Tensions are rising over Hudson Yards’ casino proposal, as unions rallied on Thursday afternoon in support of the $12 billion project — while opponents released survey data revealing strong local opposition, citing obstructed views from the High Line and community concerns.
Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York President Gary LaBarbera and hundreds of union workers gathered outside the High Line’s main offices at 18th Street yesterday afternoon (Thursday) to voice their support of Related Company and Wynn Resort’s six million square foot development proposal.
“This is about your future,” LaBarbera told the crowd. “This city must continue to develop. If it does not develop, you don’t have a future.”
Workers from unions including Local 580 Iron Workers, Carpenters, Sheet Metal Workers Local 28, UA Plumbers Local 1, District Council 9 and more flooded the street in support.
Related and Wynn’s proposed casino complex features an 80-story tower housing a gaming facility, hotel and retail spaces on top of the Western Rail Yards (bw W31/33rd St and 11/12th Ave), next to office and residential buildings and a 5.6-acre park, comparable in size to Bryant Park. It’s also won the favor of former West Side Council Member and Women In Need Executive Director Christine Quinn.
Manhattan Community Board 4 (MCB4) has expressed strong opposition to Related’s plans submitted earlier this year, which are a far cry from the largely residential plan agreed upon in 2009. Originally, the site included 5,762 housing units (and no casino) — down to 1,507 in the updated proposal.
A campaign titled Protect The High Line, led by Friends of the High Line Executive Director Alan Van Capelle, opposes Related’s current proposal while supporting the 2009 plan, due to concerns that it would jeopardize iconic views of the NYC skyline from the park, 20% of which is located in the Western Rail Yards.
“Our concern is this massive development project, as currently proposed, was designed without any community input and would do permanent damage to the High Line,” Van Capelle wrote in an op-ed this week. “Design choices in the development plan for Hudson Yards West would severely and permanently block views of the city [and] shroud the High Line and other open spaces in shadows for most of the day.”
Related and Wynn released a video rendering of what the final development would look like at the end of August, which Protect the High Line said “confirms our worst fears.”
As LaBarbera sees it, Protect the High Line “are putting their elite attitudes in front of you and your family’s future.”
“F*** the shade!” chanted workers, in response to concerns about the development blocking views.
“We’re gonna fight against this tyranny of non-development in this city,” said LaBarbera. “We have to send a message, not only to these organizations but to the elected officials as well, that we will not support them, we will never leave them alone, until they support us and our futures.”
Vincent Alvarez, president of the New York City Central Labor Council, described Van Capelle and the High Line’s objections as an example of “NIMBYism.”
“We want to see development happen. We want to see the excuses stop,” he said. “We want to see housing being built. We want to see stores being built. We want to see hotels being built.”
Related and Wynn say the development would create 5,000 permanent union careers, along with 35,000 union construction jobs.
A Protect the High Line spokesperson said it is, in fact, the developers that are stopping development.
“We want the Western Rail Yards developed,” they said. “The Building Trades Council wants the Western Rail Yards developed. And that would be happening right now if Related and Wynn hadn’t secretly changed their original plans without community input. The Building Trades should be protesting Related for slowing down development with their changes that permanently harm the High Line and the community.”
Van Capell stressed in his op-ed that he is a former union organizer with the building services union, “so standing with workers fighting for good jobs comes naturally to me.”
“Words like NIMBY get thrown easily these days,” he added. “So I’ll repeat: we want to see the rail yards developed.”
Protect the High Line released results on Monday from a survey conducted in late September of “nearly 1,300 voters in the neighborhoods surrounding the High Line” that showed overwhelming opposition to Related’s plan.
According to the results, 56% percent of respondents are against the zoning changes Related would need to secure, compared to 24% in favor. Seventy percent believe that the proposed skyscrapers would harm neighboring communities.
Related and Wynn’s plans require zoning rule changes to be approved through the Uniform Land Use Review Process, which involves input from MCB4, the Manhattan Borough President and Councilmember Erik Bottcher before it is voted on by the City Council.
Local input about the choice of venue for a casino would come through a six-person Community Advisory Committee (CAC), which for local bids will consist of Governor Kathy Hochul, Mayor Eric Adams, Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, City Council Member Erik Bottcher, Assembly Member Tony Simone and Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine.
The Western Rail Yards is one of 11 sites where developers are vying to build casinos in New York City and neighboring counties — including three within or close to Hell’s Kitchen. The gaming companies are competing for three “downstate” casino licenses from the New York State Gaming Commission.
LaBarbera said at Thursday’s rally that he had met with local elected officials and plans to meet with more next week. W42ST contacted Assemblymember Tony Simone and State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal to ask about their position on the plan.
Councilmember Erik Bottcher told us on Thursday evening: “I am highly skeptical of any alterations to the existing zoning regulations and the potential reduction of housing units. As with any zoning change application, there will be an extensive public process that ensures all stakeholders have the opportunity to be heard.”
