Skip to main content

High-rise vs. low-rise; the Times resists corrections, maintains false dichotomy

When Atlantic Yards architect Frank Gehry said last Thursday that Brooklynites wary of the Atlantic Yards plan would have picketed Henry Ford, and when landscape architect Laurie Olin said they were "frightened" of change, the two designers set up a simplistic dichotomy between progress and Luddism.

The misrepresentation was compounded by some shorthand in the Times's 5/12/06 report:
"They [opponents] have backed alternative plans for the site, including proposals by rival developers that would include mostly low-rise buildings and would not require eminent domain."

That continued the false dichotomy. Opponents have helped formulate the UNITY (Understanding, Imagining, & Transforming the Yards) plan, which serves as a set of principles for development, not a funded alternative. UNITY plan principles were adapted by the Extell Development Corp., the sole developer that responded to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's RFP for the Vanderbilt Yard. The coalition behind the UNITY plan is not a developer. So there were not "rival developers," just one developer.

As for "mostly low-rise buildings," the UNITY plan would be mid-rise, not low-rise (like the Dean Street buildings at right recently demolished by Forest City Ratner for a planned 322-foot tower). The Extell plan would be high-rise, but not so tall and dense as Forest City Ratner's plan, as explained below.

However, my request for a correction was resisted with some of the obfuscation and unwillingness to check facts that the Times too frequently employs.

A letter to the Times

I wrote to the Times on 5/12/06:
Developer Defends Atlantic Yards, Saying Towers Won't Corrupt the Feel of Brooklyn states:
"They [opponents] have backed alternative plans for the site, including proposals by rival developers that would include mostly low-rise buildings and would not require eminent domain."
Actually, there's only been *one* proposal from a developer on the table, from Extell Development Corp. The Times, in a 7/7/05 article headlined Brooklyn Plan Draws a Rival, And It's Smaller, described the plan as "11 buildings ranging from 4 to 28 stories."

However, Real Estate Weekly, in a 7/13/05 article headlined Ratner's Brooklyn dream being hijacked by Extell stated:
Extell's plan calls for 10 high-rise apartment buildings and one four-story building marked for community use...

So the phrase "mostly low-rise buildings" deserves correction, as does the term "proposals."

The article also states:
"But in an hourlong presentation, Frank Gehry, the project's architect, and Laurie Olin, its landscape designer, emphasized details that they said would harmonize the project's scale with the neighborhoods it would border. They described shorter and thinner buildings on Dean Street, where the project abuts a mostly low-rise neighborhood..."

This was imprecise: the thinner buildings would be the four on the eastern end of Dean Street. Of the three on the western end of Dean Street, none would be thinner, and one would be shorter and the other taller (than the previous iteration). The Forest City Ratner project fact sheet focused on the height and density of the buildings on Dean between Carlton and Vanderbilt.

It would have been more precise to say: They described shorter and thinner buildings on part of the Dean Street segment of the site.
Even if one building on the western end of Dean Street has been reduced to 322 feet doesn't mean it would harmonize with the bordering neighborhood.

The Times responds

I got a response Tuesday from the Times's Karin Roberts:
I am the corrections editor for the Metro department of The Times. Your e-mail was forwarded to me for review. After consulting Nicholas Confessore, the reporter for this article, I have determined that no correction is warranted. There were in fact two rival proposals for the Atlantic Yards project: Extell's and the UNITY plan, which called for mostly low-rise buildings. (Although the backers of the UNITY plan are not developers in the strict sense of the word, it is broadly accurate to refer to them that way, in the interest of shorthand.) The phrase "including proposals by rival developers that would include mostly low-rise buildings" is therefore accurate.

The reference to the buildings on Dean Street was likewise accurate; it is needlessly wordy to say they were on "part of the Dean Street segment of the site."

In an article on any topic as complicated as this, we aim to be concise and try not to overwhelm readers with extraneous information. To do that, we use shorthand language when it will not impede clarity or accuracy. In this case, the language chosen met both requirements.

Laying it out

I wrote back yesterday, focusing on the "low-rise" issue:
Thanks for your response. While I recognize that newspapers must use shorthand, I think some of the shorthand here is inaccurate. Even accepting the strained characterization of the UNITY plan backers as "developers"--shouldn't developers have a source of capital?--the UNITY plan does not consitute a low-rise plan (though it certainly is a lower-rise plan). The Art & Architecture Thesaurus defines low-rise as up to five stories.

The community-derived UNITY plan proposed buildings five to 10 stories, or five to 12 stories, as noted in the articles on p. 13 here. Architect Marshall Brown, in one of those articles, uses the term "mid-rise," which the Thesaurus defines as five to nine or 10 stories.
[An example: the Atlantic Terrace development planned by the Fifth Avenue Committee for Atlantic Avenue just east of the Atlantic Center mall, right.]

As for the Extell plan, it would encompass 2.7 million square feet on 8.3 acres. See the third PDF page here. Forest City Ratner's plan would be 8.6 million square feet on 22 acres. You can see that the plans are roughly equivalent in terms of density, though Extell's would be less dense. Even Forest City Ratner's Jim Stuckey acknowledged in a radio interview Monday that the Extell plan represents another high-rise proposal. Scroll down to the heading marked "The Extell bid."

Even if one believed that the UNITY plan was "mostly low-rise," rather than the more accurate mid-rise, the Times employed plurals in the phrasing at issue: "including proposals by rival developers that would include mostly low-rise buildings." The syntax misleadingly suggests that more than one developer (including Extell) proposed mostly low-rise buildings.

Here's the sentence at issue:
They have backed alternative plans for the site, including proposals by rival developers that would include mostly low-rise buildings and would not require eminent domain.

Here's a crack at more precise phrasing:
They have backed a community plan for mid-rise construction, as well as a rival developer's proposal for high-rise buildings, and neither plan would require eminent domain.

Or, alternatively:
They have backed a community plan for mid-rise construction, as well as a rival developer's proposal for high-rise--but not as tall--buildings, and neither plan would require eminent domain.

The Times stonewalls

Roberts responded later in the day:
Thanks for writing. As I said, we've determined that no correction is warranted, and I understand that you disagree with that decision. But I have to handle many duties here, so I am not able to engage in an extended debate about this particular matter. We do appreciate the feedback.

But this is no disagreement over opinions, but rather one over easily verifiable facts.
1) There's one developer, not two.
2) There's a mid-rise community plan and one developer's proposal for high-rise buildings.
3) To avoid the false dichotomy between low-rise and high-rise plans, the need for concision could have been accommodated with a rephrased sentence one word longer.

Whatever happened to the "journalism of verification"?


Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…