T. A. Is. A. State. Run. Agency. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The. M. T. A. Is. A. State. Run. Agency.... 

...that the City also contributes to...   If the City wants to take over the subways again, maybe they should make sure they keep their financial house in order. Let's remember why the was taken over by the State to begin with. The State came to the City's rescue, but de Blasio wants to forget all of that because you know the is just holding on to that $2.5 billion because it has nothing to spend it on. 

[Mtatransit]

I think developers should pay MORE taxes to contribute to the MTA for developing near infrastructure and help with infrastructure improvements. No reason they shouldn't pay for it with the amount of burden they put on our infrastructure. (Look at LI City)