Skip to main content

Is New York losing its soul? Sort of, panelists say (and one targets AY)

“Is New York Losing Its Soul?” was the topic last night in the first installment of the series of public programs keyed to the Jane Jacobs and the Future of New York exhibit sponsored by the Municipal Art Society. The panelists at the Donnell Library auditorium, facing an audience of some 250 people, expressed varying degrees of dismay over homogenization and rising rents, as well as feelings of impotence in a developer-friendly city. And Atlantic Yards was again the poster child for unwelcome development.

Leading off, moderator Clyde Haberman, a New York Times Metro columnist, brought up the relentless march of chain banks and chain drugstores. “I suspect history will smile on the Bloomberg administration,” he said, but [corrected] “it has yet to meet a developer to which it wishes to say no.” (That’s not quite true, given the administration’s posture toward Joe Sitt’s Thor Equities in Coney Island.) The one example he referenced—noting that panelist Alison Tocci of Time Out New York wanted to discuss it—was Atlantic Yards.

Haberman allowed that the city has always been losing part of its soul, and suggested that neighborhoods like DUMBO, the Lower East Side, and Times Square had improved. And, he pointed out, if the city seems too much in the hands of the monied classes, well, it has always been a place to make money.

(Here's the New York Times's report; there are a lot of interesting comments, including Benjamin Hemric's observation that Jacobs was more pro-market and welcoming of gentrification than those on the panel.)

Where's the soul?

Tocci suggested the city’s soul is made of artists and small businesses, and from her perch as president and group publisher at TONY, she sees a growing amount of anger about affordability. Darren Walker, a VP of the Rockefeller Foundation (the major funder of the exhibit and, a half-century ago, of Jacobs), noted the city’s growing inequality and unprecedented decline in its African-American population.

Author Tama Janowitz quirkily described gentrification in her neighborhood near the Brooklyn Museum. And theater impresario Rocco Landesman, citing the “de-libidinization of our city,” hearkened warmly (to the unease of some) back to the sex-saturated Times Square.

Haberman injected a little skepticism, recalling past battles to stop McDonald’s: “I’m not a big defender of McDonald’s, but I don’t think they’ve killed the city.” Tocci described welcome changes on Smith Street in Brooklyn, near which she’s lived for 20 years, only to see businesses priced out recently by greedy landlords.

City intervention

Walker cautioned, “We don’t want to vilify every developer. The reality is, we do not have sufficient mechanisms to mitigate inequality.” He pointed to past investments in Mitchell-Lama housing and the maintenance of rent-stabilized apartments. He said some “intervention” could help “smaller, indigenous stores.” (Arguably, regulations could be loosened to lower the barrier to entry, allowing more mixed-used blocks. Here's Municipal Art Society testimony on a study and other solutions.)

He also noted that the city, since the administration of Mayor Ed Koch, has invested far more aggressively in subsidized housing, compared to other cities, though “it’s insufficient.”

Height limits & AY

Haberman noted that the Upper West Side was used to 12-story building heights, but now there are “50-story twin monsters” (courtesy of an air rights swap and built by Extell, embraced by Atlantic Yards opponents when it offered the only rival bid for the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard). He set up a bit of a false dichotomy, disregarding the recent zoning change in the neighborhood, asking whether “you can go as high as you want, or must we have limits?”

Tocci swung at the fat pitch. “Atlantic Yards is a great example. I live not too far from it. I don’t think that anyone who lives there is opposed to the notion that it should be developed,” she said, but “people are opposed to the size,” describing it as “17 skyscrapers plus a stadium.” (Actually, it’s 16 towers, plus an arena.)

There’s been very little planning, she said, regarding issues like traffic or parking. “Everybody who crosses Atlantic Avenue knows it can’t bear that kind of development,” she said. “If the Bloomberg administration had been as aggressive about supporting small businesses as big developers, there might be more balance.”

NYT & Bruce?

When it came time for questions from the crowd, delivered on index cards, Haberman noted that “I’m not going to ask all of them, including ‘Why does the New York Times partner with Bruce Ratner?’ I’m just a wage slave.”

(As I learned afterward, that question came from a Manhattanite, albeit one quite concerned about Atlantic Yards.)

What would Jacobs do?

So, what would Jane Jacobs (who died last year) do, one audience member asked, in a submitted question. “She would ask you,” stressed Walker, noting that Jacobs's message was for people to take action in their communities.

Tocci cited the Jacobsian principles of short blocks, a variety of shops and places to interact, as well as density. Landesman cited the need for buildings of varying ages.

“But you’re not suggesting that a 1950s notion of the city needs to be stuck in time,” countered Walker. “We’re learning some disturbing things, but the answer isn’t always, ‘we need short blocks.’ The answer may be something else.”

It sounded vaguely reminiscent of architect Michael Sorkin’s observation that the city can tolerate a certain number of superblocks, and might even do so regarding Atlantic Yards. But the unspoken rebuttal to Walker is that Jacobs was a proponent of dynamism, not stasis, but believed in a more consultative and organic process than that going on in today’s city.

Later, after Walker raised the issue of interventions into the market, an audience member intervened from her seat, asking, “How about a City Planning Commission that represents the interests of a wide range of people instead of just developers?” There was hearty applause from the crowd. (The commission was quite busy yesterday listening to testimony about Columbia University's proposed expansion.)

Haberman suggested that Community Boards might serve as a counterweight. The crowd grumbled.

What next?

In closing, Haberman wondered whether there was “potential good” in the wake of community concern, noting how the historic preservation movement got a jump-start in the 1960s after the disturbing demolition of Penn Station.

“I hope so, if people get mad as hell,” said Tocci, but "it’s very difficult, because developers have so much power and so much money.”

Janowitz said she was impressed the room was full, an indication of civic concern. But civic concern and even civic protest are only a start. The discussion needs to address potential policy choices, and the establishment of institutions (Seattle offers an example) to channel citizen input.

Comments

  1. What does it mean to lose one's soul? Pretty hard to describe, but the NYC Economic Development Corporations plan for Duffield Street might be an example.

    The EDC wants to destroy homes owned by Abolitionists, and thinks that it is better to destroy these homes immediately than to research whether they were connected to the Underground Railroad slave safehouse movement. Moreover, the EDC thinks that the only possible reason to save the homes would be verifiable proof of a connection to the Underground Railroad. The fact that they were home to important Abolitionists does not make them worthy of preserving.

    The EDC proposes building an underground parking lot on the site of these Abolitionist homes.

    Maybe the EDC has not lost its soul, but it certainly has no respect for the potential economic value of these properties. They might not be soulless, but the EDC plans do seem irrational.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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…