NYC Hudson Yards Rezoning Project
Introduction and Project Overview
The main reason that the NYC Hudson Yards Rezoning Project is taking place is that the location is a prime one for everything the planners want to do. The Hudson River makes up one of the boundaries of the area, with the other boundaries consisting of 8th Avenue, 43rd Street, and 30th Street.
Right now, there is restricted and antiquated zoning in that area, along with no access to mass transit. The streetscape is not a hospitable one, and there are no open spaces for the public. Basically, the entire area is not one that can be used easily, but yet it is in a great place for a number of multiuse buildings.
The amount of underdeveloped land in the area is plentiful, making it a prime location for further development that could have economic value to the city and the people who live there.
Originally, the entire area was dominated by huge blocks of publicly owned space and various types of transportation usage, but that could all be changed with some redesigning. Even though a Master Plan was proposed some time ago, very little has been done in the way of actually getting the project off the ground -- at least until more recently.
More is being done to ensure that the Hudson Yards project actually takes shape, and the rezoning is completed in order to give the builders and planners more of an opportunity to create what they have envisioned as being very important for the city and its future development and advancement.
Discussed here will be the real estate aspects of Hudson Yards, from an overview of what is there now through what will be done in the future and how it will ultimately end up, based on the current design and approved plans. This will provide insight into not only what is being done but why it is being done and how much value will be offered to the city because of the changes.
Public Sector Strategy and Rezoning
The original plan proposed a mixed-use development, and occurred in 1988.
The block located to the south of the Javits Convention Center and the MTA Rail Yards were a part of that plan.
The report that was done into the issue determined that a rezoning of the area was necessary to allow the proper floor area ratio (12) to support the plan that had been created for the space.
The success of the plan also had a contingency, in that the extension of rapid transit access to the area would be required for the project to have the desired value. In 1990, a convention center district was created in order to have the proper zoning to establish a mixed-use development that would be located adjacent to the Javits Convention Center.
The FAR was permitted up to 10 for everything on the sites that surrounded Javits Plaza.
That included office space, community areas, residential locations, and hotel space.
Despite the creation of that district and the FAR permitting, there was no actual development of any of the area that took place at that time.
In 1993, the City Planning Commission provided its study of the Hudson Yards Area.
It concluded that existing CBDs had to be expanded in order to accommodate the long-term growth potential that would become a part of that area. Without that expansion, the project would not live up to its potential, and there was some concern as to whether it should even go forward if the CBD expansion was not part of it. Hudson Yards was seen as being part of the Midtown CBD for purposes of the Planning Commission's report. The conclusion of that report was that the city had to ensure the proper zoning in order to accommodate not only the proposed expansion but the future office needs that would be generated in the future because of that expansion.
The mass transit issue was addressed, as well, but the suggestion of extending the No. 7 line on the subway through Hudson Yards and continuing it all the way into New Jersey in order to ensure proper access to and travel through the area.
That led to a study as to whether the subway extension would be the right choice, and that was completed in 1999.
It linked the expansion of mass transit in the Hudson Yards area to both future development and the viability of land use. The existing conditions in Hudson Yards were analyzed, based on the proposed transportation infrastructure and services, the land use, and the tax base. If the street network could not support the additional...
In this case, "the government must prove that it tried to negotiate the sale and that the takeover is for public use. If the government wins, an appraiser establishes fair market value and the property owner is paid and evicted," (Bryant n.d.). In cases like KELO et al. v. CITY of NEW LONDON et al., the property owner refused to sell and the matter went to court. In most
.." Bright 83) The utilization of eminent domain has been used to evict individuals to build malls, concentrated housing projects for both the poor and the affluent, and business parks, all of which presumably have higher property tax bases and therefore better serve the community where they are built than the homes that were there previously. Having recently received a grant award, in the amount of 500,000 from the ACLU, Homeowners' Freedom, a
(4) Bell and Parchomovsky 871) This having been said the demand should rest on the public entity to not only prove the public purpose of the eminent domain ruling but also to fairly compensate the owner(s) with regard not only to market value but based on other interests as well. A takings law permits undercompensation whenever the reserve value of the property owner exceeds market price. Second, many important compensation doctrines require
Kelo v. New London and Eminent Domain When the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut in February of 2005, the issue legally speaking was a seemingly straightforward matter of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. What was at stake as a point of Constitutional law was the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, generally referred to as the "takings clause." The actual
" The public outcry against the Kelo decision confirms that citizens simply do not trust the government when it comes to their personal property. Definitions and Meanings Justice Sandra Day O'Connor strongly opposed the majority decision (Urbigkit, 2006). She wrote, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with
land use and economic development. There is a hypothetical land parcel near freeway on- and off-ramps, several acres in size, owned by the Smith family, on which developers plan to build a casino. Citizen Opposition There will be significant opposition to building a casino by a small group of vocal and highly visible opponents. Many of the opponents will be affiliated with churches, and possibly environmentalist and social activist organizations as
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now