Nederlander Sells Neil Simon Air Rights to Dream Hotel!

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 8:40pm

Someone explain this. People are building a hotel above the Neil Simon Theatre?

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Nederlander-Sells-Neil-Simon-Air-Rights-to-Dream-Hotel-Project-20150728

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 8:44pm

No. Nothing can be built above the theatre but the law allows someone with empty airspace that creates a low density level for the applicable zoning to transfer that airspace to another landowner who can then build at a higher density on their own building than would otherwise be allowed. 

So if the zoning would allow a 50 story building on that space, and only 5 stories are in the building, the cubic volume of the additional 45 stories (in general terms, it is actually a lot more complicated) that could have been built into that space is sold to someone who can go over the allowed density with those transferred air rights.

Updated On: 7/28/15 at 08:44 PM

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 8:50pm

oooooh i get it know :)

I want the shuberts to buy the Times Square Church

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 8:57pm

I think you should buy it. You can preach on Sunday mornings and tap dance in the afternoon.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:01pm

It was only a matter of time. It will not be the last either.

[ChildofEarth]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:07pm

Who would have thought that Burlesque would come in handy? Thanks, Cher.

[Hairspray0901]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:10pm

"Who would have thought that Burlesque would come in handy? Thanks, Cher."

 LOL!!! Yesss!!! That is the only reason I know what "air rights" are. 

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:13pm

"Who would have thought that Burlesque would come in handy? Thanks, Cher."

 LOL I THOUGHT THE EXACT SAME THING!!

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:14pm

"I think you should buy it. You can preach on Sunday mornings and tap dance in the afternoon."

 lets raise 50 million and we can buy it together

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:15pm

"It was only a matter of time. It will not be the last either."

 roxy, what are you talking about???

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:30pm

I cannot believe you are that dense

The theaters cannot be demolished as they are landmarks. Real estate is non existent in the area. A hotel will be built atop the theater. Do you think it will not happen again? We need more hotels right? Therefore more hotels & high rises will be built over other theaters . It is not brain surgery Philly

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:33pm

yeah, but a hotel isn't being built above the neil simon...we just established this

[bigbelterbaby]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:36pm

actually YOU are wrong. just because a building has landmark status does not mean it is safe from demolition to a developer if the $$ is high enough. Several landmark theatres have been torn down to make way for new development. know your history before you speak.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:39pm

yeah tell him bigbelterbaby!

like the sweet little Helen Hayes that got demolished

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 9:42pm

I know my history . The only thing times square has left is it legit theaters. Take those away and Times Square is nothing.None of these theaters are going anywhere . Their character will be destroyed as will the fabric of Times Square hey but if the theater owners can make a few bucks what the hell.

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 10:05pm

So much misinformation in this thread. Where to start.

First, we will need a LOT more than $50mil to buy the Times Square Church!

Second, nothing can be built OVER the landmarked theatres. So it is incorrect to say there will be more built because (a) there are none and (b) there cannot be a first one. If you really knew your history, you would understand that.

Third, demolition requires a lot more than paying someone off. The theatres (like Penn Station) were torn down BEFORE the extant regime became law and in fact are the raison d'être for those laws. A knowledge of history requires a knowledge of how timelines work.

Finally, there is actually an enormous amount of yet unbuilt space in the theatre district. The problem for developers is density, not ground space. Cantilevering over a Broadway landmark, even if it were legal (which it is not), is an expense no one covets. It is a lot easier to build up in solid blocks. 

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 10:47pm

The Helen Hayes was a Broadway Landmark that they tore right down

wasn't it the Shuberts that were building another theatre? wasn't that in the news a while ago?

And weren't the jujamcyns looking to buy the times square church? 

What happened?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/28/15 at 11:34pm

The original Helen Hayes was a landmark with a small "l" not a capital "L." After it and others was demolished in 1982 (the Hayes was where the entrance to the Marriot driveway is now), many theatres including the Simon (landmarked inside and out) received the "capital L" status in the 80s, largely in reaction.

The Shuberts are supposedly building a new theatre next to the Imperial.

The Times Square Church/Hellinger theatre was sold by the Nederlanders to the church in the early 90s, which is not interested in selling it. (It is, however, landmarked!) Only you and I can change that. Now raise a half a billion dollars so we can.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/29/15 at 12:10am

LOL that theatre wouldnt even go for that much.

and yes that would be nice if the shuberts built a new theatre next to the imperial. The parking garage looks ugly

[oncemorewithfeeling2]

Posted: 7/29/15 at 12:11am

A true landmark is recognized by either a city, state, or federal government. To meet landmark status, factors beyond sentiment and warm fuzzy feeling are taken into account--Who was the architect? Who commissioned the building? Does it represent one of the major architectural styles or is it an example of a little recognized style? Is it structurally safe? If rehabilitation needs to be done, can it be done in a manner that is appropriate to style?

A message from your BWW preservationist (MSHP '09, ACHP Section 106 specialist)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/29/15 at 1:00am

Pinto, I'm afraid that's the range they would be looking for.

Oncemore, in addition, historical significance.