The Hudson Yard Dash

Staking a large portion of their financial future on real estate, the MTA recently revealed five design proposals for the Hudson Yards, which many might remember as the proposed location of an aborted new Jets stadium. The midtown Manhattan site is bordered by 33rd Street to the North, 30th Street to the South, 10th Avenue to the East and the Hudson River to the West. The Hudson Yards is easily the largest development site in Manhattan, and connects to countless other large-scale projects: the Westward extension of the 7 train, the Hudson Boulevard green corridor (running from 33rd street to 42nd street between 10th and 11th Avenues), the renovation or replacement of the Javits Convention Center, the seductive but slow-moving High Line re-development (one third of which lies in the Hudson Yards development area), and the expansion and reconstruction of Penn Station and Madison Square Garden.

The five Hudson Yards development proposals are on public display until December 3 in a small storefront space at 43rd Street and Vanderbilt Avenue (next to Grand Central Station). With posters, videos, models, pamphlets and representatives from each of the development firms, the atmosphere is that of an awkward sales pitch. This discomfort is made worse by the poor quality of the products being hawked: with a few exceptions, the proposals feature uninspired cookie-cutter architecture, speaking to the financial motives behind this project. As a sales rep from Related Companies explained, given its current financial situation, the MTA can’t afford to miss on this project. Cue the conservative aesthetics and corporate concessions: it’s like Ground Zero all over again, except without the public outcry motivated by the site’s symbolic weight.

Three of the least inspired proposals have a clear advantage right out of the gate for attaching a major corporate tenant to their project. The proposal by Related and Goldman Sachs enlists the star power of Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp., and ends up looking like an open-air mall for Mr. Murdoch’s various holdings to pedal their wares from. On the other hand, the presence of three contrasting architecture firms (Arquitectonica, KPF, Robert A. M. Stern) gives the proposal an aesthetic variety absent from many projects of this scale, though not entirely successful.

The partnership of Durst/Vornado – with Condé Nast enlisted as their major tenant – comes with a proposal whose layout is practically identical to the Related/Goldman Sachs entry, minus the apparent architectural eclecticism. Also, this is the only design that does away with a portion of the High Line. Architects FXFowle and Pelli Clarke Pelli have submitted what looks like an unusually tall and well-heeled suburban office park. The predominant glass-tower aesthetic wouldn’t seem so irresponsible if this project didn’t also involve creating a livable neighborhood from scratch – the proposals include between 3,000 and 7,000 housing units, a tokenistic percentage of which will be made permanently affordable.

The proposal by Tishman Speyer comes with the financial backing of Morgan Stanley – who would take up office at the site. To be fair, architect Helmut Jahn and landscape architect Peter Walker have at least come up with something distinctive and retro in their blatantly Modernist arrangement of rectilinear glass towers and heavily-paved public spaces. Retro-charm aside though, this proposal is mostly interesting because it’s not terrible – that doesn’t mean it’s good.

Brookfield Properties’ proposal is lacking a confidence-building corporate tenant, but has made up for it with an all-star team of architecture firms (Skidmore Owings + Merrill, Field Operations, and Diller Scofidio + Renfro among them). Their plan is architecturally spectacular (at least at this early stage), and keeps more of the street grid than any other, countering the suburbanizing tendencies such large-scale developments tend towards. On the other hand, it commits a mistake common to all the proposals to one degree or another: the systematic separation of office (on the East side of the site) and residential buildings (on the West side of the site). How can a neighborhood be safe and vibrant (and financially successful) if half of it is deserted after 6pm?

The most promising proposal comes from Extell Development and architect Steven Holl. Rather than following the other proposals and building a platform over the MTA rail yards – which have to remain operational throughout construction remember – Mr. Holl proposes a suspension bridge extending over the yards to be covered with a valley-shaped park. The plan’s buildings – whose diverse and unusual shapes are the most genuinely original of any proposal – would all lie on the Northern and Southern edges of the site, with offices, retail and residential interspersed throughout. Landscape architect Laurie Olin keeps the park space pleasantly open, with few of the glitzy corporate tie-ins and unnecessary public space gimmicks of the other proposals.

Whatever finally gets built, thankfully, it will likely look nothing like any of these proposals. At worst it will be a complete failure, an ugly office park next to some high-end condos with unused open space in between. At best, with some architectural daring and variety, as much of the street grid as possible, and successful integration with surrounding areas and development projects, an urban and economically integrated neighborhood will grow out of this all.

A similar version of this article appears on the New York Press blog, and can be found here.