All the information I use in this blog comes from this timeline written by Amy Plitt for Curbed NY and from this amazing piece written by Michael Kimmelman. I highly recommend a slow scroll-through of the NYT article- the graphics are fantastic and the writing is very well done.
When I was 14, I visited the High Line for the first time. Lifting my gaze from the sloping benches, modern art sculptures, and gawking tourists, I saw them. A hulking group of towers looming over the near skyline, their metal skeletons still visible above their incomplete glassy exteriors. At that moment, I did not recognize them for what they were, but I wondered about their purpose and when they would ever be completed.
Last week, I saw in the New York Times that the strangest of those buildings, an Escherian honeycomb called “Vessel,” was completed and open to the public. In fact, the whole complex was now sheathed in glass and accepting offers from prospective tenants who wished for a luxury lifestyle on the banks of the Hudson. What was this project, and how could such a lavish and ostentatious neighborhood simply be created atop a train depot? It turns out the story of Hudson Yards demonstrates how Bloomberg’s use of zoning helped bring to life his vision for the city.
According to Curbed NY, Hudson Yards was originally part of the Bloomberg administration’s bid for the 2012 Olympics. It was to house a massive stadium that would become the New York Jets’ home and would also include retail and housing. In the end, all the plans were rejected, save for the zoning changes, which quietly passed in 2009. All around the future site of Hudson Yards, Bloomberg served up prime real estate to build the High Line and its surrounding towers. Soon, the rights to the air above the LIRR train depot were bought and the project seen today began to take shape.
This neighborhood was created out of nothing by Bloomberg and capital. The former mayor pushed for a vision of New York he believed was the most important development the city has seen in a long time. Through the rezoning of the depot and the surrounding area, the entire character of this part of the city was irrevocably changed. Who determined what became of this fallow ground? Certainly not New Yorkers. The air rights being sold to private developers meant that private capital determined how the towers looked and how the requirement for 50% open space was met. They created a space-age offshoot, a Jetson village with none of the show’s domicile joviality . Reading the descriptions of the apartments on Hudson Yards’ website is an exercise in disgust. At a moment when New York is in perhaps its worst housing crisis, does the city really need another four massive towers advertised as the finest in luxury living? New York is not Dubai. Though it is indeed a temple to capitalism, it is also an organic space, where people have flocked to participate in the dance of business and created a culture of urban interactions. Contriving this space into pretentious Instagram bait, claiming public access to an area shadowed by private dwellings, and even creating separate entrances for premium and subsidized tenants are all decisions not made in the best interest of New York.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/57443043/jetsons.0.jpg)
According to New York Times architectural critic Michael Kimmelman, Hudson Yards implies “the peak ambitions of city life [are] consuming luxury goods and enjoying a smooth, seductive, mindless materialism.” There was very little public opposition to the rezoning of Hudson Yards. Distracted by the previous plans for a stadium and the failed Olympic bid, as well as the fact that no existing neighborhood was being razed, Bloomberg skated through the process of wasting an opportunity to create an equitable space that better prepared New York for the economic problems that began in 2008 and still linger today.
This story has a more subtle connection to zoning and power because of how little opposition there was, but the truth is that rezoning created the opportunity for private capital to swoop in and impose this behemoth upon New York.
To be honest, I was aware that Hudson Yards was under construction for years, but I never really thought about what it was going to turn into. All I knew about it was that it was the last stop on the 7 train and right by the High Line. So when I heard about its grand opening a couple weeks ago, I was surprised (but not really surprised) to see that construction was almost complete, and that the area was being turned into one of “culture, commerce and cuisine,” according to the Hudson Yards official website.
My first thought when I saw the new Hudson Yards was “What is THAT?” in reference to the Vessel. I’ll admit it definitely looks interesting and I’ll probably be one of those people trying to get a nice Instagrammable picture when I go visit it, but another thought I had was, “Why was this built? Is this really necessary?” You also wrote in your blog similar thoughts to mine when you noted New York’s housing crisis and questioned whether or not the massive towers of Hudson Yards was something the city really needed. And in my opinion, I don’t think they are necessary.
While it does help create jobs for people and adds to the beauty and image of New York City, I feel like that’s all it really does. Before becoming what it is now, Hudson Yards was just a space that was basically abandoned after failed attempts of winning the Olympic bid and building a new stadium for New York’s sports teams. But rather than building more affordable housing units, which is something the city actually NEEDS, it was decided by city officials to build up an area that only adds onto the gentrification of the city.
In Chapter 9 of Professor Larson’s Building Like Moses With Jacobs in Mind, he writes about Amanda Burden, the appointed director of the Department of City Planning and chair of the New York City Planning Commission under Bloomberg, who spearheaded the revitalization of the High Line. Burden argued that the High Line plan was “not just about creating an ‘iconic’ and ‘world class’ public space… but also about enhancing real estate values and catalyzing development along Manhattan’s Far West Side” (Burden 2009, as cited in Building Like Moses With Jacobs in Mind, pg. 135). To me, it seems as though this was the same mindset that city officials had when deciding what to do with Hudson Yards. While they may argue that they were thinking of the people when deciding to create this public (but not truly public) space, they were really thinking of how they could make more money and how they could further develop New York City’s image.
This was great! But it’s sad that I’m not at all surprised at New York is a “bastion of Materialism.” New York City is this grand outlandish place with massive structures constructed to lure people. It a hub for tourism, a city of over-the-top productions and constructions open to the “public.” But those who constitute the so-called “public” diminish more and more. Structures are built not to benefit people of New York but to attract money. We’ve seen it the Highline, this floating art exhibit that mimics a park but one devoid of children playing. Bloomberg was an avid supporter of the Highline, and commissioned millions of private dollars for green space, so much that many feared whether or not this new park can be sustained. Bloomberg helped to raise over $150 million to begin construction. It is a place of affluence, for those that have the downtime and status to enjoy this prescribed public space with all of is rules and stipulations. And with great money comes great gentrification, as those areas change to accommodate the wealth they become overrun with. It’s a not so public, public space. And the mammoth undertaking that is Hudson Yard is just another in the long line of privatization of the public.
One article in New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/hudson-yard-billionaires-fantasy-city.html) likened it to Oz, this foreign golden land Dorothy found herself in. Hudson Yards has become something out of a sci-fi movie, described by the author has bizarre and aloof, unlike the welcoming NY we assume. And I think it’s naive to think that this place is in any way inclusive. This conglomeration of wealth is made solely for the wealthy. Most of it is privately opened public space, that lures you in with a false sense of democracy and openness only for you to find yourself bound under the owner’s stipulations. And at its core is this behemoth metal structure the author aptly describes as a stair case to nowhere, that gives a facade of public space. In a city of makeshift chairs found in the form of the steps of the Met and New York Public Library or the red staircase in the center of Times Square, in a city of places meant for interactions, this metal structure is a stark contrast. This network of staircases doesn’t allow for loitering, it is essentially an amusement ride complete with a ticket and a time limit. And tickets are sold-out for the next couple weeks. (https://tickets.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/webstore/shop/viewitems.aspx?cg=VesselTix&C=VesselAdm)
It is a beautiful fantasy, a place of exuberance and art and beauty but only for those who can afford it.
Hey Yoni,
You raise very legitimate points about the lack of productivity present at the Hudson Yards site before this development. I appreciate the research here, and agree that Hudson Yards will provide jobs and opportunities to engage those outside of the super-rich. In a city like New York, where space is such a rare commodity, Hudson Yards certainly needed development. However, the crux of the problem lies not in the current economic benefits from tourism, finance, etc. that the developers promised to provide, but in the top-down way this was implemented. Related, the company that bought the air rights to the Yards, was given a broad and ambiguous mandate to create a district full of vitality. Two problems then arise from what Hudson Yards has become:
1) Does it provide for New York’s needs? It can seem like a good thing that Hudson Yards provides 10% affordable housing, but why not 50%? Why not 75%? Why is it so easy to erect luxury towers when creating affordable dwellings require “lengthy negotiations?” Of course, I understand why Related has an economic incentive to favor one over the other, but what about New York? Does New York really need more vacant penthouses for foreign billionaires to dump capital?
2) Will the economic benefits be real? One study by the New School, mentioned in Kimmelman’s article, I believe, shows that much of “heavy-lifting” business, like finance and media, will simply be moving from Midtown to Hudson Yards. Key examples of this are CNN and BlackRock. So new money won’t necessarily be coming from Hudson Yards, but money will be shifting from location to location.
I believe Hudson Yards has a good chance of taking hold and becoming a money earner for the city in the long run. It is most certainly a glamorous place and promises to be a fun one, even if just for window shopping or people watching. However, my deep concern lies in what might have been had Jacobian policy been honored in more than name alone.
Convincing writing, Dan, both by Michael Kimmelman and you. I think that a negative outlook on the Hudson Yards project is justified, primarily on the grounds that a good portion of its function – such as the super-luxury apartment housing and shopping centers it will house – is geared towards the very, very rich. Also, it really does stand out on the New York City skyline – in a way that, after reading what you wrote, I can only describe as showy. But I think that to view the complex primarily through this lens doesn’t capture the whole picture.
One matter of note is that slightly more than 10 percent of the apartments to be built there will be subsidized housing units. which came as a result of “lengthy negotiations with community groups, elected officials and the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn” back when the rezoning was passed a decade ago. (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/nyregion/22hudson.html) The public was made a promise as a result of community engagement with the large developers, and it is being kept, as Kimmelman describes in his article. That’s a big step from Robert Moses’ more authoritarian way of building things.
Another is that the entire complex, which at the end is to cost $25 billion in total, is estimated to bring in roughly $20 billion dollars per year to New York City’s economy (https://www.related.com/sites/default/files/2019-03/acquiadam-assets/relatedcorporate-news-05-2017-Politico-HudsonYards-economic-impact.pdf ). Bloomberg has helped transform a basically defunct “Nowhereland” into hundreds of billions of dollars for New York City’s economy in the coming years. It will employ 55,000 people annually — not just hedge fund managers and private equity firm employees, but also retail workers, construction workers, and many others who don’t fit really into the picture of Hudson Yards’ plastic glamourousness.
I’m not wholly defending the project, but the economic benefits to New York seem noteworthy to me and exciting to New York at large. Kimmelman sees the Hudson Yards as an implication that New York City is, at its heart, a bastion of materialism. I think that’s a narrow-minded view, but I do sympathize with it. Hudson Yards is definitely ostentatious on the surface (and also in its interior), but it is not simply that in its essence. It has super-luxury brands like Fendi and Dior. It has ridiculously expensive apartments. It will also house stores for brands like Zara and H&M. It also has hundreds of subsidized housing units. The fact that these were incorporated shows that the project is not saying that New York is a place that glorifies being super-rich beyond all other values: a growing economy is valuable to people all over the wealth spectrum. And this project is a major economic boost to New York’s economy, a place where the dance of business can grow and flourish, and from which New Yorkers well outside the 0.1 percent can benefit. I have to admit, I may be missing a lot of the picture here, but that seems to me like something New Yorkers can be excited about.