- Apple is paying for significant improvements to the facility
So does most everyone else who rents retail space. And when they leave, the space will need renovated again. Unless they're refurbishing the entire station (or at least the floor they occupy) this really isn't much justification.
So does most everyone else who rents retail space. And when they leave, the space will need renovated again. Unless they're refurbishing the entire station (or at least the floor they occupy) this really isn't much justification.
From the summary: "Apple is also bankrolling infrastructure upgrades, including new elevators."
If you bothered to read even the summary, you would have seen this goes beyond renovating the rented space.
How is ensuring that a state owned property gets the maximum rent that it can equal raising taxes?
I don't think Apple's done anything wrong with this deal, other than negotiate really hard. And I don't think anything will come of this investigation.
But if the MTA has signed a bad deal for itself, would you not, as a taxpayer, be concerned that they squandering a publicly owned resource (space at the sation) by effectively subsidizing a private corporation with a sweetheart deal? Isn't accountability of government a good thing?
Considering no one else submitted a bid for this space, the MTA should be planting kisses on Apple's shiny metallic ***.
I disagree. If Apple is paying $60 a square foot (which is unheard of for prime Manhattan retail space) and the previous restaurant was only paying $15 a square foot, then that was a crime as well and should have been investigated. $15 (if real) is so incredibly low, it has to make me wonder if there wasn't some payoff involved. But $60 a square foot is incredibly low and is definitely worth an investigation. I find it easy to believe that other retailers wouldn't have wanted to pay $5 million to the restaurant to buy them out of their lease, but there would be plenty who would be willing to pay far more than $60/sq ft.
Income from rental property is not the same as raising taxes. That is prime real-estate and Apple should be paying market rate (or close to it). Every penny the MTA takes in rental income offsets future costs and fare increases. That income should be maximized, otherwise taxpayers and commuters are in essence, subsidizing the Apple store. I like Apple, but the only way I want to subsidize them is by buying their products.
Furthermore, I wonder what kind of signage there's going to be up there because after the Terminal was renovated, the policy was there was to be no advertising in the main hall. Kodak used to have a giant mural on that side of the terminal and it was taken down during the restoration for that reason. I wonder if Apple gets to violate that.
apple took over an empty space, where are these mythical tenants willing to pay more than $60?
What does the comptroller think is suspicious about the deal?
The politicos want to make sure they're bleeding every penny from everyone so they can line their own pockets either directly, or indirectly.
I firmly believe that the Apple store will drive huge traffic, which will ultimately lead to more foot traffic at GC, patronizing more of the other businesses there, generating extra revenue for all, which then feeds into MTA's coffer. It's a win-win...
But not if it means the mayor has to wait an extra month to buy his Rolls Royce.
The politicos want to make sure they're bleeding every penny from everyone so they can line their own pockets either directly, or indirectly.
I firmly believe that the Apple store will drive huge traffic, which will ultimately lead to more foot traffic at GC, patronizing more of the other businesses there, generating extra revenue for all, which then feeds into MTA's coffer. It's a win-win...
But not if it means the mayor has to wait an extra month to buy his Rolls Royce.
This is the city that had a problem with a mosque being built.
For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
Are you really crazy enough to believe what you posted? How would Apple benefit from your proposed plan? Every time a restaurant in GC sells a meal should they donate a meal to the New York City School system as well? Good thing you are not involved with GC lease negotiations for the MTA because GC would be empty.
I disagree. If Apple is paying $60 a square foot (which is unheard of for prime Manhattan retail space) and the previous restaurant was only paying $15 a square foot, then that was a crime as well and should have been investigated. $15 (if real) is so incredibly low, it has to make me wonder if there wasn't some payoff involved.
Metrazur was there for 11 years, so the relevant comparison would be what the rent was when they signed the lease, not today.
Are you really crazy enough to believe what you posted? How would Apple benefit from your proposed plan? Every time a restaurant in GC sells a meal should they donate a meal to the New York City School system as well? Good thing you are not involved with GC lease negotiations for the MTA because GC would be empty.
Apple needs to push Microsoft out of the school system. I am tired of my kids learning on pc's. And apple will sell a lot more iPhones and iPads, where I have not suggested the idea. It would also stop the talk of higher rent if it was seen to be in that public building for the social good.
I am struggling to see how increased foot traffic would do that much for all the other businesses to make up for reduced rent.
When I go to the Apple Store, it's to get help, browse or buy something. It's not a given that I'll go to any other store in the mall and spend money there. I might or not get something from the food court. So it's a stretch to say that the increase foot traffic lifts all boats.
But there is supply and demand. Obviously if nobody wanted the space, whatever the rationale, Apple was entitled to drive a hard bargain as the only potential lessee.
How is it a reduced rent? So sez the Post. A simple burger joint pays more per square foot because there's fewer square feet. There were no other tenants offering. And $60 per square foot in a large Apple Store is a lot of moolah.
Granted, anything's possible in commercial leasing, but also maybe it's just the usual crap from the Post. Let's have the investigation.
The store, set to open next Friday, Dec. 9, will cost Apple about $800,000 for the first year, a rate that is said to be well below what other tenants of the station are paying..
Is that really true.
Lets look at the math.
According to the original article, Apple is paying $60 a square foot in rent. Presumably that's per month but for giggles lets say that that is per year. Supposedly this is a 23k square foot store.
That's $1,380,000 which is about 150% what the article claims.
and when you look at the square footage of other stores and how often they actually have to pay part of their sales to MTA, they probably aren't paying more than that amount
Do you really think the presence of that store will increase the overall amount of Apple swag that will be sold and taxed in the state of New York? Or will it just increase the proportion sold at retail as opposed to wholesale by Apple?
It's not just about Apple swag. It's about increased sales at all the stores in the GCT
Comments
- Apple is paying for significant improvements to the facility
So does most everyone else who rents retail space. And when they leave, the space will need renovated again. Unless they're refurbishing the entire station (or at least the floor they occupy) this really isn't much justification.
So does most everyone else who rents retail space. And when they leave, the space will need renovated again. Unless they're refurbishing the entire station (or at least the floor they occupy) this really isn't much justification.
From the summary: "Apple is also bankrolling infrastructure upgrades, including new elevators."
If you bothered to read even the summary, you would have seen this goes beyond renovating the rented space.
How is ensuring that a state owned property gets the maximum rent that it can equal raising taxes?
I don't think Apple's done anything wrong with this deal, other than negotiate really hard. And I don't think anything will come of this investigation.
But if the MTA has signed a bad deal for itself, would you not, as a taxpayer, be concerned that they squandering a publicly owned resource (space at the sation) by effectively subsidizing a private corporation with a sweetheart deal? Isn't accountability of government a good thing?
Considering no one else submitted a bid for this space, the MTA should be planting kisses on Apple's shiny metallic ***.
From the summary: "Apple is also bankrolling infrastructure upgrades, including new elevators."
If you bothered to read even the summary, you would have seen this goes beyond renovating the rented space.
this is fairly normal in NYC. a lot of the escalators in the subway are owned by private corporations
I disagree. If Apple is paying $60 a square foot (which is unheard of for prime Manhattan retail space) and the previous restaurant was only paying $15 a square foot, then that was a crime as well and should have been investigated. $15 (if real) is so incredibly low, it has to make me wonder if there wasn't some payoff involved. But $60 a square foot is incredibly low and is definitely worth an investigation. I find it easy to believe that other retailers wouldn't have wanted to pay $5 million to the restaurant to buy them out of their lease, but there would be plenty who would be willing to pay far more than $60/sq ft.
Income from rental property is not the same as raising taxes. That is prime real-estate and Apple should be paying market rate (or close to it). Every penny the MTA takes in rental income offsets future costs and fare increases. That income should be maximized, otherwise taxpayers and commuters are in essence, subsidizing the Apple store. I like Apple, but the only way I want to subsidize them is by buying their products.
Furthermore, I wonder what kind of signage there's going to be up there because after the Terminal was renovated, the policy was there was to be no advertising in the main hall. Kodak used to have a giant mural on that side of the terminal and it was taken down during the restoration for that reason. I wonder if Apple gets to violate that.
apple took over an empty space, where are these mythical tenants willing to pay more than $60?
how about a little quid pro quo?
mta management is a nightmare. to wit; the world trade center and the hudson yards.
mr dinallo is usually even handed, but if the city of new york thinks that they could get a better tenant then they are delusional.
the last time they had complete control over a great train station, they tore down penn station. an ever lasting tragedy.
lucky jackie kennedy saved grand central.
Next thing you know, Apple will be forced to hire union labor for their Genius bar.
What does the comptroller think is suspicious about the deal?
The politicos want to make sure they're bleeding every penny from everyone so they can line their own pockets either directly, or indirectly.
I firmly believe that the Apple store will drive huge traffic, which will ultimately lead to more foot traffic at GC, patronizing more of the other businesses there, generating extra revenue for all, which then feeds into MTA's coffer. It's a win-win...
But not if it means the mayor has to wait an extra month to buy his Rolls Royce.
apple took over an empty space, where are these mythical tenants willing to pay more than $60?
They don't exist. MTA specifically stated that Apple was the only bidder.
The politicos want to make sure they're bleeding every penny from everyone so they can line their own pockets either directly, or indirectly.
I firmly believe that the Apple store will drive huge traffic, which will ultimately lead to more foot traffic at GC, patronizing more of the other businesses there, generating extra revenue for all, which then feeds into MTA's coffer. It's a win-win...
But not if it means the mayor has to wait an extra month to buy his Rolls Royce.
This is the city that had a problem with a mosque being built.
For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
Nonsense. Not on my dime.
For every Mac sold in the Grand Central store, Apple should donate one to the New York City School system. Both Apple and the City would benefit from the arrangement.
Are you really crazy enough to believe what you posted? How would Apple benefit from your proposed plan? Every time a restaurant in GC sells a meal should they donate a meal to the New York City School system as well? Good thing you are not involved with GC lease negotiations for the MTA because GC would be empty.
I disagree. If Apple is paying $60 a square foot (which is unheard of for prime Manhattan retail space) and the previous restaurant was only paying $15 a square foot, then that was a crime as well and should have been investigated. $15 (if real) is so incredibly low, it has to make me wonder if there wasn't some payoff involved.
Metrazur was there for 11 years, so the relevant comparison would be what the rent was when they signed the lease, not today.
Are you really crazy enough to believe what you posted? How would Apple benefit from your proposed plan? Every time a restaurant in GC sells a meal should they donate a meal to the New York City School system as well? Good thing you are not involved with GC lease negotiations for the MTA because GC would be empty.
Apple needs to push Microsoft out of the school system. I am tired of my kids learning on pc's. And apple will sell a lot more iPhones and iPads, where I have not suggested the idea. It would also stop the talk of higher rent if it was seen to be in that public building for the social good.
+1
I am struggling to see how increased foot traffic would do that much for all the other businesses to make up for reduced rent.
When I go to the Apple Store, it's to get help, browse or buy something. It's not a given that I'll go to any other store in the mall and spend money there. I might or not get something from the food court. So it's a stretch to say that the increase foot traffic lifts all boats.
But there is supply and demand. Obviously if nobody wanted the space, whatever the rationale, Apple was entitled to drive a hard bargain as the only potential lessee.
How is it a reduced rent? So sez the Post. A simple burger joint pays more per square foot because there's fewer square feet. There were no other tenants offering. And $60 per square foot in a large Apple Store is a lot of moolah.
Granted, anything's possible in commercial leasing, but also maybe it's just the usual crap from the Post. Let's have the investigation.
The store, set to open next Friday, Dec. 9, will cost Apple about $800,000 for the first year, a rate that is said to be well below what other tenants of the station are paying..
Is that really true.
Lets look at the math.
According to the original article, Apple is paying $60 a square foot in rent. Presumably that's per month but for giggles lets say that that is per year. Supposedly this is a 23k square foot store.
That's $1,380,000 which is about 150% what the article claims.
and when you look at the square footage of other stores and how often they actually have to pay part of their sales to MTA, they probably aren't paying more than that amount
Do you really think the presence of that store will increase the overall amount of Apple swag that will be sold and taxed in the state of New York? Or will it just increase the proportion sold at retail as opposed to wholesale by Apple?
It's not just about Apple swag. It's about increased sales at all the stores in the GCT