Inside the plan for a new Hudson Yards with apartments, offices — but no casino

It's a full house — just no casino.
The New York City Council unanimously signed off Wednesday on a rezoning plan to supercharge Hudson Yards with thousands of new apartments, office towers and a sprawling park — after booting the controversial casino that once threatened to roll in.
Wynn Resort backed out of the $12 billion project last month citing 'persistent opposition' during the rezoning process.
But Wynn's former developer partner, Related Companies, kept working on a redevelopment plan, including with Councilmember Erik Bottcher, who represents New York City's Third District.
'Thousands of new residents will help Hudson Yards become the vibrant, 24/7 community it was meant to be — full of life, energy, and opportunity, day and night,' Bottcher said.
The Democrat said the project to transform the open tracks of the western rail yards could add as many as 4,000 units of new housing, including 625 permanently affordable apartments. The deal marks one of the 'most significant expansions of Manhattan's housing stock in decades,' Bottcher said.
Renderings shared with The Post show two gleaming towers, sleek commercial space and a sprawling public lawn.
The redevelopment will transform the western rail yards with new green space, a school and thousands of new homes.
Related Companies
'And, importantly, this plan does not include a casino — it puts housing, jobs, and community first,' Bottcher said.
A rendering of the new complex shows a street-level view looking east on West 30th street.
Related replaced the casino with luxury offices and a residential hotel.
A new recreational park in the development will now be 6.6 acres instead of the initial proposal of 5.6 acres. The new greenspace will include at least one acre of lawn.
The redevelopment will include a new public school and a daycare center.
'This project will deliver not just housing, but a neighborhood,' Bottcher said.
The entire Hudson Yards project is valued at $32 billion, making it the largest real estate development in US history, according to a press release from Mayor Eric Adams office Tuesday.
'With the historic agreement, we will finally bring this decades-long project to life and build thousands of new homes for New Yorkers in the heart of Manhattan,' Adams said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

UPI

6 hours ago

• UPI

Supreme Court OKs challenge to California stricter emission standards

1 of 2 | Electric cars sit on a Tesla parking lot in Fremont, Calif. (May 2020). Fossil fuel companies can challenge California's stricter standards to reduce pollution from vehicles, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday. File Photo by Terry Schmitt/UPI | License Photo June 20 (UPI) -- Fossil fuel companies can challenge California setting stricter emissions standards for cars, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday. California has stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035, with a phased increase in ZEV requirements for model years 2026-2035. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a fleet-wide average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, with higher standards in the following years. In the 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that oil producers have legal standing to sue over California's clean car standards approved by the U.S. EPA. Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices. "This case concerns only standing, not the merits," Kavanaugh wrote in the 48-page opinion that included two dissents. "EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA's approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers' challenge to EPA's approval of the California regulations is evident." The Clean Air Act supersedes state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California. Other states can copy California's stricter standard. The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia. The EPA, when Barack Obama was president, granted a waiver for California, but President Trump partially withdrew it during his first term. When Joe Biden became president in 2021, the EPA reinstated the waiver with the tougher emissions. Last week, Trump signed a bi-partisan congressional resolution to rescind California's electric vehicle mandate. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called this move illegal and will sue over this order. "You couldn't buy any other car except an electric-powered car, and in California, they have blackouts and brownouts," Trump said last week. "They don't have enough electricity right now to do the job. And, countrywide, you'd have to spend four trillion dollars to build the firing plants, charging plants." Gasoline and other liquid fuel producers and 17 Republic-led states sued, arguing California's regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars. The lead plaintiff was Diamond Alternative Energy, which sells renewable diesel, an alternative to traditional petroleum-derived diesel. Valero Energy Corp. also joined in the suit. Automakers were involved in the case. California lawyers argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff's injury. The EPA said consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California's mandate and hence the regulations wouldn't have an impact. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit. "If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?" Kavanaugh wrote. "The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell." Sotomayor and Jackson separately wrote the case may become moot. "I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below," Sotomayor wrote. She said she would have sent the case back to the lower court to look at the issue again. Jackson said her colleagues weren't applying the standing doctrine evenhandedly and it can erode public trust in judges. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent," Jackson wrote. The ruling does not prevent California and other states from enforcing standards, Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian. "The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money," Patton said. "While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself."

Miami Herald

6 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Why a Miami lawmaker was one of just two votes against Florida's state budget

When Florida lawmakers finally landed on a finalized budget after over a month of debate and infighting, nearly everyone in the Legislature voted yes — except for two House Democrats. One of them was Dotie Joseph, a term-limited state representative from North Miami who represents Florida's 108th House District. She took issue with a number of budget items, adding that since she has just a year and half left in office, she is especially careful to endorse things that benefit her district. She said a lack of funding for affordable housing and cuts to hundreds of vacant positions were major sticking points for her. The other 'no' vote was Rep. Angie Nixon, a Jacksonville Democrat who cited similar concerns. Lawmakers touted a slimmer budget this year, managing to slash $3.5 billion in an attempt to mirror the Trump administration's efforts to cut down on federal government spending and brace for a possible economic downturn. Still, the Florida budget has swelled by more than 26% since Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, took office in 2019, outpacing population increases and often inflation rates. For Joseph, the state's priorities didn't add up, especially when it comes to affordable housing. State-sponsored efforts to encourage affordable housing development through the Housing Finance Corporation saw major cuts. They amounted to a loss of $223.8 million in areas like the State Apartment Incentive Loan program and the State Housing Initiatives Partnership, as well as the Hometown Heroes program that provides down-payment assistance to first time home buyers. In the current budget proposal, Miami-Dade County does receive $3 million for its own individual affordable housing project, but that doesn't make up the difference, Joseph said. Almost 60% of renters in the greater Miami area are cost-burdened, meaning they spend at least 30% of their monthly income on housing, according to a 2023 Census Bureau survey — the most of any metropolitan area in the country. 'I don't approve of that [the cuts] at a time where we need it quite a bit,' Joseph said. Meanwhile, state and local immigration enforcement got a major boost, including an offer of a $1,000 bonus per officer for any local law enforcement office that agrees to work directly with ICE. The Legislature set aside $3 million for the program this year. The city of Miami controversially voted to enter into the agreement earlier this week. And DeSantis' Florida State Guard, a separate entity from the National Guard made up of volunteers that he has sole control over, nearly doubled its funding to $36.5 million. The guard was not active until 2022, when it was revived to respond to 'man-made and natural disasters,' according to its website. But officials have also discussed its revival in the context of aiding law enforcement with riots and illegal immigration. It has faced controversy in the past for its militaristic training. Those enforcement-based focuses did not align with Joseph's vision for the state budget, she said. She thinks the money could have gone toward state employee salaries rather than slashing 1,700 vacant positions across a variety of departments, the current solution on the table. The positions are empty because the state doesn't pay enough, she said, not because they're unnecessary. 'It doesn't mean that the need goes away,' Joseph said. 'So we just cut the positions? No, you address what the underlying issue is.' She also listed a variety of other issues. The per-student allocation in the education budget, though it was raised, hasn't kept up with inflation. The Florida Forever program, meant to acquire lands for conservation, took a $500 million hit. Though the state's Medicaid reimbursement rate for retirement homes was increased, there are other home healthcare options that don't have reimbursement options. There are some things she takes as a win, like $10 million set aside for sickle cell research and a 2% statewide employee pay raise, which is 'not always the case,' she said. And the cuts she's disappointed in could have been worse, she said. House speaker Rep. Danny Perez, a Miami Republican, was initially pushing for nearly $6 billion in cuts in the House's initial proposal. Those would have targeted what Joseph sees as essential health and human services. 'If this came down to my one vote that would make it pass or fail, I might have voted in favor of it,' Joseph said. 'There are a lot of good things in the budget that I argued for, fought for and even got appropriations for. But because my vote was not critical, I saw no need to vote yes when there are things I absolutely, vehemently object to.'

Yahoo

6 hours ago

• Yahoo

Longshot NYC mayoral candidate Michael Blake gets $2 million in matching funds on eve of primary

NEW YORK — Mayoral candidate Michael Blake has secured $2 million in public matching funds approved by the city's Campaign Finance Board — a significant but belated cash infusion for the longshot campaign. With just five days left in the primary race, the new cash influx likely comes too late for Blake, a former Bronx assemblyman, to mount a competitive campaign or significantly raise his profile. But Blake said the new funds mean his 'name will resonate across the city over the final five days' and mentioned get out the vote efforts and field operations targeting undecided voters. He declined to give specifics. 'We have days to close the deal,' Blake told the Daily News. 'Now we can make it clear to voters — you still have a choice. Especially to Black and brown voters, Michael Blake is a choice for you.' The decision comes after the Democrat sued the CFB for its refusal to allow him to participate in the second and final mayoral debate last week. The board in late May ruled that Blake would not be participating in the debate because he hadn't met the fundraising threshold to qualify for it, and a Manhattan Supreme Court justice backed up their decision. Blake's campaign argued in their suit that he had, in fact, met that threshold, and that the CFB's system errors mistakenly made it seem that he hadn't. The candidate garnered some attention with a lively performance at the first debate at the start of June, and climbed onto some endorsement slates after State Sen. Jessica Ramos, another mayoral candidate all but removed herself from consideration when she endorsed Ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo. He also cross-endorsed Zohran Mamdani earlier this week as part of a broader attempt to block Cuomo from the mayoralty. Blake received 2% of the vote in a recent Marist poll.