And Then There Were Four: Brookfield Out of West Side Rail Yards Race
Revised bids for the West Side rail yards were due today, and Brookfield Properties did not submit a response, leaving four of the city’s biggest developers in a battle for control of the 26-acre site west of Pennsylvania Station.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which owns the site, put out a statement a few minutes ago saying that the agency had received four revised proposals, with no bid from Brookfield. The timeline, which puts selection of a developer in April, remains the same, the MTA said.
Still standing after undoubtedly millions in expenses on the bid are Tishman Speyer, The Related Companies, Extell Development, and a joint venture of The Durst Organization and Vornado Realty Trust.
Brookfield spokeswoman Melissa Coley told us that the company indeed did not submit a revision to its original proposal, though it was committed to the development of the West Side. She also seemed to be leaving the door open for later involvement at the site, saying, “We hope to continue to have a dialogue with the MTA and the city.”
Brookfield also is planning a 5 million-square-foot development over rail yards a block to the east, with construction to start on a platform this summer. The company released renderings last week.
Brookfield, like Extell, did not have an anchor tenant in hand, a factor that likely would have made it a bit harder to persuade the MTA to give it the green light.
The firm received plaudits from many in the design community for ignoring the design guidelines for the site and installing a partial street grid in its plan.
North Haven
Envision a land encompassing 55 acres offering both sunrises and sunsets... . More details |
|
I am not surprised that someone is dropping out of the bid process at this point. I am surprised that Brookfield would drop out. Brookfield was quite certainly the public favorite in terms of an exciting design with multiple streets extending the Manhattan street grid with intricate sensitivity to pedestrian life. It also had the best treatment of the High Line creating an East West running High Line green space with free standing High Line that would have been exceptional when the summer sun set on the river.
When Brookfield announced a few weeks ago that it was breaking ground on its other project, also over the rail yards just to East (with only one intervening block), it seemed to be a hopeful indicator of Brookfield’s robustness, vigor and commitment to this area. Now it seems it should have been interpreted as something else: But what? What happened? The eastern development could have integrated with a Brookfield development of Atlantic Yards development in an exciting synergistic (street extending) way. All the more reason not to drop out.
The public certainly has legitimate overall concerns about the development of Hudson Yards, principally the backbreaking effort by government to cram density onto the site: see the sentiments about the Yards design that City Council Speaker Quinn, Senator Duane, Borough President Stringer and others expressed in their January 8, 2008 open letter to the MTA from the Hudson Yards Community Advisory Committee. (The density planned for the Yards, though greater is only slightly more than the overall significant increase in density planned for a widely surrounding area.)
With Brookfield dropping out, the Related Companies’ plan moves to the front as the best design from the standpoint of what the public appreciates. It partakes most of the qualities that made the Brookfield plan best. But it was a notch below the Brookfield plan. Therefore, the gap between what the public might want (see again the open letter to the MTA) and what the public is on track to get may have widened.
Let’s hope that Related has made revisions to its plan, for instance an improved handling of the East West running section of the High Line on the south of the Hudson Yards site so that Brookfield dropping out will not deprive us of too much potential public benefit.