Gothamist: West Side Railyards Are Worth $300 Million

January 31, 2005

West Side Railyards Are Worth $300 Million

Yesterday's Daily News story about the plans to foil the proposed Jets stadium, titled "Secret plan aims to foil new stadium" seems a little over the top, especially given news that the MTA is demanding $300 million for the land the Jets organization is eyeing for the new stadium. The $300 million figure is three times what the Jets would be willing to pay, and it seemed like the MTA was agreeable to that figure; Gothamist isn't sure if it was public pressure or actually realizing that the railyards were worth more or recent embarrassment over the way the MTA is run that made the agency reevaluate the appraisal. But back to the "secret plan": Assemblyman Richard Gottfried's office issued a memo "Hot to stop the stadium," including protests (supporting the Olympics bid but not a new stadium), using a number of lawsuits to stop the effort, and noting "We especially should organize a strategy for working with communities of color." Gottfreid's chief of staff said the memo wasn't meant for public distribution and rued, "I wish I had edited this."

Gothamist wants the proposed Jets Stadium stopped, but mostly because it's ugly. The NY Times' Bob Herbert wrote an anti-stadium op-ed that used the how can the city and state spend so much when there's no toilet paper in the schools and the stadium for 75,000 with no parking arguments. And here's the city's website for the Hudson Yards development.

By Jen Chung in News | Link | Comments (8) | Recommend this! |

Tags: Daily News, Gothamist, Hot, Hudson Yards, Jets, Jets Stadium, lawsuits, MTA, New York, New York Daily News, News, News: NYC, NY Times, Olympics, parking, schools, the city, The NY, The NY Times

Email This Entry

Advertisement: Gothamist Continues Below!

Comments (8)

[1] | 01/31/05 09:22AM

Regardless of whether of not there is a stadium, the MTA should sell the land at whatever the market will carry. To do less would be ridiculous especially in light of the money issues that the MTA is having.

Also, from the photo, it seems like the Yards are used Now to store trains. Where will they go? Will the MTA spend more money to make new yards? if the make new yards, will we see another example of NIMBY in action?

By Rose

[2] | 01/31/05 09:40AM

Trains. Trains near river. Trains in river.

By mike

[3] | 01/31/05 09:42AM

S.D. -- the trainyard and trains will stay where they are. The stadium (god forbid) or whatever else will be built on top of the trainyard.

[4] | 01/31/05 09:58AM

Thanks Mike, that's good to know.

Me, I've never been comfortable building over mass transit/Roadways. Every time I drive on the FDR Under the apartment buildings and hospitals, I get the feeling it's someday going to slide into the water. I'm not freaked out or anything like that, but I wonder how good can the air quality be in those buildings??

By D.W.

[5] | 01/31/05 11:20AM

Park Avenue north of Grand Central is built over MetroNorth tracks. Hasn't hurt housing prices there, any. ;)

By mike

[6] | 01/31/05 11:21AM

S.D -

Er, isn't much of the City built over mass transit.. ya know, the subway? ;)

By D.W.

[7] | 01/31/05 11:22AM

Park Avenue north of Grand Central is built over MetroNorth tracks. Hasn't hurt housing prices there, any. ;)

And, the MTA passed a development plan for the West Side rail yards in the 1980's. If the market were clammoring to develop the property, someone would have snatched it up already.

[8] | 01/31/05 12:06PM

LOL. Mike, Good point, but IMHO, the Underground subway looks like it won't fall into the sea.

Ever drive Under the Apartment buildings on the NY aproach to the Washington bridge? Driving there or on the FDR, I try to ignore the cracked cement on the walls and Cieling...
Even before 9/11 It just seems like a bad idea to me.

Only in the 80's? I thought I read that they were making plans in the 60's and 70's.