By: Hal C. Clarke

In the heart of Manhattan’s Hudson Yards, a contentious battle brews over a proposed $12 billion casino complex, with civic leaders raising alarm bells over the sacrifice of promised housing in favor of a flashy gaming hub. Manhattan’s Community Board 4 (MCB4) recently penned a scathing letter to Related Companies/Wynn Resorts, the developers behind the ambitious project, criticizing the departure from a 2009 pledge to construct apartments on the West Side.

The proposed complex boasts an 80-story tower overlooking the Hudson River, set to accommodate a gaming facility and hotel, flanked by office buildings, apartment towers, and a 5.6-acre park, NY Post reported

MCB4’s letter, dated April 1, expresses bewilderment at the approval process undertaken by the Department and Commission of City Planning, accusing them of disregarding years of meticulous city planning and community input. The board decries the shift from residential to commercial use, emphasizing the detrimental impact on the neighborhood’s fabric and connectivity to surrounding areas. Furthermore, they question the validity of future zoning changes and agreements if existing plans can be discarded with impunity.

The existing plan for the Hudson Yards Special District, negotiated extensively in 2009, primarily emphasizes residential development, envisioning 5,700 apartments alongside integrated commercial spaces and public green areas connecting to the High Line Park. However, the proposed casino project drastically reduces the number of planned apartments to a mere 1,507, signaling a stark departure from the original vision. MCB4 contends that the proposed alterations prioritize commercial interests over community needs, resulting in an enclave catering to the casino’s demands rather than fostering integration with the neighborhood.

Jessica Chait, chairwoman of CB4, along with co-land use chairs Jean Daniel-Noland and Paul Devlin, underscore the necessity for developers to reconsider their priorities, suggesting a reevaluation of the project’s scale and allocation of space. They advocate for a reduction in the casino’s footprint, allocating the surplus area to residential buildings rather than towering office structures.

In response, a spokesperson for Related Companies asserts their commitment to collaborating with the Community Board and emphasizes forthcoming community benefits as part of their investment in the area. They assure that the project will uphold promises made in the original zoning, including provisions for affordable housing, ample green spaces, and educational facilities. However, concerns persist regarding the housing units sacrificed for the casino complex, which were intended to include market-rate and luxury options.

The fate of the proposed casino hinges not only on community support but also on state gaming regulators’ decisions regarding the allocation of up to three casino licenses in the New York City and downstate region. Each bid must undergo scrutiny from the State Gaming Facility Location Board, comprising local representatives and government officials, before receiving approval. Additionally, projects like the Wynn proposal must navigate the arduous Uniformed Land Use Review Procedure, involving various stages of community input and governmental review to amend zoning regulations.

Beyond the Hudson Yards project, several other contenders vie for the coveted casino licenses, each facing its unique set of challenges and opposition. From Steve Cohen’s bid near Citi Field to the Thor Equities consortium in Coney Island, the landscape of potential casino sites is rife with contention. Notably, proposals such as Cohen’s and Bally’s require legislative approval to convert parkland into commercial use, adding another layer of complexity to the approval process.