Before anyone starts forming early opinions just remember that these only depict rough program massings, they arent representative of the actual zoning massings, of which the towers (but not their podiums, 20 HY for example) will actually have to abide by.
8 Likes
Nice!!
It’s more than we knew before atleast.
2 Likes
3 Likes
When it talks about Site B being 1,366 ft tall, does that include the 200 ft tall podium it sits on?
It’s gotta be. That residential tower is 1,200 ft tall on its own. Those 2 are gonna be monsters
2 Likes
Yes, all the approximated heights are inclusive of their podiums, they are not only factoring the tower portions.
Comparatively, all the towers are within reasonable range of each other, Site B the office tower & Site C the resort tower (1189’ and 1366’) aren’t much taller than Site A the residential tower (1172’), especially Site C. The resort tower and the residential tower will actually be of similar size to eachother, its the office tower that will look much bigger than the other two, height wise and plan dimension wise and this is hard to visualize because the program massing images dont properly show the sqft and height of the massings accurately.
5 Likes
Yeah, these massing diagrams are goofy. Maybe someone can take a crack at a more accurate model because this is hurting my brain:
Casino Proposal
Alternative Proposal
9 Likes
For what it’s worth, I much prefer the alternative proposal’s massing in addition to the program of uses. The Phase 2 vision was always to scale up from the water to the big office supertalls at the center of the complex and I still think that will look better than shoving a pair of supertalls right up against the water with no transition.
13 Likes
I can try to conjure something up that aligns with the potential zoning the sites would have but it would still be extremely speculative.
Otherwise I also agree with the view that Phase II shouldve sloped “down” towards the river if not have just been “level” with the rest of Phase I, so not surpassing the 1270’ height of 30 HY.
3 Likes
2 Likes
Both versions have 3 “supertalls”
1 Like
gosh im blind
I missed this comment; and completely agree. I have gone to several casino resorts in NY, CT and found that the Architecture & the general ambiance felt quite dystopian.
Then there was the really shocking part: GOING INSIDE. The atmosphere IMHO is one of subtle sadness, and despair - just bleak. Gambling is a vice that has terrible consequences for the many people who fall victim to this type of addiction. I strongly oppose putting such a place anywhere other than some remote location as is currently the case with most casinos - NOT IN NYC. Preferably those places would be banned in the USA.
End of rant… 
PS…Had to go to those places for business related meetings, conventions, etc.
6 Likes
Casinos can look good, look at las Vegas and Macau, the buildings that look the worst are communication towers, they are very skinny with tall Antennas and don’t need to look good, also 90% of gamblers quit before hitting it Big, or atleast that’s what the fortune 500 companies told me.
This is a really rough attempt, but it honestly looks silly with there just being 3 giant buildings for some reason. The heights are all correct and I used previous zoning, this could have changed though as the plan diagrams don’t align with the zoning that was planned for the original scheme, nor the zoning that was used in Phase I, which carries through to Phase II. It’s still just really hard to calculate the proper dimensions
18 Likes
I agree with your points on gambling. I certainly wouldn’t want a casino right next to a school or residential building. I think that is distasteful.
A casino’s sole purpose is to make the rich richer and poor poorer. And they do a good job of that IMO. The only thing a casino does positively is create jobs. Otherwise I only view them as drains on society.
6 Likes
Per article via NYguy on SSP:
"As the moment of truth approaches for the hottest economic development contest of the decade—Manhattan’s first casino—Related Companies has pushed its biggest pile of chips into the middle of the table with what it hopes is the winning hand.
The developer filed plans with NYC’s Planning Department this week for a $12B mega-project that will sit on a platform over the rail yards in the western half of Hudson Yards.
…The plans call for more than 1,500 apartments, 2M SF of office space and a resort hotel, as well as a public school and a day care facility.
While the kids are studying their multiplication tables in the new 750-seat school, Related is hoping that adults will be calculating the odds at the tables in a 2.7M SF casino and hotel it wants to build on the site with Las Vegas gaming giant Wynn Resorts.
The casino will occupy the bottom five floors of an 80-story, 1,750-key hotel, which also will feature a ballroom and conference space as well as retail and restaurants.
A 1,400-foot office tower will go up on the southeast portion of the site, with a 1,200-foot-tall residential tower planned for the opposite corner. According the plans, which also include six acres of public space, 324 of the 1,507 housing units in the residential tower will be designated as affordable.
The plan calls for a new betting palace to be erected on a platform that will be built over active rail lines, effectively connecting the 18M SF eastern half of Hudson Yards with the Hudson River waterfront. Related developed the eastern half, which opened in 2019, with Oxford Properties.
The site for the proposed casino sits next to the Javits Center, NYC’s convention center. It’s within walking distance of a site specified in a casino bid put forward by another titan of NYC real estate, Larry Silverstein.
Silverstein has proposed to build a 1.8M SF development on a vacant site at the corner of West 41st Street and 11th Avenue, near the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel. Silverstein wants to build two 46-story towers connected by a sky bridge.
Related’s casino bid differs considerably from the original plan for the western half of Hudson Yards, which was rezoned in 2009.
Related’s original agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority envisioned six residential buildings, including 265 below-market-rate units, parks and a school on the western half of the Hudson Yards site. The development was supposed to be completed by 2025."
8 Likes
Regressive, Addictive, and Immoral - What’s not to like about Gambling?
I for one will not go anywhere near HY if this plan goes through to build a Casino. This is simply my attitude on the matter; one many others I know also share. They need to rethink this proposal.
BTW - You can get 4 free articles from Forbes before hitting the pay wall.
Link Here -
3 Likes
So don’t go. This isn’t a nanny state. If people want to gamble they will find a million ways to do so. We get it, you don’t like it, you’ve already stated it multiple times. I’ve never gambled in my life and don’t care for it much but I would never tell people what to do with their money as long as it’s legal.
Now to go back on topic, I’m hoping for some renderings to leak. Hoping for a less formulaic design and facade.
5 Likes
Per article via NYguy on SSP:
"Related Companies has finally put forth its grand plan for a casino above the undeveloped Western Rail Yards at Hudson Yards. Well, the scoping documents, at least. The fancy renderings and full rollout are yet to come.
The development would include three skyscrapers, each of them about 1,200 feet or taller. The gaming and resort building would span 2.7 million square feet and have a 1,750-room hotel, conference facilities, retail outlets and restaurants.
The $12 billion project is among the most ambitious contestants for one of the state’s three downstate casino licenses. But, it could face an unexpected hurdle, thanks to a few details.
The development would require changes to the 2009 rezoning that cleared the way for Hudson Yards, likely eliciting resistance from community members who remember the protracted battle that led to the original agreement.
That rezoning was based on plans to build six buildings above the Western Rail Yards. The latest outline would cut that number to three, but each would be taller and denser than the towers originally proposed.
It’s unclear how much of a barrier the rezoning would be. But Related can take solace in the fact that it isn’t the only developer facing challenges beyond the state’s approval process.
Two others would need special approval to build their projects on public parkland.
Gambling group Bally’s would build a casino on a city-owned golf course in the Bronx. Bally’s took over operations of the course from Donald Trump last year and stripped the former president’s name from it.
Then, there’s Mets owner Steve Cohen’s proposal, which would turn 50 acres of parking lots into a casino site. For some odd reason, that parking lot is technically parkland.
In both cases, city and state officials would need to approve any new use of the land. So-called alienation of parkland requires state legislation and, by Albany custom, sign-off by the local Assembly and Senate representatives. Cohen’s hurdle is Sen. Jessica Ramos, who has been cool to the plan but says she will decide by the end of the legislative session, June 6.
On Long Island, Las Vegas Sands and RXR reached an agreement for a 99-year lease of Nassau Coliseum last year. But the duo hit a bump recently when a state judge voided the agreement. Nassau County’s Planning Commission allegedly failed to properly notify the public of a meeting to discuss the lease, a violation of the state’s Open Meetings Law.
That mistake reset the timeline for the project and potentially opened the door for local opposition to get in the way of the lease. However, Nassau elected officials have been nearly unanimous in their support of the casino plan — a stark contrast to local politicians’ response to gambling in New York City.
The biggest challenge for most casino proposals is local opinion. Plenty of powerful local groups have voiced opposition to casino projects in their neighborhoods, though they are sometimes matched by similarly passionate supporters.
The process requires community support for a proposal to reach state regulators. Each locality will form a community advisory committee before voting on an application.
From there, the next step is for the State Gaming Commission to respond to questions from bidders, after which the application window will formally open…"
3 Likes