Skip to main content

In Coney, development, planning, and the cost of delay

Three very different editorial messages regarding Coney Island development appeared in the past week, and from some surprising venues, if not authors.

It was the New York Times, often pro-development and steadily supportive of Atlantic Yards, which published an op-ed highly critical of Thor Equities’ plan for a massive beachside project heavily dependent on towers—once condos, now perhaps hotels and time-shares.

The New York Daily News, also pro-AY, published another critical op-ed. (The willingness to publish an op-ed doesn't necessarily signal the newspaper's outlook, but consider that the Times refused op-eds critical of Atlantic Yards before publishing a lukewarm one in November 2005, nearly two years after the project was announced.)

And it was the weekly Brooklyn Paper, which has editorialized against Atlantic yards and provided critical print coverage, that seems far more welcoming to Thor.

Baker's warning

The 8/12/07 op-ed in the City section, headlined Paving Over Fun, was written by Kevin Baker, whose historical novels concern New York City; his Dreamland was set partly in Coney Island.

Baker writes:
My German friends also expressed their amazement that all this marvelous, beachfront property wasn’t lined with luxury housing. There is the rub. After so many years of decline and neglect, Coney Island at last has a serious developer, Joseph Sitt. Mr. Sitt, who says his company has spent $120 million buying up land in and around the area’s entertainment district, has dangled the idea of erecting a 40-story condominium there.

The City Planning Commission, to its credit, scotched this proposal. And last week The Daily News quoted a city official as saying that Mr. Sitt’s $1.5 billion plan to create some sort of enclosed, multimedia 21st-century amusement park, complete with time-sharing hotels, was “dead in the water.”

The question of just what Coney Island should be — a democratic bastion of raucous, honky-tonk entertainment, or something more genteel — has been disputed for nearly 200 years. Lately, though, it has become a struggle with a greater resonance, one that may foretell just what the future of New York as a whole will be.

Coney, he allows, is “diverse and edgy and even seedy in places, much more like the rest of the city was in the 1970s,” but he acknowledges that changes continue. Will Coney go the way of lost sports facilities, restaurants, and nightclubs?

While he concludes that some changes are inevitable, they shouldn't be developer-driven:
The city cannot simply react to developers’ plans if it is to save Coney Island. The Bloomberg administration, which has recently shown a heartening interest in reviving the idea of city planning, needs to get ahead of the process and solicit ideas for what Coney should be. The dozens of small businesses that stuck it out through Coney’s worst years and did so much to preserve its honky-tonk flavor should be encouraged to stay. Strange as it may seem, Frederic Thompson had it right. We will have to manufacture frolic if we are to have it at all.

There is, in fact, a Coney Island Development Corporation.

Denson's vision

In a Daily News op-ed Monday headlined Coney's roller-coaster ride: Surf's a sought-after turf, so mayor must save this paradise, Coney Island native and chronicler Charles Denson, author of the definitive Coney Island: Lost and Found, writes:
Most people agree that Coney needs improvement, but they also realize that a scenario that includes just one owner and a rezoning that allows high-rise residential development is a dangerous combination that could lead to the death of Coney Island.

Coney Island has seen vast improvement over the past decade. Crime is down, a new subway terminal and ballpark opened, and the Bloomberg administration saved the historic B&B Carousel.

Denson points to an ongoing planning process:
In 2003, the mayor, City Council and borough president formed the Coney Island Development Corp. and gave the group the task of spearheading a long-overdue planning process for Coney Island. This led to the Coney Island Strategic Plan, a compromise worked out in public meetings with community and stakeholder input.

The plan calls for the preservation of a central amusement zone, yet allows residential and retail development in the vacant outer fringes of the zone. This is the plan that Thor Equities is seeking to undermine with their high-rise project.

Why not Thor?

In an editorial last week headlined Why not Thor? the Brooklyn Paper begins
The city’s failure to redevelop, reimagine and reinvigorate Coney Island is a decades-long calamity.

It’s an echo of Borough President Marty Markowitz’s 2005 statement, "The Atlantic Yards area has been available for any developer in America for over 100 years.”

Well, just as “the Atlantic Yards area” has morphed from a manufacturing zone to a development zone, the value of land rising as gentrification proceeded nearby, Coney has also been in flux. Perhaps most importantly, in 2005 a marvelous $300 million subway station opened, the largest in the world, a catalyst for any development.

The Brooklyn Paper editorializes:
Given all those years of failure, we remain completely baffled — and, frankly, appalled — by the Bloomberg Administration’s handling of a legitimate proposal by Joe Sitt’s Thor Equities to redevelop a vast stretch of Coney Island’s amusement area into a $1.5-billion year-round theme park, recreation, hotel, restaurant and retail Xanadu.

For the past year or so, Thor has spent more than $100 million buying up land — including the Astroland amusement park and most of Deno’s Wonder Wheel Park — at market rates. At this point, Sitt owns most of the land between the landmark Cyclone roller coaster and Nathan’s Famous.

But to realize his dream of adding hotel units to Coney’s amusement distict, he needs the city to grant him a zoning variance.
For some reason, the city is playing hardball.

(Graphic from the Gowanus Lounge)

The newspaper legitimately criticizes city officials for leaking “doling out little ‘exclusives’” to both the Daily News and the Post, calling the plan “dead in the water.”

The cost of doing nothing

Daily News columnist Errol Louis, in embracing the Atlantic Yards plan, has observed, “And there’s been a cost for not doing anything.”

The Brooklyn Paper opines similarly:
Nowhere, it seems, is anyone willing to remind the mayor of one important benefit of Sitt’s plan: it is a plan! For the first time in decades, there is an actual plan on the table. But rather than debate it on the merits, “city officials” are going on paid junkets and negotiating through hand-picked stooges in the media. (And, all the while, negotiating with Sitt behind closed doors, the papers have reported.)

Yes, there is a plan, and it's the city's fault for not moving faster, and for not changing tax laws that make it easy for landowners to leave their plots fallow. But the subway station is new and the Brooklyn residential market hot.

So the newspaper suggests that the city’s existing Uniform Land Use Review Procedure—which AY eluded—would be the right way to go:
Let Joe Sitt apply for his zoning change, force him to make concessions so that he can get through the land-use review process with the necessary approvals, and stop all this back-room, leak-driven nonsense.

That may be better than AY. But that doesn’t deal with the issue of planning. When a developer borrows some techniques from Atlantic Yards and has a web site ambitiously titled “The Future of Coney Island,” well, shouldn’t the press be a bit wary?

A letter in response

A letter to the editor in this week's Brooklyn Paper:
Your editorial praising Thor Equities’ Coney Island plan ignored one thing: That Thor’s plan is just one idea for rebuilding the Coney Island amusement zone (“Why not Thor?” Aug. 11).

Unfortunately, Thor tried to play it cute. First, the company told area landowners that the city would never let them build condos. This allowed Thor to buy up land at a cheaper price.

Then, the company turned around and tried to push the condo idea. They are still playing it cute with their hotel and time-share proposal.

So instead of taking the city to task, maybe you should be putting your energies into castigating Thor for the disingenuous way it has bargained with the city and the Coney Island community in general. Thor’s approach has demonstrated to me that it cares more about profit and less about restoring a great historical treasure.

The writer is Lloyd Handwerker of Park Slope, grandson of Nathan Handwerker, founder of the Nathan's hot dog emporium, still an anchor of Coney.


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…