Hudson Yards Drops Casino Bid in Face of Political Opposition
The developer of Hudson Yards has pulled out of the heated competition to bring a full-fledged casino to New York City.
The developer, Related Companies, said on Monday that a casino would no longer anchor its plans for Manhattan's Far West Side and that it would instead just build thousands of units of new housing on the site near the Hudson River.
The new proposal calls for the construction of up to 4,000 residences on top of the second half of the sprawling development, a 28-acre neighborhood on top of an active rail yard that connects Penn Station with tunnels under the Hudson River. Most of the housing units would be apartments, and at least 400 of them would be rented below market rate. It would include a 6.6-acre park.
The announcement followed a statement released earlier in the day by Wynn Resorts, the casino operator partnering with Related, that it, too, was pulling out of the project. It cited the intractability of Manhattan politics.
Their decision came in the face of steadfast opposition to the casino by the local councilman, Erik Bottcher, and highlighted the structural difficulties in building in New York City, a challenge heightened by the unique politics of casino development.
'Something as significant as a casino in a community requires substantial community buy-in,' Mr. Bottcher said. 'That didn't exist here.'
The decision to withdraw comes just less than a month after Las Vegas Sands withdrew its own proposal to build a casino just over Long Island's border with Queens, in Nassau County. Both decisions stand to benefit the remaining casino operators who are still competing for one of up to three licenses in and around New York City. Formal bids for the casinos are due in June, with a decision by the state expected by the end of the year.
Remaining bidders include SL Green Realty Corporation and Caesars Entertainment, which want to build a casino in Times Square; the New York Mets owner, Steve Cohen, and Hard Rock International, who want to build a casino near the baseball stadium in Queens; Bally's, which wants to put a casino in the Bronx; and the World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein, who is working with Rush Street Gaming and Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment to build a casino in Manhattan.
To put a casino in Hudson Yards, Related Companies and Wynn would have needed City Council approval to change the area's zoning, and the Council typically defers to the local member on land-use decisions. That approval was not forthcoming.
In a statement, a Wynn spokesman, Michael Weaver, said the company had better uses for its capital 'than investing in an area in which we, or any casino operator, will face years of persistent opposition despite our willingness to employ 5,000 New Yorkers.'
The casino proposal was part of a mixed-use development that would have included apartments, office space and a school. The deal the developers have struck with Mr. Bottcher eliminates the casino, adds more apartments than would have been built under the original casino proposal and allows for more office development than the original deal that Related Companies struck with the city in 2009. The earlier casino plan included 1,500 housing units, but Related recently offered to build up to 4,000 residences, in an effort to appease critics.
The latest iteration, however, would produce less housing than Related had promised in 2009, years before it broke ground on Hudson Yards, the largest private real estate project in United States history.
The company planned to separate the site into two sections: office skyscrapers, a large, luxury mall and condominium towers on one half, which opened in 2019, and up to 5,700 residences, a park and a school on the other half. The entire site would have included 431 below-market units.
But the second half of the development stalled. Related faced rising costs to build a platform over the rail yard, which would have been required before the construction of buildings could begin. The price doubled from an earlier estimate of $1 billion, and Related officials believed that the initial vision of the property was no longer economically feasible.
The new plan would use revenues generated by the new buildings to help pay for the platform; a similar finance structure was used on the first half of Hudson Yards, including to help pay for an extension of a subway line to the neighborhood.
Since Related opened Hudson Yards, its office towers have attracted large companies willing to pay some of the highest office rents in the country. Other developers have built office towers and residential towers in the larger neighborhood, transforming a former industrial swath of Manhattan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Fox News
Chicago mayor says Trump's America looks like Confederacy won, suggests ICE are 'terrorists'
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump attends bill signing ceremony at the White House
Wall Street Journal
36 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Treasury Yields Fall Amid Concerning Labor Data, Mild Inflation
0900 ET – U.S. labor and inflation data deepen a decline in Treasury yields. Weekly jobless claims were unchanged from the previous week's upwardly revised pace, at 248,000. Economists surveyed by WSJ expected 246,000. Continuing claims, a measure of the unemployed population, was 1.96 million, the highest level since November 2021. May's wholesale price inflation was 0.1%, accelerating from April's 0.2% deflation and below consensus of a positive 0.2%. The combination of slower-than-expected inflation and concerning labor data underscores bets that the Fed may need to change its hawkish position. Yields were already declining and fell further after the data. The 10-year Treasury yield is at 4.360% and the two-year at 3.891%. ( @ptrevisani) 0614 GMT – A downside surprise in U.S. CPI data gave only a small boost to Treasurys, probably because tariff-driven price hikes still look imminent, says Capital Economics' James Reilly in a note. That said, these price hikes look discounted in markets, shielding Treasury yields from rising pressure, the senior markets economist says. 'We don't expect much upwards pressure on Treasury yields even as the inflationary impact of tariffs eventually feeds into U.S. consumer prices,' he says. Capital Economics expects core inflation to rise in coming months but it thinks that investors are already braced for a broadly similar outcome on tariffs, he says. (
Forbes
37 minutes ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.
