Talk:Hudson Yards, Manhattan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ambiguity of the name[edit]

I think this issue has been brought up. Hudson Yards, by itself, could refer to

  • the real-estate development that is happening over the West Side Yards, of which Related/Oxford would be working on
  • the project that Related/Oxford is working on that lies beyond the West Side Yards, as 50 and 55 Hudson Yards are located on terra firma
  • the rezoning plan during the Bloomberg administration that goes by the same name

So what exactly does the title refer to?

I'm going to create a disambiguation page for "Hudson Yards" H-Man (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title "Hudson Yards" mostly refers to the neighborhood and rezoning plan on the development, while the project(s) have "project" appended to it. I have noted such on the page. Epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell those at 28th and 7th that they are in the "Hudson Yards Neighborhood." They'd love to hear the news. -Someone who spends 50 hours a week overlooking 33rd and 10th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.20.154 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redevelopment area. The name is rarely used for that wider area, but applied to a general wider area that includes Penn Station. Signed, someone who goes to the general area for 50 hours a week. epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still conflicted re: whether it's referring to the related/xfrd project or the redevelopment as a whole. I am going to take steps to make this article refer more to the redevelopment as a whole, and, depending on my attention span I may also start an article about the related project as well.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the title seems to indicate this article is going to be about the ill-defined "neighborhood" of Hudson Yards, which it's not.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article needs to be moved. Possibly to "Hudson Yards redevelopment project" (in the spirit of the article's current content) or to "Special Hudson Yards District" (in the spirit of the article's currently geography-focused name).--MainlyTwelve (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump Connection[edit]

If I am remembering this right, while I was living in the City, Donald Trump tried to buy this property at around the time he bought the Plaza Hotel, sometime in the early 1990's. He wasn't able to hold onto the project (might have paid too much for one thing). I don't see a syllable about this in the article; in fact, there is nothing before 2005 in the history section. Shocking Blue (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems now would be the time for the inclusion with the hub bub underway on everything Trump. The Manhattan real estate dealing scrub down will commence as he marches toward the Presidency. Leave no stone unturned, will be the mantra. --Wikipietime (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shocking Blue and Wikipietime:, there is absolutely nothing about this on the Internet. I guess Riverside South is what is being referred to. The reason why there is not a single syllable about before 2005 is because Hudson Yards didn't even exist until the late 2000s. epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not verifiable, so not included. This isn't Hudson Yards we're talking about anyway. (And hint: his joke of a presidential candidate has nothing to do with any development that happened.) epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming....any and everything Trump was remotely connected too...and the assemblage of HY is one of those touchstones..--Wikipietime (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any sources for this relating to Trump, but only because HY is not related to him (the area and the train yard might have been). epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vosluminous amounts of innuendo and speculation of Trump's mobster ties are erupting in the general media. A section containing verifiable connections with those who have been incarcerated is needed.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dastardly omission of dotard Trump from this story has now been corrected. User:Pamela Miller (talk) 4 Nov 2017

Infobox[edit]

Can the infobox be completed with the gross leasable area and no. of workers? Doblecaña (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hudson Yards, Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hudson Yards, Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hudson Yards, Manhattan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merged from Hudson Yards (development)[edit]

I have merged this article with Hudson Yards (development). These articles are basically talking about the same topic with minor differences (this article has a slightly wider scope as it also talks about the rezoning district, but otherwise is the same). Moreover, this page had more than ten times as many views as the other one. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you merge the two articles before any discussion? This article is about an area of Manhattan that will have 50 million square feet of development. The rail yard development will contain 18 million square feet, one-third of the total. Yet it seems that the main focus of this article is the rail yard development project and how all the other development is merely an appendage to that. The difference between the scales of development is not "slight," as you claim. It is too confusing to discuss in detail both scales of development in the same article and always has been. That's why MainlyTwelve separated them two months ago. The two scales of development should have remained separated. If the material in this article concerning the rail yard development overlapped the description in the separate article, then the details should have been reduced rather than the two articles merged. Pamela Miller

I agree, I'd support separating them again. They are not coterminous and having this article address both makes it seem that they are.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd taken a hiatus from editing the merged article, but it was far from finished.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion isn't necessarily required to merge an article. Per WP:BOLD, editors are encouraged to be proactive when making a major edit (unless of course it is controversial). And since it has a potential to be a controversial edit, I started this discussion as a courtesy. epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we have the urge to merge, maybe we should restore the Hudson Yards (Development) page and then merge into it the now separate pages for each of the individual buildings of that development.Pamela Miller (talk)

Maybe, although I do think the development merits an article of its own.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you restore the development article, I'll transfer the details that don't belong on the current page. Maybe the title of the current page should be "Hudson Yards District" to avoid confusion.
Actually, in the case the article is split again, this article should be about the development, but what you both are proposing is the wrong way around. I suggest that this page can moved back to Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project (which was the original title of this article). It's the special district that should be split to another article.
Though I don't think the special district is all that notable. The special district was what made the development possible, but it was only added to this article later. Besides, it's not a real neighborhood (like the Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning, which doesn't have an article of its own because it's also not a neighborhood). In my view, if we were to split, the zoning district can be briefly mentioned in the development article, and there should be an article about the special district's history, boundaries, component projects, and list of tallest buildings. In any case we should get more feedback before you decide to split, or not. epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article entitled "Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project" was originally about redevelopment of the larger area. It was not simply about a rezoning, which, as you say, is not notable in itself. The Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project is unique because it is a major redevelopment program consisting of rezoning; construction of a subway; construction of other infrastructure including parks and schools; expansion of the Javits Center; creation of affordable housing; restricted parking and a program to finance the infrastructure, including the subway, to which all of the development contributes. It is an ongoing and potentially evolving project guided by a dedicated city-owned corporation and staff, and will eventually contain 50 million square feet of development, some of which is listed in the table in this article.

The article was initiated in 2005 just after the project was approved. Redevelopment of the area started almost immediately, as you can see from the table. A description of the rail yard development project was not merged into this article until six years later, and now dominates (see revision of September 3, 2011 and notice at top of this page). The rail yard project clearly deserves an article of its own, and MainlyTwelve was in the process of creating one. I think he should continue and details of the rail yard development that are distracting and confusing if included in this article should be transferred to the new article. (At the risk of being slightly pedantic, the rail yard project is best characterized as a development project, rather than a redevelopment project, since it is a new project where none existed before and the rail use remains.)

I see your points. It seems that the West Side rail yard development (and its immediate surroundings, too) is the main development in the rezoned area, hence why much of the article is devoted to the development. However, most uses of "Hudson Yards" nowadays are about the rail yard development and the buildings immediately surrounding it. Most of the links to "Hudson Yards" point to this article anyway. That's why the special district, in my opinion, should be the article that should be split off, because most viewers search for the rail-yard development and its immediate surroundings.
Moreover, some of the developments immediately surrounding the rail yards were included in the Hudson Yards master plan as well. Thus, something like Hudson Park and Boulevard is relevant to the rail-yard development and 50/55 Hudson Yards, even though it's not located over the rail yard itself. These should be kept in the article about the rail-yard development for context.
On the other hand, some of the skyscrapers east of 10th Avenue or north of Lincoln Tunnel portal are not relevant to the development but are still part of the Hudson Yards special district. These are the portions that should be split off. epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "most uses of 'Hudson Yards' nowadays are about the rail yard development and the buildings immediately surrounding it." The term "Hudson Yards" was invented by the City in 2003 to apply to its proposed redevelopment plan and project. After project approval in 2005 the City set up a Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corporation and a Hudson Yards Development Corporation to effectuate the project. Those corporations, which carry the name "Hudson Yards," meaning the larger area, are active today and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
The more recent use of the term "Hudson Yards" to refer to The Related Companies' real estate development is the result of a well-funded marketing campaign. At the time the rail yard went to bids in 2007, the property was universally known as the MTA's West Side Yard. At some point prior to 2010, when the lease was re-negotiated, Related decided appropriate the name "Hudson Yards" to use in its marketing campaign. The official name of its subsidiary is Related Hudson Yards. Maybe we should use that name for an article about the Related's real estate developments. But I don't see why a marketing ploy should be accepted whole by Wikipedia, while displacing the city's own name for its redevelopment project.
The reason that a large part of this article is devoted to Related's development is that someone merged the the article about Related's development into this article in 2011 when both articles were short. As development proceeded, both for the Related development and for the larger area, details of both were added. It is now time for Related's development to be separate again. Pamela Miller (talk)
@Pamela Miller: I understand the history of the development. Thanks for telling me about the fact that these articles were merged. However, I still think the Related rail-yard development is the primary topic. As per the page WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the rail-yard development should be the main topic, and should be moved to the title Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project to preserve the page history. Most internal links referring to this development are to the "Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project" title, which redirects here. The rezoned area could be split into Hudson Yards, Manhattan, but only after the article has been moved to the title about the redevelopment project. Otherwise, the page history would be skewed, because most of the edits over the past five years have been about the rail-yard development. epicgenius (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the rail yard development is the primary topic. The article was originally about the entire, larger area and the larger area by definition includes the rail yard development as a component. Other components such as the subway, the Javits Center, the linear park, and eventually the buildings that will line both sides of the linear park all have at least equal weight to the rail yard development and together have a much larger size overall. I don't agree that most of the edits over the past five years were about the rail yard development, since I made a large proportion of them and all of mine were about the larger area. I'm not much concerned about the history page, but I do think that the title "Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project" belongs with the City and State program as it was from 2005, when the article was initiated, until 2016. To my mind the current title "Hudson Yards, Manhattan" better fits Related's Hudson Yards development, although that title could be changed to "Hudson Yards Development," etc. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "if there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at 'Is there a primary topic?' there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term." That may be the best way to resolve our current dilemma. Pamela Miller (talk)

I personally think the best solution would be to re-separate the articles and direct readers to a trimmed version of the current disambig page.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is, remove the "properties" section currently on the disambig page.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamela Miller: I meant that the Related development is the primary topic for the "Hudson Yards, Manhattan" title, not the "Hudson Yards" title without any disambiguator after it. "Hudson Yards" should definitely redirect to the disambiguation page Hudson Yards (disambiguation). @MainlyTwelve: This sounds like more trouble than what it's worth. Readers want to be directed to an article, not to a disambiguation page. If the two articles are re-separated, one of the articles should stay at this title (to preserve the page history), and the other would be split to a new title. epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good...in that case I'd be in favor of the discussed "Hudson Yards (development)" and "Hudson Yards Special District" (or something similar) respectively.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: Wanted to keep you in the loop as you previously reverted my name change.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reaching out. I largely concur with epicgenius here that the development of the rail yard is the primary topic here. As structured into two separate articles, there will inherently be substantial overlap and confusion between the two. I do understand that there are formal names for these projects, but they are little known by the readers at large. Alansohn (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most laypeople will be initially confused, but I think the ledes and titles of the respective articles can be adjusted to help remedy this problem, especially when paired with a clear disambig disclaimer at the top of the two pages. As far as the content of the articles is concerned, I'm convinced they can be reworked to be meaningfully distinct. I think the separation would mostly have to do with removing rail yard content from the proposed "Hudson Yards Special District" article. I'll also refloat the disambig idea from @Pamela Miller: as a potential solution, although if both epicgenius and Alansohn feel strongly about not going that route I won't float it again.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal, more explicitly, is for two articles:
  • "Hudson Yards Special District" (or something similarly named): This article would address the history of the west side and provide an overview of all the current developments, including the Related dev. It could also provide an overview of the gradual emergence of the area as a new neighborhood in Manhattan, which the NYT has covered a bit.
  • "Hudson Yards (development)" or simply "Hudson Yards": This article would address the history of the rail yard site specifically, the Related development, and adjacent Related developments.

--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MainlyTwelve about the division of the article and with epicgenius that the rail yard project can retain the current page. The title can be the current "Hudson Yards, Manhattan" or the title of the page started by MainlyTwelve, "Hudson Yards (development)" that was merged into this page.

In that case the larger city/state redevelopment program should be moved to a new page using the previous "Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project" title. The term Special District is too restrictive as it refers to the zoning district, while the Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project extends beyond that to encompass a larger financing district and the Javits Center. Pamela Miller (talk)

That sounds good, I won't modify my previous statement but I agree the articles should be titled "Hudson Yards (Manhattan)" or "Hudson Yards (development)" and "Hudson Yards Redevelopment project" respectively. @Alansohn: @Epicgenius: what are your thoughts?--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Hudson Yards (development)" for the immediate area around the Related project, and "Hudson Yards Redevelopment" for the redevelopment in general sounds good. epicgenius (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I believe I'll have time tomorrow to begin migrating the content and changing article name(s) provided none of you have any objections. Thanks to everyone for the input and help.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Please do. Pamela Miller (talk)

I do think all of the links to this article have to be reviewed, so they point to the correct article. epicgenius (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Starting the work now. The basic redirect / copy pasting of text as stands should be done by 11:00am my time. I can review links as well.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MainlyTwelve: This copy paste is messing up the page history. Let me fix it. I'm pretty sure the history of Hudson Yards, Manhattan is supposed to go to Hudson Yards Redevelopment. epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

OK, fixed. Here's the sequence:

As of 20:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC):

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hudson_Yards,_Manhattan&oldid=1207661568"