Near-gridlock at tour's end, and the effect on AY & UNITY

The walking tour I led yesterday (with the help of Ron Shiffman) of the Atlantic Yards footprint and environs wound up, after two-and-a-half hours, on Pacific Street just west of Flatbush Avenue, outside the Brooklyn Bear's Garden. (About 50 people showed up, very few of whom I recognized as involved in Atlantic Yards-related activism.)

The traffic on Flatbush was relentless. It was hard to imagine how a Saturday afternoon arena event could be accommodated unless there were significant changes to the area transportation system, beyond the mitigations--among them a free MetroCard (for basketball games, not concerts) and shuttle buses (ditto)--planned as of now.

Also, though the alternative UNITY plan Shiffman helped develop calls for a park on the triangular plot opposite the garden, between Flatbush, Fifth, and Atlantic avenues, it sure didn't seem like that salubrious a place to gather, given the traffic on Atlantic as well. Many of the major transportation changes that are proposed in the UNITY plan would have to be implemented, at the least.

Remember, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) rejected several suggestions from Borough President Marty Markowitz about addressing traffic and transit issues. There was more criticism, from consultants Brian Ketcham and Carolyn Konheim, and the ESDC's not-quite-response.

One more day to see Future Perfect, an interactive view of AY

After walking around the Atlantic Yards footprint yesterday, trying to describe, with some visual aids, what Forest City Ratner aims to build, it was a trippy experience to see the Future Perfect installation at the d.u.m.b.o. art under the bridge festival.

(It's showing through today--from 1 to 6 pm, maybe later--at 20 Jay Street, M24, on the Mezzanine floor.)

The video shows the streets of Prospect Heights, but as you walk closer to the installation, architectural renderings of the project appear on the screen, while taped phone calls of residents expressing their opinions about the project are heard. (A majority, I think, are negative, but the voices are tough to decipher in places.)

Walk even closer and we see instead images produced by local schoolchildren--their vision for the streets. As the designers state, "The installation is interactive in that both these 'futures' are only revealed by someone's physical presence."

Given that children tend not to imagine the same scale as developers, or even those behind the fairly dense alternative UNITY plan, the dice are a little loaded. But the installation is still fascinating, and another example of how emerging technology can be used to provide perspectives beyond the officials ones.

Lumi Rolley of No Land Grab conducted a comprehensive interview with creators Ed Purver and Chris Croft, and a demo video link is also available. But you have to experience the installation in person to get the full effect.

Exorcising the Dodgers, redux

A good backdrop to that recent New York magazine article on "Exorcising the Dodgers" would be The Glory Days: New York Baseball 1947-1957, a bang-up exhibit about the rivalry and cultural presence of the Yankees, Dodgers, and Giants, running through December 31 at the Museum of the City of New York.

Both the Dodgers and Giants have left and, of course, it was a different era a half-century ago. One exhibit panel states:
Why do the Glory Days continue to exert such a hold on the fans who experienced them? In part, is is because baseball was the big game in town, not yet truly challenged by the other league sports such as football or basketball. But while it was the big time, it was not yet the big business it is today--players lived among the fans and there was a sense of shared identity...

(The companion volume.)

Jane Jacobs was wrong about a stadium, but Toronto ain't Brooklyn

So, what might the late Jane Jacobs think of the planned Atlantic Yards arena, thrust--on two borders--into a low-rise residential neighborhood? We can't be certain, but we can say that a sports facility she famously misjudged was quite different.

In a 5/31/93 New York Times profile of Jacobs, headlined An Expert on Cities, at Home in the World, followed the urbanist as she gave a tour of her longtime home of Toronto. Eventually the tour reached the SkyDome, home of the Toronto Blue Jays, and now known as the Rogers Centre.

The Times reported:
Because the Sky Dome is amid downtown office buildings with ample parking and easily accessible by public transit, it did not require the sort of vast parking lots that turn the areas surrounding most stadiums into wastelands. The Sky Dome also incorporates stores and hotels that make it active even during the off season.

"Before it was built, I had thought that would be a terrible site for a stadium, blighting the area like other stadiums," Mrs. Jacobs admits. "But I was wrong. I am wrong plenty of times, you know."
(Photo from here. Map from here.)

Toronto vs. Brooklyn

But the site in downtown Toronto did not border a residential neighborhood, as in Brooklyn and could rely on empty office parking rather than nearly 1600 spaces of interim surface parking. (The planned Phase 2 of Atlantic Yards--which could be delayed, based on market conditions and other reasons, and not be completed in the projected ten years, ultimately would supply arena underground parking.)

In that way, the Toronto facility is somewhat like the Verizon Center in Washington, DC, which claims to be within reach of some 10,000 parking spots and offers just 475 parking spaces of its own.

Overriding city zoning

And there's nothing near the Rogers Centre that resembles the clapboard house at 474 Dean Street that would be across the street from the arena block. (Across a much wider street from the Verizon Center, actually, are some low-rise historic commercial buildings.)

As Lumi Rolley of NoLandGrab reminded us, while city zoning "prohibits arenas within 200 feet of residential districts as some of the operations could be incompatible with districts limited primarily to residential use," the state plans to override that zoning for Atlantic Yards.

(Photo by Tracy Collins)

Two residential tenants settle, leave eminent domain suit

Two residential tenants (of seven) among the original 13 plaintiffs in the eminent domain suit challenging Atlantic Yards have settled their cases, reports the Brooklyn Paper, in an article headlined Lawsuit against Atlantic Yards is losing its plaintiffs one by one. (An additional commercial property owner plaintiff has since been added, from a parallel case that was consolidated.)

The Paper's Ariella Cohen (who is leaving the newspaper) quoted the tenants' attorney, Jennifer Levy: “[The tenants] don’t agree with the project, but their rights are limited under the law, so if they are being offered something that protects their rights, they will take it.” (They were not named, and a confidentiality agreement prevents them from commenting.)

Should we expect any of the five other tenants with rent-regulated leases to settle their cases, as the October 9 date for oral argument in the plaintiffs' appeal approaches? Levy said four others were in settlement talks, so it's quite possible.

Plaintiffs' motivations for joining the suit undoubtedly vary, from strong philosophical opposition to the project to the perceived failure (so far) of Forest City Ratner to negotiate a settlement. The developer had previously said its relocation deal--paying the difference in rent for a new apartment, and then offering a place in Atlantic Yards, when built--would not be offered to those filing suit.

The rental tenants are in the most precarious position. Additionally, the cost of relocating them into suitable accommodation is undoubtedly lower than reaching agreement regarding commercial and residential properties owned by other plaintiffs. And Forest City Ratner would like to proceed with as much pre-construction demolition as possible.

The road not taken: City Council limits high-rise buildings... on the Upper West Side

From a New York Times article Wednesday headlined Council Approves Plan to Limit High-Rises on Upper West Side:
The City Council unanimously passed a rezoning plan yesterday that limits the spread of high-rise buildings along 51 blocks on the Upper West Side, an area that officials say has undergone a significant increase in development.

The plan is intended to preserve the physical character of the community. It generally limits buildings to 14 stories along Broadway; 10 to 11 stories along the other avenues; and 6 to 7 stories on the side streets. Additionally, it imposes design restrictions so that new developments more closely match the neighborhoods around them.

Councilwoman Melissa Mark Viverito, a Manhattan Democrat who represents the area, called the plan a “safeguard against aggressive overdevelopment that is running rampant throughout the city.”

...The plan was prompted by the construction of 37- and 31-story condominium towers along Broadway near 99th Street by the Extell Development Company, said Councilwoman Melinda R. Katz, a Queens Democrat and chairwoman of the Council’s Land Use Committee.

...Under the old zoning rules, there were no height restrictions and developers could buy unused air rights from buildings on surrounding streets. The new plan ends those transfers.

Versus Atlantic Yards

By contrast, for the Atlantic Yards project, the state will override zoning, to which City Planning Commission Chairwoman Amanda Burden concurs, explaining last February, "Tall buildings are aspirational... We’re a city that welcomes growth, we welcome innovation.”

Asked about Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs, she responded, “Of course they both were right, in certain degrees. Robert Moses got things done, and Jane Jacobs argued for diversity. She knew there was going to be serendipitous change in the city. What she encouraged was not just diversity but the public and the affected community to participate in the planning process to make that happen. And in fact, that is what we are doing now."

Just not in certain parts of Brooklyn.

In appellate court, AY renters' case finds little sympathy

Can the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), pursuing "friendly condemnations," override the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), which typically must grant permission to a landlord who wishes to demolish a building housing residential tenants with rent-stabilized leases?

The answer, not previously decided by the courts, appears more likely to be yes, allowing such "friendly condemnations," in which Forest City Ratner-owned buildings are transferred to ESDC ownership, thus ending the leases far more speedily than the process would occur under DHCR.

In May, State Supreme Court Justice Walter Tolub dismissed a challenge from 13 tenants (all but one rent-stabilized) in the Atlantic Yards footprint, saying that the case belonged instead in the appellate court designated to hear eminent domain determinations, but without the advantages to the plaintiffs of a trial.

Appealing Tolub's ruling to a different appellate court, the tenants, represented by attorney George Locker, found it tough going yesterday. A five-judge panel of Appellate Division, First Department was steadily skeptical of his argument that the tenants are not actually condemnees, with an ownership interest in their leases.

(Four of the justices were appointed by former Gov. George Pataki. More on the First Department from Tom Robbins in the Village Voice.)

Looking at the law

The ESDC points out that the issue seems simple; state law defines a condemnee as “the holder of any right, title, interest, lien, charge or encumbrance in real property subject to an acquisition or proposed acquisition.” Tolub relied on a string of cases that showed the commercial tenants threatened with condemnation had an ownership interest via their leases.

Locker cites another case in which the courts have “clearly held that under the EDPL, a Rent Stabilized, month-to-month residential rental tenant has no compensable property interest in his/her lease." But that was not in the context of condemnation.

Locker's clients, who live at 624 Pacific Street and 473 Dean Street, have filed a second lawsuit in the Second Department of the Appellate Division, where eminent domain claims are heard, challenging the ESDC's relocation offer, arguing that the offer of relocation assistance does not constitute a "feasible" method for getting the tenants affordable accommodation.

Two cases, two courts?

"Can you be in two places?" asked Presiding Justice Jonathan Lippman yesterday.

Locker said a similar case on relocation had been heard in the Second Department--it went against the tenants, but they argued without a lawyer--and said that court only concerned condemnees.

You don't have an ownership interest? Lippman asked.

No case until Tolub's decision established that, Locker responded.

"It says right in the statute" that a condemnee has "any interest," a perturbed Associate Justice George D. Marlow followed up. "How plain could it be?"

Locker pointed to another case that suggested such rental tenants are non-condemnees.

"The cases that say a leaseholder has an interest in real property are legion," Associate Justice James M. Catterson responded.

Locker again noted Tolub's decision broke new ground.

Lippman pointed to the language of the statute.

Locker responded, "It would appear that residential rent-regulated tenants don't present these cases."

Catterson said the tenants should be in the other appellate court. Locker pointed to ambiguous language in one case and suggested that commercial tenants have different potential losses than residential ones.

ESDC defense

Arguing only briefly, ESDC attorney Charles Webb urged that Tolub's decision be upheld and said "he certainly can raise the case" in the Second Department.

Locker argued for a distinction, that the tenants are beneficiaries of relocation assistance, hence have standing to go to the Second Department on that issue, but maintained they should go to trial on the broader issue of the ESDC's jurisdiction over rent-regulated tenants.

"I would assert the time is long past to go to the Second Department" on this issue, he said in closing.

Afterward in the hall, as Webb and a dozen attorneys and officials, representing the state and Forest City Ratner, gathered in a spirit of good cheer, Locker, one of his clients, and this reporter spoke a few feet away.

ESDC vs. DHCR

"It's very easy for him to say go to another court after the time has passed to go there," Locker said of Webb. "ESDC is trying to have it both ways. If they're condemnees, the ESDC should recognize their rights, which are spelled out by DHCR."

Based on the comments from the panel, the court seems unwilling to do so.

In court in March, Locker had pointed to a case which said DHCR had “exclusive and original jurisdiction over demolition of a rent-regulated building.” The ESDC, in legal papers, however, said the case applies to a private landlord, not a public one, and it will become the landlord of the tenants in the two buildings at issue.

Would Jane Jacobs approve of AY? One Time Out-ster thinks so

The folks at Time Out New York have offered some off-the-cuff blogging on Jane Jacobs and Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards, so I'll offer some off-the-cuff responses.

(Graphic of Bruce Ratner/Jane Jacobs and further commentary from NoLandGrab's Lumi Rolley.)

First off, The great Jane debate: Opening salvo:
Since the goal is to make this interesting, I’m starting it controversially: I think J.J. would approve of Atlantic Yards. Actually, she was a cranky broad who no doubt would have found many faults with it. Let me rephrase. I think Atlantic Yards largely follows Jacobs’s principles and would enliven that neighborhood in a way she would admire.

What neighborhood? Atlantic Yards would be in a border zone, at the edge of Prospect Heights, across a highway from Fort Greene, nudging up against Park Slope and Boerum Hill, and extending the reach of Downtown Brooklyn.

As for following Jacobsian principles, well, I disagree.

The entry continues:
Let’s look at it through the J.J. lens. That neighborhood right now is an ugly traffic confluence and not much else. It’s full of chain stores and terrible for pedestrian traffic. Atlantic Yards would add an amenity where there is none. Though I’m not intimately familiar with the plans, I know it includes extensive mixed-use and varied street-level commercial space, along with many residential units (and a hotel, I believe). It would increase the density of that area, as Jacobs prefers.

The "neighborhood" is not an ugly traffic confluence; the western border of the site footprint is that.

It continues:

I know that Jacobs was not a fan of megaproject-style development because she favored a variety of new and old buildings, but what else can a stadium be but a megaproject? It strikes me as the type of primary-use anchor (like the nautical museum she proposed for lower Manhattan) that she recommends for dull neighborhoods that need a boost. Furthermore, in the time since Death and Life was written, adding stadia to urban settings has been a proven method for bringing a shabby area back to life.(Baltimore was the first major example of this.) There are also ways to mitigate the project’s less Jacobsian qualities—for example, increasing the affordable-housing ratio and adding pedestrian streets to break up the scale somewhat.

Baltimore's Camden Yards is very different from the planned Atlantic Yards, with its baseball and football stadiums separated from residential neighborhoods by a couple of cordons and several parking lots. As for a sports facility as inevitable megaproject, yes, but that doesn't mean 16 towers should be built by one architect and one developer. Yes, streets could be added, but that's the UNITY plan, not Atlantic Yards.

It continues:
I don’t think it’s the “unique quality” of Brooklyn that opponents want to protect; it’s their low rents (which is totally legit—they should just admit to that). And they cast themselves as Jacobs-like crusaders because they don’t know any better. Jane would be ashamed.

Some AY opponents want to protect their low rents or the quality of life they lucked into by moving to Brooklyn at a certain time--and enduring some bad times--for a certain price. And others just might worry about issues like process and good government.

A response

The next blog entry, titled The great Jane debate: Jokester’s response, didn't elevate the discourse:
It’s irrelevant whether Jacobs would approve of the Atlantic Yards project. What real credentials did this woman have?...

The residential area of Atlantic Yards should be pretty jam-packed with people, but I’m not sure it will have the number of small businesses needed (I could be wrong, I haven’t done the homework here) to perpetuate the kind of sidewalk vigilance that Jacobs finds necessary for safe and prosperous urban dwelling.

There might indeed by sidewalk vigilance, but not in areas without streets.

A considered response

The third entry, headlined The great Jane debate: A considered response
My two cents on J.J. and the Yards (what a great band name) is that she would be torn: On the one hand, big parts of the designated area ain’t great shakes right now, as Dustin pointed out. I was biking there with my wife on Sunday and there are long stretches of pretty desolate streets. On the other hand, the Yards project is bound to be a big bag of corporate candy. Picture our “Has Manhattan lost its soul?” cover times 50. (To say nothing of game-night traffic—how bout some congestion pricing there, Bloomie?) And I’m not convinced by the “stadiums revive urban areas” argument.

The big bag of corporate candy starts with the naming rights to Barclays Center and would extend to new advertising signage.

As for whether there are desolate streets, that's a false dichotomy. People and business have been bought out, buildings have been demolished, and the area has stagnated. Despite what the Empire State Development Corporation said, Atlantic Yards would be one solution to the current desolation, but not the only one.

We are all Jacobsian now--but what about process?

At the reception and awards ceremony Monday night at the Morgan Library and Museum in honor of the Jane Jacobs Medals, a few hundred New Yorkers were present, among them architects, journalists, designers, planners, developers, community activists, and curators. But only a handful, all elected or appointed city officials, were hailed from the lectern by Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin.

They were City Council President Christine Quinn; Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum; Empire State Development (ESDC) Downstate Chairman Patrick Foye; City Planning Commission (CPC) Chairwoman Amanda Burden; Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe (son of medal winner Barry Benepe); Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan; and Landmarks Preservation Commission Chairman Robert Tierney.

Given that the essentially pragmatic Jacobs was embraced by so many—see Francis Morrone’s deft essay in the New York Sun on the various constituencies that invoke her—and is such as an enduring urban thinker, it’s no surprise that these officials would show their respect, a little more than a year after her death and upon new awards in her honor. And each official likely has learned and deployed Jacobsian lessons, though some, like Sadik-Khan, seem more enlightened.

At some point, however, you can’t square Jane Jacobs with some of the projects the city supports, and Atlantic Yards is one exemplar. Gotbaum’s been supremely evasive on eminent domain. And Burden, while she knows minutely well the mixed-use mantra (a “b-market” outside the planned arena!), has been part of an orchestrated effort to advance the project, including a Potemkin CPC public meeting (not hearing). The ESDC and CPC have shepherded and supported a project that, while it has Jacobsian elements, would lack some others, like frequent streets or a diversity of buildings, crucial to Jacobs's vision of a healthy city.

Beyond the checklist

But that Jacobsian lens, and a simple checklist, isn’t enough in a city now confronting “over-success,” as the new exhibition Jane Jacobs and the Future of New York, which opened yesterday at the Municipal Art Society, should lead us to conclude. (I'll write more on the exhibit shortly. Note that, despite mention of Atlantic Yards in some reviews, such as in Metro and the New York Times, the exhibition, which is supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, doesn't directly address AY. The accompanying book does touch on AY in several places.)

After all, Jacobs was writing nearly five decades ago, a tribune of the “foot people” in response to the ascendant “car people.” Times have changed. The brief film Saving the Sidewalks, broadcast last year on Channel 13 and shown at the event Monday, captures Jacobs as plainspoken, almost severe. She lived on a block that, as depicted its black-and-white photo, looked more like something out of Jacob Riis than the home of The Art of Cooking, the current ground-floor retail occupant in her old 555 Hudson Street address.

After all, the fight to preserve urbanism has in many ways been won, and new challenges have arisen. Writes New Yorker architectural critic Paul Goldberger in an essay in the book accompanying the exhibit, Block by Block, excerpted from his remarks at a celebration last year:
In some ways it has become too big and too gentrified to operate as Jacobs wanted it to. In her day, a fairly natural process gave us the city we love—the old, neighborhood-rich, pedestrian-oriented, exquisitely balanced New York—and she wisely saw that planning was not able to do much except upset this natural equilibrium. Today, however, the natural order of things gives us sprawl, gigantism, economic segregation, and homogeneous, dreary design. In Jacobs’s day, the intervention into organic urban growth was symbolized by Robert Moses. Today, the forces trying to intervene are those set in motion by Jane Jacobs herself.

The Jacobsian corruption

As he wrote in his book on Ground Zero, Goldberger in his remarks also reminded people how Jacobs has been used:
Who could have imagined that “mixed-use” would become not a sharp-eyed writer’s observation of what underlies a strong, organic urban fabric but a developer’s mantra? Who could have envisioned the day when politicians and developers promoting a gigantic football stadium beside the Hudson River would propose surrounding it with shops and cafés, transforming it into an asset to the city’s street life? When that happened, I knew Jane Jacobs’s radical ideas had moved into the mainstream, where they could be corrupted by those who claim to follow them. So if there is any way to follow Jane Jacobs, it is to think of her as showing us not a physical model for city form but rather a perceptual model for skepticism...

Varieties of skepticism

Jacobsian skepticism could easily lead to criticism of the Atlantic Yards plan, but it could also lead to criticism of those—hardly a majority of opponents, given that they have spawned the alternative UNITY plan—who think the borough, and a major crossroads, shouldn’t change signficantly.

After all, even a Jacobs fan like Michael Sorkin suggests that the city can tolerate some superblocks. So, could the need for affordable housing, and the desire for an arena, overcome the failure to meet the Jacobsian elements of frequent streets and diverse buildings? Does “cataclysmic” money mean something different in 2007 than at the turn of the 1960s?

Process and participation

Those are reasonable questions, but I think they're trumped by another one: the importance of civic process and giving the community a voice (though not a veto). Writes co-curator Christopher Klemek in his essay:
No doubt, when facing today’s issues, many will always be tempted to ask, “What would Jane Jacobs say or do?” And were she still alive, Jacobs would certainly have plenty of advice to offer. (One of her last public interventions was a letter to the Bloomberg administration protesting the rezoning of Greenpoint/Williamsburg.) But, beyond having an opinion on any specific issue, she was consistently more concerned that all New Yorkers have a say—that they be vigilant and engaged citizens, demanding that their voices be heard and that their insights be considered….

Despite Burden’s claim that “we plan from the ground up,” such participation has been absent from Atlantic Yards. In his New York magazine article from August 2006, Chris Smith wrote that "it’s outrageous to see the absolute absence of democratic process. There’s been no point in the past four years at which the public has been given a meaningful chance to decide whether something this big and transformative should be built on public property."

And Foye's ESDC, while announcing several steps toward greater transparency, which even moderate AY critics deem insufficient, proceeds to twist history in defending its use of eminent domain, suggesting that the Civil Rights Era law establishing the agency, which called for "maximum private participation" in slum clean-up projects the agency initially funded itself, somehow anticipated the developer-driven Atlantic Yards project.

At the ceremony Monday, Jacobs medal winner Omar Freilla, founder of Green Worker Cooperative in the Bronx, in his acceptance speech, talked about how reading Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities “resonated with a lot of of what I’m feeling.” Jacobs bequeathed “a love of humanity and a love of democracy,” an inspiration to his own work for environmental justice and economic development, aiming to establish a facility to transform construction waste “green collar” jobs.

Freilla, however, challenged the general air of civic self-satisfaction. “Do we have a say in our lives and decisions?” he asked. The answer: infrequently. It was a bracing reminder of the importance of process and one that Jacobs, I’d imagine, would have applauded.

The Jacobsian DCP?

Burden's busy Department of City Planning (DCP) has its defenders. In a September 2006 essay published in City & Community, the magazine of the American Sociological Association, sociologist David Halle asked, Who Wears Jane Jacobs’s Mantle in Today’s New York City? (fee) and concluded, curiously enough:
Indeed, in today’s New York City it is, arguably, not usually local Community Boards but rather Mayor [Mike] Bloomberg’s Department of City Planning that is most faithfully implementing the spirit of Jane Jacobs and her classic. Despite its critique of contemporary planners, The Death and Life is a cry for better central planning, albeit a planning that recognizes and respects local and market-based characteristics of neighborhoods.

Halle reaches that conclusion after making some very good points but also choosing selective evidence. He notes wisely that both critics, like New York Times architecture critic, Nicolai Ourousoff, and acolytes, like the Villager newspaper covering her Greenwich Village, both misrepresented Jacobs as a conservator of the small scale rather than a champion of dynamism.

And, in his analysis of preservation battles in Greenwich Village, Halle suggests that local preservationists have invoked Jacobs and “vehemently opposed, and scorned if built,” works by several distinguished architects. So have organizations elsewhere in the city.

He reminds us that, in her classic The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs championed a mix of buildings and high density, even as, in her local battles, she fought high-rise public housing in the Village. So he cogently suggests that locals have inappropriately opposed a new glass building at 122 Greenwich Avenue, at the northern edge of the Greenwich Village Historic District, replacing a parking lot.

He writes:
Fortunately members of the Landmarks Commission have read The Death and Life of Great American Cities, as have key members of the Department of City Planning which also needs to approve any new building in a Historic District, even on a vacant lot.

So One Jackson Square is in process. Halle observes:
In Jane Jacobs’s spirit, Bloomberg and his DCP see government’s role as facilitating urban growth and density, especially to provide jobs for newcomers and existing residents, yet in a way that is geographically balanced and sensitive to neighborhoods…. The DCP has also, albeit prodded by local activists and Community Boards, moved to address the city’s perennial crisis of “affordable housing.” The Bloomberg administration has now introduced more affordable housing programs than any NY City administration for decades, though of course these programs are never enough and the problem remains huge.

DCP, he suggests, “is generally the most honest and sensible player, trying, as it should, to knit together and balance a myriad local interests.”

Unless, as he doesn’t mention, it is bypassed entirely in a state override of city land use procedures, as with projects like Atlantic Yards.

DCP's efforts to rezone neighborhoods after years of inattention represent progress. Still, as Eve Baron, director of the Municipal Art Society’s Planning Center, reminded me, "Zoning is just a tool for planning—community-initiated 197-a plans represent some of the most creative planning.” And, as Baron and others have pointed out, too often such plans are ignored.

Jacobs, in fact, was a booster if that 197-a plan for the North Brooklyn waterfront, the one the city bypassed. That's not to say that such community plans and the wishes of the city and developers/investors can always be harmonized, or that the city's land use review process, even if better than the state one, truly lets the public be heard. But the goal is balance.

Moses and Jacobs

In his essay, co-curator Klemek concludes:
Unfortunately, however, her ideas have often been misconstrued. A recent high-profile exhibition on Robert Moses and “the transformation of New York” went some way toward resuscitating the old power broker’s reputation... Interestingly, this reappraisal has often come at Jacobs’s expense. In a facile dichotomy, Moses is taken as the apotheosis of forceful public authority, while Jacobs is seen as little more than a nagging check on it…. And it is out of such a false dichotomy that calls are now often heard for a synthesis of Moses and Jacobs—that is, effective government action married to sensitive and respectful observation. But the truth is that Jacobs was never opposed to vigorous government authority per se; in fact, she advocated a democratically responsive balance of private and public interests. In a sense, Jacobs was the synthesis we now seek. But such an impoverished, laissez-faire civic landscape is not what Jacobs wanted at all. It is certainly not what she called for in her book or agitated for in her political commitments. If anything, she clearly envisioned the kind of responsive synthesis of public and private action now so often invoked. For Jacobs, healthy, sustainable city life was the product of a dynamic tension between government and the market, either of which could become a “cataclysmic” force if not effectively balanced.

And that tension, it seems, should be mediated by some public participation. Otherwise the democracy she savored, and Omar Freilla cited, is sacrificed when Jacobsian form is provided without--so to speak--Jacobsian function.

Ratner's Atlantic Center, Site V gain attention as "worst buildings"

Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Center Mall made WNYC listeners' 11-building list of the city's worst buildings. Guest expert and New York Times columnist Christopher Gray's list, by contrast, was limited to Manhattan--and he said he didn't agree with listener choices of buildings by name architects.

[Updated/corrected] Note that Atlantic Center, and its sibling, the Shops at Site V across Flatbush Avenue, were never aimed to be great work. Indeed, during the episode yesterday, host Leonard Lopate led off by disparaging the bunker-like P.C. Richard store, which shares Site V with Modell's.

Lopate noted that some people criticize ambitious but failed works by major architects, while "there are other people like me that think that the P.C. Richard's store on Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush has to be the worst thing."... Whoever did the P.C. Richard should have been designing army barracks."

The buildings at Site V, clearly built by Forest City Ratner as short-term structures on urban renewal land, are scheduled to be demolished for the Atlantic Yards project. A 400-foot building was initially planned; now, a 250-foot building would occupy the site, nonetheless looming over the adjacent Brooklyn Bear's Garden and the row houses of adjacent Pacific Street.

The Atlantic Center

At about 20:00 into the show, a listener named Dan nominated the Atlantic Center. Lopate pointed out that it was "all of a piece" with the P.C. Richard building previously mentioned.

"It's quite large, it's in two sections," Dan continued, melding Atlantic Center (1996) with its linked neighbor, Atlantic Terminal (2004). Actually, they are now both known under the Atlantic Terminal rubric. "It just feels so out of character in the neighborhood," he said, spulating that "it was only meant to be just temporary."

Gray declared the building--actually Atlantic Terminal--unsuccessful, citing its "nominally classical facade" of red brick.

Lopate said that "a lot of people in the neighborhood felt it was an insult"--it wasn't clear what "it" was--and went on to ask about Atlantic Yards.

Dan said it was "really hard to say," that the project would be "enormous" and he had thought of nominating it, but felt that was inappropriate because it hadn't been built.

Lopate asked Gray about Atlantic Yards, who passed, stating, "I have my hands full looking back."

Lopate mused, "But that area really has not been treated well. A lot of people don't know what to think about neighborhoods in transition."

Gray responded, "There is so much automobile traffic there it creates a very unfriendly human environment."

Despite the criticism of Atlantic Center, there are no plans to demolish it; rather, Forest City Ratner plans new towers at the site.

On Gehry

"Frank Gehry's buildings... really express the human touch," Gray noted at one point, saying they look machine-made but are hand-crafted.

Maybe. In the comments, Park Slope poet Leon Freilich even nominated the unbuilt Atlantic Yards:
RATNER, WHERE'S THY STING? HERE.
The prize must go to Atlantic Yards,
Built over unused railroad tracks,
A monument to private greed
And a burden on taxpayers' backs.

Tish James on the UNITY plan

The UNITY plan launched yesterday may not have the backing of numerous public officials, but it does have Council Member Letitia James, the elected official most prominent in opposition to Atlantic Yards. Since I missed her appearance at yesterday's press conference, I asked her for a comment.

(Photo by Jonathan Barkey)

She said that UNITY "truly respects the character of this historic community. Open space and low-rise residential growth reflect the wishes of community residents regarding what should be built over the rail yards. The community and I do not oppose development, just eminent domain abuse and out-of-scale buildings."

"I, along with others, anticipate not only getting involved with the process, but helping to shape the process. I am pleased that the UNITY Plan includes more pedestrian connections across Atlantic Avenue, integrating neighborhoods that are separated by the yards, and potentially slowing down traffic on Atlantic Avenue. And, the proposal includes selling parcels to individual developers, which may actually bring greater value to the land. The Unity Plan also addresses the most pressing need in the community - affordable housing. This plan for developing Brooklyn's Vanderbilt Yards is win-win for the community and developers."

Whether it can be a win-win, of course, is yet to be seen, but UNITY would involve a more transparent approval process than that which led to Atlantic Yards.

UNITY 2007: a new, Jacobsian plan for the Vanderbilt Yard

At the same time last night that the legacy of noted urban thinker Jane Jacobs was being celebrated at the Morgan Library and Museum in Manhattan, a prelude to an exhibit opening today, the much more modest Soapbox Gallery in Prospect Heights hosted a community forum introducing the UNITY (Understanding, Imagining and Transforming the Yards) plan, a much more Jacobsian way to develop the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Vanderbilt Yard.

(Photos by Jonathan Barkey)

The idea is that if Atlantic Yards does not get built as planned, or is scotched altogether, an alternative plan, with significant bulk but not “extreme density,” limited to the railyards and an adjacent plot, could emerge.

According to a draft report issued by its organizers, planners and architects engaged under the banner of AY critics and opponents, UNITY would offer “a larger proportion of truly affordable housing, sustainable jobs and start-up businesses for local residents, improved transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, solutions to neighborhood and downtown traffic problems, accessible public open space that connects the Yards with our neighborhoods, and a planning and development process that is transparent and accountable.”

Notably, the tallest and bulkiest buildings would be moved east, to Vanderbilt Avenue, while the triangle of land between Flatbush, Fifth, and Atlantic Avenue, currently slated for the Urban Room and part of the Miss Brooklyn tower, would be used for a park.

With a smaller footprint (less than half of the 22-acre Atlantic Yards site) and no eminent domain, the site could not accommodate an arena, and with 1500 housing units (nearly 200 per acre, without counting the triangle park), rather than 6430 (nearly 300 per acre), UNITY would not include as much housing. The percentage of affordable housing (60%) would be greater than Atlantic Yards, and 60% of that would be affordable to households earning up to $40,000—far more affordable than the Atlantic Yards plan.

FCR criticism

While the plan would involve multiple parcels and developers, ideally allowing for a faster build process, and the withdrawal of certain subsidies ($305 million so far, from the city and state) for arena/project infrastructure would presumably free them for other use, there are neither developers nor government commitments attached to the UNITY projections.

And Forest City Ratner, whose Jim Stuckey last year criticized the Extell bid for the Vanderbilt Yard as fiscally unrealistic, yesterday issued a statement, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle: “But probably most important is that Atlantic Yards is real, based on detailed engineering and design work and realistic financing models. Forest City Ratner has a proven track record in Brooklyn for a quarter of a century – a track record that ensures that these benefits become a reality rather than just another empty promise.”

Done deal?

The delay in the planned schedule of Atlantic Yards, as well as unresolved court cases, however, suggest some ambiguity and, as the UNITY planners stated, “The long history of failed projects that did not have community support proves that IT’S NOT A DONE DEAL.”

UNITY 2007 is based on a planning workshop held April 28, under the auspices of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods. The result in turn grew out of a 2004 plan, based on a participatory planning workshop organized by Council Member Letitia James. The 2005 bid for the MTA’s by Extell, the only rival to Forest City Ratner, was in part based on the original UNITY principles.

The plan was unveiled yesterday at a press conference and community meeting at the Soapbox Gallery, 636 Dean Street (between Carlton and Vanderbilt Avenues), across from the Atlantic Yards footprint. The UNITY materials will remain on display through October 3. The meeting drew about 100 people.

I wasn’t able to attend either event, but I got several secondhand reports and got a copy of the UNITY document prepared by University of Cincinnati architecture professor Marshall Brown (right, a former Brooklynite), Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development founder Ronald Shiffman (also a board member of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn), and Tom Angotti, director of Hunter College’s Center for Community Planning and Development. I also got a chance to question Shiffman and Angotti.

New paradigm

To move UNITY forward, planners would have to make the case that this project is, as Borough President Marty Markowitz is wont to say about Atlantic Yards, is “the right project at the right time in the right place for Brooklyn.” The site, planners argue, needs a zoning change and suffers from “developer’s blight.” (The former no one would debate, though the state would override zoning, while the latter, of course, is contested.)

Shiffman (who will join me on a walking tour of the AY footprint Saturday), suggested a lot of things should be on the table: “This is an alternative way of developing the site. It needs alternative financing and a different kind of commitment by government.” One other reason for that, he noted, is to “meet the commitments of PlaNYC 2030,” Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s sustainability plan, which, as I've pointed out, suggests a far more consultative way to develop over railyards.

Community supporters and the press yesterday were especially curious about two aspects of the plan: the absence of the arena and the density shift. To the latter, which could include a building up to 400 feet, slightly taller than the nearby Atlantic Terminal 4B housing project across Atlantic Avenue, the UNITY document responds:
The Yards form the northern edge of a triangle that includes the Vanderbilt and Flatbush Avenue Corridors. One corner is defined by Grand Army Plaza. Another corner is formed by the Atlantic Terminal. Rather than increase the congestion around the Atlantic Terminal by adding even more density, we propose an alternative strategy that concentrates density at the Vanderbilt/Atlantic intersection. This will improve that currently underdeveloped intersection as well as create the opportunity for a large new public square at the Atlantic Terminal, providing an experience similar to Union Square.

Brown, I'm told, noted that a building of that height was only one solution for adding density at that intersection. Planners pointed out that the intersection is only eight minutes from the Clinton-Washington C stop in Fort Greene, thus rendering the site sufficiently transit-accessible.


And what about the new railyard and the subway entrance planned as part of the Urban Room? “We question the need to move the railyard,” Angotti responded. “Without an arena a new subway entrance becomes much simpler and cheaper; but a new entrance isn't necessary for this project.” (On the other hand, the site aimed for the new park consists only partly of public land; most is currently owned by Forest City Ratner.)

The Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, of the project, would be about 7, not insignificant but hardly approaching the Atlantic Yards plan. (Above, from right: Shiffman, Brown, Angotti.)

And what about the arena? The report calls for a study, stating: The Mayor, the Chairman of the ESDC, the Borough President, and City Council should issue an RFP for a planning consultant to undertake a study to locate a suitable site for a basketball arena to be built in Brooklyn.

In essence, the planners seem to be saying: an arena's not right at this site, so deal with it. Previous studies have also pointed to Coney Island, as well as the Prospect Heights site; the question is whether, should Atlantic Yards fail and an arena thus delayed, a major league team would be around to populate a Brooklyn arena. (The bet here is that, if Atlantic Yards fails, the Nets will move to the new arena in Newark.)

The planning principles

The draft report lists some Jacobsian planning principles:
• CONNECT Prospect Heights, Fort Greene and other neighborhoods
• Develop at a HUMAN SCALE and density
• Promote DIVERSITY AND VITALITY in urban design
• Create and preserve AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• REDUCE TRAFFIC, IMPROVE MASS TRANSIT
• Create JOBS for Brooklyn residents
• Create accessible PUBLIC SPACES
• Guarantee an OPEN PLANNING PROCESS, with transparency and accountability

Scenarios

Would the entire project be built as planned? That is “both highly unlikely and entirely undesirable,” according to the draft report. And even if it does go through, it’s unlikely the project would be built by 2016, as planned. Given the likelihood of delay, organizers recommend a new environmental impact statement.

What if nothing gets built? That, obviously, is the organizers’ preferred alternative, and the scenario for the extended report issued yesterday. And what if only Phase 1, involving the arena and four towers (plus one across the street at Site 5), gets built?

The draft report warns of “several unexpected consequences with serious negative impacts,” including the possibility that 2000 interim surface parking spaces could become permanent, and that Forest City Ratner—bedeviled by changing market conditions and potential new political configurations—could decide to hold empty properties and cleared sites.

“Therefore, no demolition should be permitted on Phase 2 sites, and no interim parking should be allowed on existing vacant sites,” the report urges, arguing that Phase 1 “must incorporate and satisfy its own parking needs”—a seeming impossibility, according to the Atlantic Yards Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Affordable housing

The amount of affordable housing, 900 units, planners noted, would exceed that promised in Phase 1 of Atlantic Yards and more affordable housing could potentially be added in the adjacent blocks currently owned by Forest City Ratner. (More likely is that the developer would sell or develop the properties for market-rate units.) And the affordable housing would be guaranteed into perpetuity, rather than 30 or 40 years.

How to how pay for the affordable housing? Angotti responded, “We would rely on the same pool of affordable housing subsidy as FCR. Cross-subsidy is an option to be considered. We would need to do a complete financial plan for UNITY to know how much overall public subsidy is needed for the project; clearly we would expect a similar amount if not more than FCR's promised subsidies, and we would get a much bigger return for the public in terms of low-income affordable units, public open space, neighborhood preservation, etc.”

New designs

UNITY would eliminate the planned superblocks and add streets, putting open space on the edge of such streets and also employing green roofs. (Atlantic Yards would get a significant slice of planned open space by demapping Pacific Street between Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues.) I wasn't able to get a tally, however, for the acreage.

Also, notes the report:
Brooklyn has a diversity of densities, building sizes and types. One can find many different scales of buildings around the Vanderbilt Yards. Building heights and massing in our proposal would be regulated to respond to these diverse conditions - from small scale to large.

Transportation

One of the most interesting aspect is the effort to lift “transit-oriented development” beyond simply putting density near a transit hub. The report proposes “extensive traffic calming, parking reduction, and bicycle lanes to discourage vehicle use for both local and inter-borough travel.”

Among the long term proposals include connecting the Long Island Rail Road to lower Manhattan and JFK Airport—an expensive proposition—and a Brooklyn trolley loop. (The transportation program was led by Brian Ketcham and Carolyn Konheim of Community Consulting Services.)

The proposal also suggests that the congestion pricing cordon should be expanded to downtown Brooklyn to reduce traffic. If that occurs, however, the area around the Vanderbilt Yard might become a park-and-ride hub without limits on parking on the site, residential parking permits, and peak pricing for parking.

A new process

The report argues for an open planning process involving multiple stakeholders, a distinct contrast with the process that led to the Atlantic Yards plan. It suggests the following:
--create urban design principles
--approve arena site
--create a new and improved Community Benefits Agreement
--create a Community Oversight Committee
--approve urban design principles
--amend ATURA (Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area), create special zoning district
--divide the site for development
--launch a public design competition
--transform the COC to a trust.

Likely? At this point, no. Possible? Stay tuned.

The departing "middle-class" and AY affordable housing

New York City Comptroller William Thompson on Sept. 12 issued a report on New York's 2005 outmigration patterns involving various income groups, and it was quickly used by columnist Errol Louis to argue for projects like Atlantic Yards that would include subsidized housing for the middle-class.

Not so fast. It turns out that moderate-income residents departing the city would not be helped much by Atlantic Yards, given that those in their (approximate) income bracket would be eligible for only 450 of the 2250 affordable units. In fact, when the affordable housing deal was first announced, 900 units were aimed at this demographic; developer Forest City Ratner instead shifted more of the affordable units to higher income brackets.

Thompson's press release, headlined THOMPSON: MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS MOST LIKELY TO LEAVE NYC, made some somewhat subtle points:
Moderate-income ($40,000 to $59,999 annual income) and higher-income households ($140,000 to $249,999 annual income) were most likely to leave the city, while middle-income ($60,000 to $139,999) and wealthy households ($250,000 and above) were least likely to leave.

The full report explained that the moderate-income families tended to move to other parts of the country, seeking "higher real incomes through better job opportunities or lower living costs. The higher-income movers tended to move to the suburbs, valuing housing, school, or tax differentials.

Middle-income blues

In a column September 16 headlined Call an ambulance - our middle class is bleeding, Daily News columnist Louis wrote:
The numbers are in, and the data show what some of us have been saying for a while now: that New York's forgotten, quietly suffering middle-class families need all the help and attention this city's leaders and institutions can muster. And they need it fast.
...Middle-class families - notably, households with annual incomes between $40,000 and $60,000, and households earning more than $140,000 - make up a disproportionate segment of the army heading for the exits.

Note that Thompson's report used more careful terms than the catch-all "middle-class." Still, the comptroller apparently used that term while speaking to Louis, who wrote:
"The numbers don't lie," Thompson told me. "The middle class is the group that's leaving. They are not displacing poor people."

That means we have to end the zero-sum politics that pits the needs of the poor against those of the middle class. Look at any of the big development projects around the city that include affordable housing - Atlantic Yards, Queens West, conversion of the Domino sugar factory on the Brooklyn waterfront - and there's a fight about whether subsidizing middle-class families amounts to a wasteful "giveaway" of resources best reserved for the very poor.

The New York Observer in an article headlined Census Shows Middle Class in Flight From New York, noted:

Little wonder the solidly middle class are fleeing the city. Rather than sink over one-third of its monthly income into housing costs—whether through mortgages or rents—a household making between $40,000 and $60,000 a year generally exits the city, leaving the very wealthy and the working class behind to further stratify the Big Apple.

Actually, it would be more accurate to call those departing the lower end of the middle-class, since a lot of the middle-class are staying--we wouldn't call a household earning $70,000 "very wealthy."

Middle-class vs. moderate-income

When the Atlantic Yards 50/50 affordable housing program was announced by developer Forest City Ratner and ACORN, it applied to the entire project, which at that point was all rental units. (Condos were later added; they now count 1930, of which 200 would be subsidized, though likely not affordable to moderate-income families most outmigrating.)

The affordable housing configuration was presented in three potential scenarios. In each scenario, 900 units would be available to low-income households, with incomes 30-50% of Area Median Income, or AMI. (AMI, which includes suburban counties, was once $62,800 for a family of four; now it's $70,900. City and borough household income is significantly lower.)

The large amount of wiggle room involved the other 1350 units. In one configuration, there would be 900 units available to households with incomes of 51-100% of AMI--a rough equivalent to the moderate-income cohort that's leaving disproportionately. The final 450 units would be available to households with incomes of 101-160% of AMI.

See graphic below, from April 2006 version of AtlanticYards.com. (Click to enlarge)

The switch

When it came time for the affordable housing information session on 7/11/06, however, Forest City Ratner had replaced the first scenario with the third scenario--which alarmed numerous attendees, who saw much of the housing as unaffordable to them. Moreover, the AMI in the past year had risen, thus increasing rents all around.Thus the current scenario does not provide as much opportunity to the "bleeding" middle class. Rather, there would be 450 units available to households with incomes of 60-100% of AMI, 450 units available to households with incomes of 101-140% of AMI, and another 450 units available to households with incomes of 141-160% of AMI.

In other words, 900 units, or 40%, would go to the middle-income households who are least likely to leave, according to Thompson's report.

That's not to say that they don't face pressures, given that the housing market continues to tighten, two years after the statistics for Thompson's report was compiled. So Louis has a point. And there's a legitimate debate about whether Atlantic Yards, or anything in its place, should have more low-income housing--regional AMI is much higher than Brooklyn household income, and BrooklynSpeaks, for example, points out that 60% of the units would not be affordable to average Brooklyn households.

But it is clear that a project like Atlantic Yards, to do the most good, should better target those moderate-income households that are leaving disproportionately.

That raises some questions. If affordable housing is a legitimate goal, why is developer Forest City Ratner allowed to call the shots regarding the configuration of income brackets? And why hasn't ACORN raised its voice?

Looking at Queens West

As for Queens West, also cited by Louis, a city press release last October stated:
Up to 5,000 units of housing primarily designed to be affordable to families earning from $60,000 to $145,000 for a family of four is expected to be developed on the site.

Again, they may need help in the city's housing market. But Thompson's report makes the case for prioritizing moderate-income families who earn $40,000 to $60,000. So the critics of Queens West, who argue for both low-income and moderate-income housing, have a point.

Bye, bye Pacific Street blight, thanks to citizen action

What a difference a handful of people and some garden tools can make. After yesterday's clean-up effort on Pacific Street bordering the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard, a 50-yard stretch was bushwacked, clearing overgrown weeds (four feet high, and blocking the sidewalk), significant amounts of waste and debris, and recyclable bottles, all the result of governmental neglect of a site the Empire State Development Corporation deems blighted.

(Above: Deb Goldstein and Jon Crow get to work shortly after noon. Below, some of the result nearly five hours later.)

The tally

The tally, according to organizer Deb Goldstein, included 17 42-gallon bags of garbage, a large assemblage of weeds and greenery for composting (below), and 13 bags of recyclables. The area next to the railyard seems to be a magnet for Poland Spring water bottles, other drink containers, foot tins, random glass, some clothes, compact discs, fast food wrappers, and even diapers.

A representative of the Department of Sanitation came by, I was told, and said the agency might stop back. At the least, the department has garbage bags and recyclables to collect.

(The turnout was modest, eight people working in shifts, though it likely would've been larger if other Atlantic Yards-centric volunteers and Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn supporters had not been at Kids Disco Don't Destroy. This was not a DDDB event, but organizer Goldstein is the sister of DDDB spokesman Daniel Goldstein.)

Who's responsible?

Shouldn't the city and/or MTA have been taking care of this all along? (Here's Metro's coverage, which acknowledges the confusion.) The answer is that the state punted.

Remember, as I noted, in response to complaints about the upkeep of the railyard and its perimeter, the ESDC, in the Atlantic Yards Final Environmental Impact Statement, ignored the issue of responsibility:
Chapter 1, “Project Description,” and Chapter 3, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy,” describe in detail the present condition of the project site, including the Vanderbilt Yard.

"Ratner filth"

Given the provocative signs posted at the end of the event--Community Clean/Ratner Filth and "We Are Not Blighted. Don't Dump On Us"--it's a good bet that some official agency will, at least, remove the signs.
(Photos by Norman Oder and Deb Goldstein)

"The Landlord," til Tuesday, takes us to 1969 Park Slope

Um, remember Park Slope in the late 1960s, the time of redlining, trash-strewn empty lots, and battered buildings? I don't, though I've heard tell, so the next best thing is to get to the Film Forum (through Tuesday only), to see Hal Ashby's 1970 movie "The Landlord," an entertaining and jolting portrait of a neighborhood and an era.

The New York Times, in feature headlined Before Gentrification Was Cool, It Was a Movie, describes it as "an experimental, satirical film, from a script by an unknown black screenwriter, about a wealthy young white man who decides to buy a Brooklyn tenement and ease out the black tenants so he can gut it and move in."

Indeed, when Elgar Enders' family learns he's bought a building "in the Park Slope area," the response is, "Are you aware that's a colored neighborhood?"

(Was it? I'd thought that the population was as much Latino as black, but maybe some readers can correct me. I can say that a couple of longtime black homeowners in the northwest Slope have their stairs and railings painted red, black, and green, the colors of the Pan-African flag. On the same block as more recent arrival Maggie Gyllenhaal, actually.)

Gaining territory

"The strongest drive we have as a human life force is to gain territory," we hear early on in the movie, but it's not easy for Elgar at all, as the photo (the landlord, played by Beau Bridges, and a tenant, played by Louis Gossett, Jr.) suggests--though modern-day viewers, looking back on the let-it-all-hang-out era, might marvel at how easy it was for him to find love across the color line. (Maybe the soundtrack helped.)

Elgar's grandiose plans to evict the tenants, several of whom are non-paying and/or violating their leases by operating businesses, come to naught. At 51 Prospect Place, as the New York Times identifies the house (though I'm not sure of that, based on a look at that block today), it's just west of Sixth Avenue. That area has changed markedly, even though the 1973 Historic District designation excluded territory this far west.

Fifteen years ago, when I moved to Park Slope, the blocks between Sixth and Fifth avenues were far less rehabbed (and costly) than they are now; the gentrification of the Fifth Avenue shopping street has increased property values and turned the blocks between Fifth and Fourth avenues into the new real estate 'frontier.'

Disappeared, and revived

The Times says “The Landlord” "would disappear after its 1970 release — rarely shown and just as rarely discussed," and it's not even available on DVD.

The Village Voice headlined J. Hoberman's review The Slums of Park Slope: Attention, moms, Brownstoner: The Landlord recalls bygone Brooklyn. It notes that Elgar "does establish a brief, bittersweet rapport with his hustling, scuffling, half-crazed tenants—even learning something about race and what would be called 'gentrification' before retreating back into his money."

As Hoberman points out, the film shifts in tone, from serious to madcap. The Film Forum's description calls it "both a time capsule of 70s cinema — direct-to-the-camera dialogue, jagged editing, jarring bursts of music on the soundtrack, echoey on-location sound... and those bellbottoms! — as well as an edgy (before the term was coined), rope-dancing-on-the-razor’s-edge dramedy on race in America."

And yes, as the Film Forum notes, the ‘n-word' is uttered, "but not said by whom, and to whom, you might think." Not at all. Like the movie itself.

Sunday is (belated) clean-up day on Pacific Street

It's an idea whose time has come and Atlantic Yards opponents wishing to make a very good point could have jumped on it even sooner: if the government won't clean up the overgrown brush and other mess on Pacific Street next to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's "blighted" Vanderbilt Yard, then it's time for citizens to do so.

NoLandGrab (source of graphic) reports the details:
Supplies provided. Please feel free to bring extra Gloves, Gardening Tools, Garbage/Recycling Bags.

An e-mail message describes participants as "Neighbors, members of the community, DDDB & Local Garden Group volunteers, anyone who is 'mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.'"

The state punted

Remember, in comments last year on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement, several commenters criticized city agencies and the MTA for failing "to maintain the appearance of the rail yards and [ignoring] local residents when we requested such attention."

The response from the Empire State Development Corporation, in toto, ignored the issue of responsibility:
Chapter 1, “Project Description,” and Chapter 3, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy,” describe in detail the present condition of the project site, including the Vanderbilt Yard.

IBO calculates more (modest) costs to the city from AY arena

One more piece of the Atlantic Yards fiscal puzzle has been filled in. The use of tax exempt bonds for the Atlantic Yards arena would cost the city $5.2 million foregone tax revenue over 30 years, expressed in present value, according to a letter from the New York City Independent Budget Office (IBO), which in a 2005 report on the project had eschewed specific estimates.

As predicted in that report, the costs would be much higher for the federal government; IBO estimated the costs to the federal government of $103.7 million and to the state government of $9.5 million.

IBO in 2005 estimated total savings of $91 million to developer Forest City Ratner, based on an arena estimated to cost $555.3 million. Now, with an arena estimated to cost $637.2 million, IBO estimates savings of $82 million, a lower figure.

Why? Interests rates are now lower. "This is because the increase in the projected cost of the arena is more than offset by the effect of the lower interest rate," wrote IBO Deputy Director George Sweeting in a letter explaining the recalculations.

Cost adds up

While IBO in 2005 said that the cost of the bonds would pose “relatively little impact on New York City or State,” the additional $5.2 million calculated would appear to put the city further in the hole regarding the arena.

IBO had calculated a modest fiscal gain for the city, $28.5 based on a city contribution of $100 million. Now that the city contribution has grown to $205 million—some portion of which may not go directly to the arena—the city likely was facing a loss, I concluded. Sweeting confirmed to the Brooklyn Paper that such a loss was possible.

Genesis of estimate

IBO's new calculations came in response to an AYR request. I noticed recently that the agency, in response to a request from Good Jobs New York (GJNY), updated its estimate of the costs to the city, state, and federal governments resulting from the use of tax exempt bonds for the construction of the new Yankee Stadium.

So I wrote to IBO’s Sweeting:
I wonder if IBO could similarly update its 2005 estimate of the costs to the city, state, and federal governments resulting from the use of tax exempt bonds for the construction of the planned Brooklyn Arena, part of Atlantic Yards.

Not only have interest rates changed, but also the cost of the arena has risen, and the city's planned contribution has grown from $100 million to $205 million. I believe more accurate estimates would enhance and clarify the public discussion.

I pointed out that I had already speculated that the increased city contribution, if plugged into the previous IBO report, suggests a net loss for the city.

IBO clarification

Sweeting responded that IBO’s 2005 report did not actually provide an estimate of the foregone income tax revenue due to use of tax exempt bonds, because of the need to make assumptions about the the bond purchasers and the uncertainty regarding changing federal tax law. Thanks to a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service as well as improved internal techniques, he said, IBO could produce a new estimate.

While the IBO's responsiveness is welcome, there's certainly an argument, given the shifting costs and benefits, to do a full revision. That's apparently not in the cards. Sweeting wrote:
We will go ahead with this calculation, but it remains unlikely that we will re-work the entire fiscal impact analysis, given other demands on our resources. (By the way, that is similar to what we recently did for GJNY. We did not revisit our whole analysis of the baseball stadiums, only the part relating to the tax exempt bonds.)

IBO letter

Today, I received the following letter from Sweeting, which is also posted on the IBO web site. The relevant sections:

Per your request, IBO has prepared estimates of the fiscal costs of the city and state decision giving Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC) access to tax exempt bond financing for construction of the basketball arena portion of the Atlantic Yards project. In IBO’s 2005 analysis of the fiscal impact of the Atlantic Yards project we had noted that there would be moderate fiscal costs associated with this financing, although at the time we were not prepared to offer a specific estimate.

Allowing FCRC to use tax-exempt bonds to finance the arena construction saves FCRC money because tax-exempt bonds generally pay a lower interest rate than taxable bonds, which results in debt service savings for the developer. In addition, because the interest is exempt from income tax, there are costs to the city, state, and federal governments equal to the tax revenue that they would have collected had the interest been taxable.

In estimating these costs, IBO assumed that the cost of the arena would be $637.2 million—up from the $555 million projection in 2005—and that the entire project would be financed with tax-exempt bonds. In our 2005 study we had pointed to a potential constraint under the Internal Revenue Code that might have limited the portion of the project that could qualify for tax-exempt financing. A recent ruling by the IRS regarding the financing for the new Yankee Stadium appears to clear the way for most, if not all, of the arena construction bonds to qualify for tax-exempt status. Our estimate assumes that the entire $637.2 million will be financed with tax-exempt bonds. The bonds were assumed to be 30 years with level payment and an interest rate of 4.5 percent. Note that the interest rate used in our new estimate is 1.5 percent lower than in our 2005 report. The estimates below are the 30 year net present values, using a discount rate of 6 percent.

Under these assumptions, the savings for FCRC are estimated at $82 million, which is lower than our 2005 estimate. This is because the increase in the projected cost of the arena is more than offset by the effect of the lower interest rate. The projected cost in foregone tax revenue for the city is $5.2 million over 30 years. The corresponding costs for the state and federal governments are $9.5 million and $103.7 million.

The “other” Atlantic Yards legal cases return to court

While many Atlantic Yards watchers are anticipating the October 9 oral argument in the appeal of the dismissal of the federal eminent domain lawsuit and expecting a decision soon in the state case challenging the project environmental review, two other cases, both involving 13 renters in two buildings, are moving toward arguments in court.

One of the cases, which challenges the Empire State Development Corporation’s (ESDC) relocation offer, in fact is the only case formally blocking the agency from moving to condemn properties. “At minimum, they can’t do anything to my clients until the case is over,” said George Locker, attorney for the plaintiffs, at 624 Pacific Street and 473 Dean Street.

The state has promised to provide the services of a real estate broker, moving assistance, and a $5000 payment—but that, Locker argues, will hardly guarantee similarly affordable housing. (Of the 13 plaintiffs, 12 have rent-stabilized leases, and many pay rents that are $500-$600.)

That case, which was not heard in a trial court but will be argued directly in an appellate court, will be heard by the Appellate Division, Second Department, 45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn, on [corrected] October 5 at 10 a.m.

(Must the ESDC also wait until the eminent domain case is resolved to move forward with condemnation of properties involved in that case? Technically, no, I believe, but it’s likely the state will be cautious and wait until resolution.)

The other case involves an appeal of a lower court decision declaring residential rental tenants to be condemnees, with an ownership interest in their lease. Justice Walter Tolub in May dismissed the case, saying that the case belonged instead in the appellate court, where challenges to eminent domain determinations are supposed to be heard, but without the advantages of a trial. That appeal will be heard in the First Department, 27 Madison Avenue, Manhattan, after 2 pm on September 26.

Legal twists

Both cases involve some interesting legal issues. For example, Tolub relied on a string of cases that showed the commercial tenants threatened with condemnation had an ownership interest via their leases; no case has evaluated the situation of residential tenants. Locker maintains that, if the appellate court upholds Tolub’s decision, the state will be expanding the rights of residential renters.

Regarding the relocation offer, which involves a plan but not a promise to find tenants alternative accommodation, the ESDC has the seemingly slam-dunk argument that the court in 2001 already upheld an identical relocation offer. Locker cautions that the plaintiffs in the case represented themselves, without a lawyer, and that the decision serves as a poor precedent.

Relocation: method or results?

In the relocation case, the ESDC says that the challenge to the state’s determination and findings, under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, is a challenge to the entire project, not merely the two buildings.

Pointing out in a legal brief that the state in 2001 upheld “an identical relocation plan,” the ESDC’s lawyers state, “It simply confounds belief that Petitioners could have failed to discover this case.”

The question posed to the court, the ESDC says, is whether the state has the statutory authority to pursue condemnation, where it has made a finding “that there is a feasible method” for relocation.

There is no legal requirement that ESDC “must actually provide comparable housing at that time to those who in the future may be displaced,” the agency says, pointing out that the housing market, as well as the circumstances of the tenants, can change rapidly.

And, says the ESDC, if the state’s relocation consultant does not provide comparable housing, the tenants can then go to court and contest the condemnation.

Locker’s response notes that the ESDC itself has not offered petitioners relocation into the project at hand, as state law states is one option. Nor has Forest City Ratner’s relocation offer to tenants—which apparently excludes those suing it—part of the record.

The developer has offered to pay the differential rent—the difference between current rent and the rent of current apartments—for other former footprint residents, though the offer expires if Atlantic Yards isn’t built and the tenants are not relocated into the project. “Most [of the plaintiffs] have never been offered anything,” Locker said. “A few were offered something years ago.”

He argues that the ESDC has not studied “the private rental housing market into which respondent plans for a real estate broker to refer the petitioners” and that no facts in the record “show whether comparable and affordable rental housing existed in the project area, or other areas no less desirable, in 2005 or 2006, or would likely exist in 2007.”

He also points out that Forest City Ratner told City Council in May 2005 that the need for condemnation was “substantially reduced” because the developer owned most of the units on the project site, thus ignoring the need for “friendly condemnations” that would extinguish the leases of tenants with rent-stabilized leases in buildings it owns.

Feasible method

The law establishing the Urban Development Corporation, now aka ESDC, requires "that there is a feasible method for the relocation of families and individuals displaced from the project area into decent, safe and sanitary dwellings, which are or will be provided in the project area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities, at rents or prices within the financial means of such families or individuals, and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Insofar as is feasible, the corporation shall offer housing accommodations to such families and individuals in residential projects of the corporation. The corporation may render to … families or other persons displaced from the project area, such assistance as it may deem necessary to enable them to relocate.(h) in the case of all projects, the corporation shall state the basis for its findings."

Does a method require “a description of its relocation plan” or simply a method? Locker’s legal brief argues that "the UDC Act requires ESDC to find that there is a feasible method for the relocation of families, not that there will be a feasible method."
(Emphases here and below in original)

He continues, arguing, "ESDC may have found that it had a relocation method—use of a real estate broker, a $5000 payment, and a moving van - but this is not a factual basis for finding that these elements are capable or likely to provide petitioners with the specific components of the relocation benefits outlined in 10(g)."

And why didn’t ESDC compile a record on tenant relocation? Because it did not believe any tenants would remain, Locker contends.

“Numbers of my clients appear to have modest incomes and very low rent,” Locker said. “It appears that that kind of rental housing doesn’t exist any more.” Actually, if Atlantic Yards gets built, there would be 900 low-income units (over ten or 20 years or however long the project takes), with perhaps 225 of them studios; they would currently cost under $600 a month for single people who meet the income eligibility.

It’s possible, Locker acknowledged, that some of the tenants he represents may have low rent but less modest incomes. The ESDC response notes that it’s required to find accommodation that is affordable, but not necessarily at the same low rent guaranteed by the rent-stabilized lease.

Who’s an owner?

In case appealing Tolub’s decision, the ESDC notes that state law defines a condemnee as “the holder of any right, title, interest, lien, charge or encumbrance in real property subject to an acquisition or proposed acquisition.”

The ESDC adds that the fact that Locker filed the relocation challenge is “an indisputable acknowledgement by plaintiffs-appellants that they are condemnees.” Locker’s reply brief says no, that “[n]owhere do appellants ‘acknowledge’ they are condemnees.”

Locker cites another case in which the courts have “clearly held that under the EDPL, a Rent Stabilized, month-to-month residential rental tenant has no compensable property interest in his/her lease.” Those cases, however, do not deal with the issue of condemnation.

So the appellate court will have decide which line of cases—those involving commercial tenants facing condemnation, relied on by the ESDC and the lower court, or those cited by Locker—is more apt.

The Times helps market the Nets/JKidd

Star New Jersey Nets point guard Jason Kidd's appearance in Wayne, NJ, with the winner of the Take-a-Net to School Sweepstakes on Wednesday was tagged, appropriately, as "marketing" by the NetsDaily blog.

It garnered a short article in the Bergen Record, coverage in the electronic media, and, surprisingly, two photos on p. D3 in yesterday's New York Times. The Times, doing its best imitation of the Courier-Life chain, wrapped four serious hoops articles (the sexual harassment suit against Isiah Thomas; NBA referees under the spotlight; the University of Memphis's China venture; and the Harvard appearance of sports marketer Sonny Vaccaro) around two Kidd photos occupying more than one-quarter of the page.

Sure, the Times needed some photos for the page, but their choice was questionable. While buffing the Nets and Kidd, the newspaper hasn't yet written about the discrepancy between promises of a 2009 Brooklyn arena open and the actual construction schedule; the way suites and a naming deal will pay for a new arena; and the projected increase in ticket prices.

Nor did the Times point out that Kidd, however much a terrific point guard and good with kids, might just be benefiting from the Nets' attempt to rehab his reputation, which has been battered in some other precincts.

Promising prospects for Prospect Heights historic designation

The Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council (PHNDC), with the assistance of the Municipal Art Society, has been pushing for historic designation for the neighborhood, and the process looks promising, if hardly assured.

Mary Beth Betts, director of research for the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) said last night at a PHNDC meeting at P.S. 9 that, while, no timeline can yet be provided, "it's at the top of the list of [potential historic] districts that we're looking at."

(Photos by Tracy Collins, from the Municipal Art Society's Prospect Heights walking tour last Saturday.)

PHNDC points out arguments for designation:
Prospect Heights has remained remarkably free from large-scale physical change, making it a perfect candidate for historic district designation by New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission. But without such designation soon, that may well change. A strong real estate market and the development of Atlantic Yards just adjacent to the proposed historic district will exert immense development pressures on the neighborhood, posing a threat to its sense of place and historic character.

Indeed, PHNDC's Gib Veconi showed slides of buildings demolished for or disfigured by development and suggested that the zoning override approved for Atlantic Yards "may make it easier for other developers to vary from existing zoning."

Multiple goals

The designation of a historic district would accomplish four goals, according to Veconi's presentation:
--preserve historic 19th century buildings
--maintain neighborhood character and a sense of place
--reduce exposure to increased density
--promote stability of the community (because residents tend to stay rather than speculate).

PHNDC has photographed and documented more than 1000 buildings, and sent letters from Community Board 8, Council Member Letitia James, and Borough President Marty Markowitz supporting the designation.

(The PS 9 Annex, above, was restored by Forest City Ratner to house people displaced by MetroTech.)

Costs and benefits

Not every homeowner favors such designation, reported Denise Brown of the Crown Heights North Association, which successfully advocated for designation of that neighborhood, given that it can be costly to comply with LPC standards for building exteriors. Indeed, several questions from the audience concerned exactly what homeowners would be permitted to do. (Tax breaks and grants are available.)

However, pointed out Simeon Bankoff, Executive Director, Historic Districts Council, an Independent Budget Office study found that designation improves property values and protects a neighborhood from the vicissitudes of the market.

LPC moves ahead

LPC's Betts explained that, thanks to new funding from the mayor and City Council, the commission has for the first time in 16 years begun to survey neighborhoods on its own, so it is well into studying Prospect Heights.

Given the LPC's completion of its survey, the next step is for LPC Chairman Robert Tierney to visit the neighborhood; if the commission decides to move forward, a community meeting would be held. After that would come votes by the LPC, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council, which could veto or modify a designation.

(As the sign on the building shows, several buildings in Prospect Heights, once not so valuable, were bought decades ago by social service and treatment agencies.)

AY omission

As shown last night, LPC's Prospect Height survey map--not necessarily the boundaries of any historic district--was even larger than that considered by the MAS (below); it included most of the blocks bounded by Flatbush Avenue to the west, Dean Street to the north, and Washington Avenue to the east.

Conspicuously absent was most of the Atlantic Yards footprint, including the Spalding building at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Pacific Street, a handsome condo conversion of a manufacturing building. Betts said that, because the footprint had been under environmental review, "we determined we were not going to include the Atlantic Yards area." (Actually, from the map shown to the group last night, it looked like part of Dean Street in the AY footprint was included.)

Note that the map above, as I wrote in April, was prepared by MAS, not LPC; a Prospect Heights Historic District (blue outline) is already listed on the State and National Registers, but S/NR listing, as it's known, does not protect the integrity of buildings the way an LPC designation would. The map prepared by MAS suggests a much larger outline, in red. Note that the northern finger of the existing and proposed historic district, on the west side of Carlton Avenue between Dean and Pacific streets, would be directly opposite the Atlantic Yards project at its north and east edges.

Perhaps any effort to include Atlantic Yards was futile, in the eyes of a city agency; after all, it was pointed out, historic designation does not protect against eminent domain.

Zoning and affordability

The desire to protect against inappropriate development is understandable, as is the wish to preserve valuable architecture. And while historic districts do allow new construction on vacant lots and to replace unworthy structures, they are not generally places to accommodate increased density and affordable housing--issues raised by Atlantic Yards and the city's steady growth.

I asked Council Member James about balancing such goals. She noted that she and Council Member Al Vann have funded Community Board 8 to hire an urban planner, who's conducting a zoning study. That study, due in perhaps eight months, will recommend what blocks in Prospect Heights, both inside and outside the (presumed) historic district, can accommodate growth and provide builders a zoning bonus in exchange for affordability.

A piece of the Ward Bakery yet escapes the wrecking ball

Any attending the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods press conference Monday could have noticed an odd thing: a piece of the Ward Bakery is not, in fact, shrouded for asbestos abatement and demolition but continues to operate as a moving and storage company.

How can part of the building be intact? Why isn't the company gone? A representative of Pack It Away Storage pointed me to attorney Michael Rikon, a well-known representative of condemnees, who answered my questions. (Here's an article co-authored by Rikon on the expansion of the doctrine of "public use.")

Ten-year operation

Pack It Away, Rikon said, has been at that location for more than ten years and the building--while connected to the rest of the bakery--is stable and structurally sound. "The demolition may not interfere with the continuing activities of the business in any way," he said.

(The last bakery operation at the building closed in 1995. The aromas, hardly unpleasant, wafted into Park Slope.)

Meanwhile, he explained, "We are awaiting an offer in writing pursuant to the Eminent Domain Procedure Law. I do not expect any offers to be made by the developer." Rather, the Empire State Development Corporation (aka New York State Urban Development Corporation, or UDC), via its outside counsel, Berger & Webb, will handle the case. "This firm is well respected and will carefully comply with all legal requirements to condemn the properties involved with the project."

Meanwhile, he said, "We await condemnation and will continue to do business even after the taking." Given that lawsuits likely will delay condemnation for months, that may make for an interesting time, since the bakery is scheduled for demolition in less than a month.

Blight Study

(Photo by Adrian Kinloch/Brit in Brooklyn. Look to the far left of the structure for the storage operation.)

The ESDC, in its Blight Study, declared:
Location, Use, Zoning, and Ownership
Lot 39 is located at 802 Pacific Street between Carlton and Vanderbilt Avenues. The lot is occupied by a three story 15,372 gsf industrial building (see Photograph A). Lot 39 is located in an M1-1 zoning district with an FAR of 1.0. M1 districts allow high-performance light manufacturing uses and often serve as buffers to adjacent residential or commercial districts. According to the New York City Department
of Finance, lot 39 is currently owned by PJK Realty Corporation.
Unsanitary and Unsafe Conditions
As shown in Photographs A and B, there is graffiti on the façade of the building and on the building’s metal door. Apart from this graffiti, no unsanitary and unsafe conditions were identified as part of the visual assessment.
Indications of Structural Damage
A structural due diligence survey has not been conducted for this lot. The visual assessment did not indicate that the building structure is substantially compromised.
Building Code Violations
Lot 39 has 4 open building code violations on file with DOB (see Appendix B). The violations date from 1993 to 2002 and all are related to the building’s elevator system.
Vacancy Status
The building on lot 39 is currently occupied by a moving and storage company.

DDDB's response

Said Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn in its response (p. 90) to the ESDC's Blight Study:
The eastern most end of the Ward Bakery is occupied by different owners and houses a moving and storage business. AKRF finds “there is graffiti on the façade of the building and the building’s metal door. Apart from this graffiti, no unsanitary and unsafe conditions were identified.” The neighborhood remains unaware of anyone suffering harm from this unsanitary and unsafe graffiti.

A follow-up on the AY ombudsperson: "intersecting concerns"

My follow-up on the Atlantic Yards ombudsperson issue in the Brooklyn Downtown Star adds some more context:
Asked to comment, Peter Krashes of the Dean Street Block Association, a neighbor of the bakery, responded, ""While starting in June or July double-shift work was scheduled for the demolition of the Ward Bread parapet and for the asbestos abatement, very little of it actually took place. As far as I know, those double shifts that did take place were simply to sweep up after the work during the day. Still, it was unfortunate that double-shift work was approved, given the close proximity of the many residents in the area-both inside and outside the footprint-and the inability of the developer to provide noise mitigations for so many of them."

He added, "There are many intersecting concerns that need to be taken into account when doing work like the parapet demolition at the Ward Bakery building, and the ESDC is the only oversight agency in a position to have a comprehensive overview. However modest, as a bottom-line standard the developer has made specific commitments to the community to lower construction impacts like noise for residents. From a practical point of view, the ESDC is the entity that must oversee how those commitments are affected by issues like approving double-shift work. DOB's concerns are narrower. The ESDC has the responsibility to know where the residents are inside and outside the footprint, and how they are going to be impacted by project related work. If they don't do their job well, there is a real risk someone will be affected adversely who doesn't have to be."

New York mag on the Ebbets Field fantasy (and a glimmer of hope?)

Scott Turner of Fans for Fair Play first savaged the relevance of Dodgers nostalgia in the context of the Atlantic Yards saga, but now Sam Anderson, in New York magazine, offers a broader look, in a long article headlined Exorcising the Dodgers, with the subtitle, "50 years ago, the Dodgers left Ebbets Field for Los Angeles. Isn’t it time their ghosts left, too?"

The article suggests some good reason to be skeptical of the myth of Dodgers redux, though it offers some reason for hope, albeit based on a rather small sample.

Civic center?

It takes a while for Anderson to get to Atlantic Yards:

The most obvious (and calculated) candidate to replace Ebbets is the massive Atlantic Yards project, the $4.2 billion, sixteen-tower, 6,400-unit Gehry-designed commercial-residential-office complex that will redefine Fort Greene and Prospect Heights, ramp up gentrification, and (pretty much incidentally) be home to basketball’s Nets. Depending on whom you talk to, this is either Brooklyn’s long-awaited salvation—a Second Temple to atone for the destruction of Ebbets—or the most cynical use of a sports team ever, the worst thing to happen to Brooklyn since the Dodgers left. It’s impossible to say, of course, whether the development will draw the surrounding neighborhoods together, giving modern Brooklyn the civic center it so clearly lacks, or whether it will just act as a gigantic crinkly metal wall.

(The rendering above was produced by the Environmental Simulation Center for the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods and subsequently adapted to emphasize Newswalk. A few buildings have since been cut in height.)

The development, as currently planned, likely would not draw the surrounding neighborhoods together, given the superblock design and open space behind buildings, as BrooklynSpeaks has pointed out. It's hard to say that better-designed open space could compensate for the bulk of the buildings.

As for a civic center, that's a stretch. The arena might indeed be better than some other urban arenas--but it's an arena, a place for crowd surges, not a civic center. A quarter-acre "Main Lawn" would hardly be a magnet, especially compared to Prospect Park, if not a civic center than at least a 526-acre oasis.

The Urban Room (right) might be a worthy aboveground entrance to the subway and gathering place. (Something civic should go at that tip of Flatbush and Atlantic avenues, right?) Then again, it might be too windy or be more of an arena lobby than anything. (It's supposed to contain ticket windows, a team store, entrances to the hotel, office space, and transit hub, as well as restaurants, cafes, and gathering spaces.)

As for gentrification, that issue gets dicey. We need density to increase housing, and density near a transit hub is a good idea. We need housing for a wide range of incomes. But how exactly was a project of this size and this configuration arrived at, and who's paying for what?

Metaphorical issues

Anderson continues, regarding AY:
But as a metaphor, it’s the exact opposite of Ebbets. Ebbets was a tiny, neighborhood-uniting orthodox baseball temple that was built, in less than a year, on an old dump crisscrossed by goat paths. Atlantic Yards is a huge, neighborhood-raping megadevelopment, pinned between two of its developer’s own malls, that violates every design principle of the borough’s small-scale, organic history. Construction is scheduled to take ten years. It is pure real estate, with sports as a footnote. The Nets haven’t grown, like the Dodgers did, directly out of the Brooklyn soil—they’ll be transplants, a squad of mercenaries paid to sell the neighborhood’s new regime. It’s hard to envision the natives finally bonding with the gentrifying hordes over $50 seats at a Nets game. (Bruce Ratner has skillfully scrambled the racial politics of the project, enlisting—some say buying—widespread black support and casting opponents as selfish gentrifiers.) Atlantic Yards is Dodgers nostalgia run amok: New Brooklyn getting rich on the dying myth of Old Brooklyn—a supposed tribute to the borough that may well end up defacing the Brooklyn it’s pretending to honor. The Nets are less a karmic reversal of the Dodgers tragedy than its logical conclusion. O’Malley ruined the borough by leaving; Ratner will ruin it by moving in.

And that's where Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) ended its excerpt, saying "we can't recall having ever seen a better summary of what 'Atlantic Yards' is all about."

Actually, AY wouldn't exactly be "pinned between two of its developer's own malls" so much as twinned, across Atlantic Avenue.

Community building

But there was more to the article, with a nod, at least, to the redemptive power of sports and a reflection on how the Dodgers were the common topic of conversation. (Could a Brooklyn hoops team occupy the same role in the 21st century?) Anderson continues:

Ironically, in terms of community building, Atlantic Yards has already been a rousing, unintentional success, even in its infancy—it’s become Brooklyn’s best excuse for daily conversation in decades. It’s the anti-Dodgers, bringing people together in anger. And it looks like it will provide the borough with a basis for outraged chitchat for at least as long as the Dodgers dominated the National League.

But sports, recent history has taught us, can transcend even the deepest cynicism—which is why it’s such a powerful tool for professional cynics. The Mets, for instance, were created and marketed in the early sixties as the shadow Dodgers... By 1969, many old Dodger fans—including even the jaded Rabbi [Paul] Kushner—were cheering on the Mets’ underdog championship run.

I asked Kushner, after his lament about the soullessness of corporate sports, what he thought about the idea of the Brooklyn Nets—surely one of the more brazenly corporate exploitations of a fan base in the history of corporate exploitation, a second dose of O’Malleyism on his home soil. But very suddenly, I found that I was the only cynic at the table: Kushner’s nationalism trumped his reason.

“It all depends on one thing,” he answered, “and one thing only. If they call themselves the New York Nets, I couldn’t care less. If they call themselves the Brooklyn Nets, I’ll go to their games. Then they’re my team. For the first time in my life, I’ll become a basketball fan.”

So the Nets might have a shot, if you take it from a 70-year-old who lives in Bellmore, Long Island and earlier in the article declared, "The Brooklyn that I know and loved isn’t there anymore."

But Kushner's a bit out of touch; there was no chance the team would be called the New York Nets; the question is whether the Brooklyn team would be called the Nets at all, as originally promised; a name change is under discussion.

Marty and the "same site" dodge

Unmentioned, oddly enough, in the article is Borough President Marty Markowitz's fierce nostalgia for the Dodgers, welling up at the project announcement on 12/10/03: "I just--you don’t know what this little boy, at 12 years old, crying like a baby, I lived on Empire Boulevard and Brooklyn Avenue, a few blocks from Ebbets Field, like a baby—and those tears of joy are swelling up in me, I just can’t wait.”

Also unmentioned is the "same site" dodge, in which Atlantic Yards is declared to be the second coming of Ebbets Field. This is more the product of press lapses than of developer deception; Forest City Ratner has used the term "same area," while some reporters used the term "same site." And the New York Times has not published a correction.

Ending at Ebbets

Anderson ends his visit at the monolithic (but affordable) Ebbets Field Houses in Crown Heights, where he finds a working-class black population generally uninterested in nostalgia, or brotherhood, and a subway ride that shows Brooklyn re-gentrifying stop by stop.

It's worth remembering that, in the hard-fought 57th Assembly District race last September, when Atlantic Yards moderate Hakeem Jeffries beat project opponent Bill Batson, the latter acknowledged, "He must have met every voter in the Ebbets Field houses.”

Those voters, in the southeast segment of the district, probably didn't care that much about Atlantic Yards as a symbol or savior or neighborhood-mangling spaceship; the issues for them, more likely, were workaday issues of jobs and housing and education.

Jane's Walks coming in two weeks, including one on AY

The Center for the Living City, founded in the spirit of Jane Jacobs, on Saturday, September 29 and Sunday, September 30, will offer "Jane's Walks," a "series of free neighborhood strolls that emphasize the walkable and diverse nature of New York City."

The only Brooklyn one will concern Atlantic Yards, and I'll be leading it, with Center affiliate Ron Shiffman. (The walks will resume next spring; undoubtedly there are many Jacobsian walks to be found in the borough.)

The press release states:
As Jane Jacobs noted, people who live or work in the community know it best and can offer insights and observations that no professional can. Moreover, “Jane’s Walk” honors her belief that healthy cities feature walkable, compact, dense and diverse neighborhoods. These characteristics in turn help knit people together into a strong, connected and resourceful community.

The walks are part of the larger celebration of Jacobs’ work, including an exhibition, “Jane Jacobs and the Future of New York,” opening September 25 at the Municipal Art Society.

(Photo of Dean Street in the Atlantic Yards footprint by Adrian Kinloch.)

The Atlantic Yards Footprint and Environs

From the tour description:
Meeting Location: In front of Williamsburgh Savings Bank, tallest building in Brooklyn, Hanson Place at Ashland Place
Time: Saturday, Sept 29 2 PM
Tour Guides: Ron Shiffman and Norman Oder

Walk this area of Brooklyn with Ron Shiffman, planner and founder, Pratt Center for Community and Environmental Development (PICCED) and former New York City Planning Commissioner and Norman Oder, the journalist behind the Atlantic Yards Report and veteran New York City tour guide.The walk reveals the historic and political context behind the controversial Atlantic Yards plan—beginning at the edge of Downtown Brooklyn, where the borough’s tallest building is being converted to luxury condos, a dip into the embryonic Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM) arts district, a peek at revitalized Fort Greene. The walk will then take in the fruits of urban redevelopment—1970s tower apartments, 1990s low-rise housing, and two malls—before traversing the footprint itself in Prospect Heights.

The walk, which will last at least two hours, provides an opportunity to discuss highly-charged elements of the Atlantic Yards design, including significant density, the creation of superblocks, the challenge of creating (and paying for) affordable housing, and the possibility of persistent interim surface parking. An update on legal challenges to the project will also be provided.

(Photo of the triangle between Flatbush, Fifth, and Atlantic Avenues, by Tracy Collins.)

Ron Shiffman founded PICCED and still teaches urban planning at the Pratt Institute. He is on the advisory board of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the coalition leading opposition to the Atlantic Yards project.

Norman Oder has written a comprehensive and often critical blog about the project for the past two years; his Atlantic Yards Report has broken numerous stories. A licensed New York City tour guide, he has operated New York Like A Native, which specializes in walking tours of Brooklyn, since 2000.

The dangers of over-success

One apt term I've learned from Jacobs is the notion of the "oversuccessful city." A free walking tour on a nice day might bring large crowds and pose a very interesting challenge.

The Coney Island arena option (and Newark, too)

From Tom Angotti's Gotham Gazette article today about Making Coney Island Green:
And why not put the arena for the Nets basketball team in Coney Island, as planner Simon Bertrang proposes? Two previous studies recommended Coney Island as a location for a professional arena, and until recently that view was held by Brooklyn’s political establishment. Wouldn’t the 18,000 seat arena that the basketball team’s owner, Forest City Ratner, now proposes to cram in between the Prospect Heights and Fort Greene neighborhoods make more sense nested in Coney Island’s amusement area?

If this were to happen – the Nets could lose $35 million every year the Atlantic Yards project is delayed -- a Coney Island arena should not go the way of the New York Aquarium, which is isolated from the amusement park. Nor should it be dropped in next to Keyspan Park, thereby creating a big enclave of professional facilities. But if properly designed, the home court for the Nets could be physically integrated with Coney Island’s recreational facilities.

About the location, Angotti has a good point, and one I and other critics should have acknowledged earlier. But would the Gateway site in Coney Island be better? That's not in the amusement area. So where might the arena go?

If the Atlantic Yards plan fails or is scuttled, the Nets, I'll bet, will move to the new arena opening next month in Newark.

CBN asks: where's ESDC's promised ombudsperson?

In July, nearly two months after the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) announced it would hire an ombudsperson—a new position—serve as a liaison between ESDC, elected officials, “community representatives” and the general public regarding the Atlantic Yards project, an ESDC spokesman said, “We are in the final stages of the process and expect to have the ombudsperson hired soon.”

But it’s been more than two more months, work on the Ward Bakery—where the fall of a 200-foot section of parapet alarmed neighbors and led to violations—has resumed, and still no ombud. Community critics have lost patience.

(Above, Robert Puca of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods and the unknown ombuddy.)

Waiting too long

So the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN), taking advantage of some symmetry—the wait has been 132 days, twice the amount of time the public was given to respond to the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)—yesterday held a press conference and protest pointing out the long wait.

CBN, a coalition of community groups formed to represent the community in response to the DEIS, is also a plaintiff in a pending lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the environmental review. (Here's coverage from Brownstoner and Metro.)

The press conference was held on a tiny stretch of sidewalk at the northwest corner of Pacific Street and Vanderbilt Avenue, with some of the ten people or so nudged into the street. Preconstruction site prep went on noisily behind a fence that extended out into the sidewalk and work will continue for two years, a worker said.

The ESDC, charged CBN spokesman Jim Vogel (right), is “not too different from the last bunch we were dealing with. It’s unsupportable that we haven’t gotten any oversight so far.”

“ESDC appears to have its priorities backwards,” said CBN co-chair Candace Carponter in a press statement. “As a public agency, ESDC should be looking out for the public’s interest. Instead, it drags its feet when it comes to important community safeguards… It's a matter of public safety. ESDC’s failure to provide proper oversight of this project is a recipe for disaster – as we have seen with tragic consequences at the Deutsche Bank building in Lower Manhattan.”

More criticisms

CBN also pointed out that the administration of the noise mitigation program—which is supposed to provide double-paned windows and air conditioners for neighbors—“has been haphazard at best, yet ESDC has provided no opportunity for affected residents to seek redress.”

(In the background, the Atlantic Yards site and behind it the Atlantic Terminal 4B tower, visible from the press conference position before workers tacked up some screening material.)

CBN also pointed to errors in Construction Updates issued by ESDC, charging that “ESDC has not provided any opportunity for affected residents to appeal the scheduling of double-shift work that, while causing significant inconvenience to residents, appears calculated to aid the developer’s timetable.

ESDC response

ESDC spokesman Errol Cockfield issued a statement: “The Empire State Development Corporation has met repeatedly with community groups, elected officials, and even opponents of the Atlantic Yards Project. Addressing the concerns of local residents has been a chief priority. ESDC has also been taking the time necessary to interview candidates before selecting an ombudsperson who will be a liaison to the neighborhoods in and around the project's footprint. Given the prominent role the ombudsperson will play it's important that we make the right choice, not the expedient choice.”

That was met with some skepticism, since ESDC has not been particularly forthcoming with critics, not including some on its regular construction update lists.

(Above, the press conference at one end, the AY site set off by fencing and barriers, and a tower rising in Clinton Hill.)

Cockfield noted that ESDC's environmental monitor is working closely with developer Forest City Ratner to ensure that the developer fulfills its commitments that were part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. As for questions about the double-shift work, he pointed to the Department of Buildings (DOB).

DOB statement

I queried DOB spokeswoman Kate Lindquist, who said in a statement, “In the interest of public safety, the Buildings Department has been issuing after-hours work variances for the property owner’s contractor to conduct abatement work at 800 Pacific Street since early July. The after-hours work was limited to abating and removing the parapet in a safe manner. Buildings records show no complaints about after-hours work have been received for 800 Pacific Street. New Yorkers can file a complaint about after-hours construction work by calling 311.”

A blighted gas station? Or an increasingly valuable piece of property?

The number of gas stations in the five boroughs is "steadily disappearing," as developers find the sites much more lucrative for housing and retail, the New York Times reported in a July 4 article headlined Shops and Condos Crowding Out Gas Stations.

The phenomenon raises questions about why exactly a gas station (right) at Dean Street and Flatbush Avenue in the Atlantic Yards footprint should be considered underutilized and thus blighted, according to the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC). The ESDC's Atlantic Yards blight study also makes the dubious claim that mild sidewalk cracks and graffiti on a now-demolished adjoining building also constitute evidence of blight. (See Tracy Collins' map for location of gas station.)

Developer Forest City Ratner owns the property, paying $5.42 million for it, according to a document unearthed by Assemblyman Jim Brennan's lawsuit. (Property Shark says $5.2 million and that the transaction occurred on 3/1/06.)

The designation of blight might justify the invocation of eminent domain to terminate the lease of longstanding gas station operator John Tsao and speed construction of the project, which at this spot would rise a tower some four times the height of the eight-story apartment building behind the station.

Then again, it's not at all clear that eminent domain would be necessary; according to a 1/1/06 article in the Brooklyn Paper, Tsao once got a buyout offer from the developer, even though he has no rights over the property he rents. I recently contacted Tsao, who would not comment for this article.

Something is likely afoot. Adjacent empty properties have been steadily demolished in recent months; the gas station property would stand to be next on the list, further isolating the two extant apartment buildings on Pacific Street behind the station, both of which have tenants in lawsuits challenging in the project.

Stations disappearing

The disappearance of gas stations is part of a trend. From September 2003 to February of this year, the city lost about 9 percent of its gas stations, according to the Times; Brooklyn was a close second to Manhattan in the rate of change, going from 529 gas stations to 468, an 11.5 percent dip. Some of the losses may be the result of consolidations, but others are the result of development.

As the Times reports:
These sites are attractive because they are frequently situated on busy corners and are large, typically covering 12,000 to 30,000 square feet. Zoning often allows for expansion, too.

(Photo of now-demolished buildings on Flatbush Avenue by Adrian Kinloch.)

A former BP Amoco station at 236-250 Atlantic Avenue at Adams Street (the exit from the Brooklyn Bridge) in Brooklyn might have brought $1 million to $2 million as a gas station but instead sold for $13 million, according to the broker quoted in the Times. (Property Shark says $9.75 million.) The $13 million figure works out to about $456 per square foot. By contrast, Forest City Ratner paid $5.42 million for the Flatbush Avenue lot covering 18,574 square feet. That's $292 per square foot.

Forest City may face additional costs at the site. On the other hand, the developer gains a zoning override--essentially,, a private rezoning--from the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) that vastly increases allowable development rights.

Indeed, while the Blight Study conducted for the ESDC concludes that the lot can accommodate up to 74,296 square feet of development, Building 2, planned for the site (and a larger footprint beyond), would rise 322 feet and involve more than 380,000 square feet.

Underutilization

As the article suggests, designations of blight are hardly needed to overcome the "underutilization" of a gas station; the free market seems to be taking care of that issue.

Then again, there's also a need for such low-rise structures. At the 5/3/07 court hearing in the challenge to the Atlantic Yards environmental review, plaintiffs' attorney Jeff Baker called the state’s criterion of underutilization “a fairly unique concept,” noting it lacked any analysis of how the property is being used.
(At right, looking along Flatbush Avenue toward Grand Army Plaza)

The gas station lot, he said, is considered “dramatically underutilized,” but now is occupied by “a highly successful gas station.” There’s nothing in the law, he said, “that says all buildings must be built to the maximum size possible.” The ESDC’s method, he argued, “is, per se, arbitrary and capricious.”

ESDC blight report

In its Blight Study, the ESDC offered this assessment of Block 1127, Lot 1:

(All emphases added)
Unsanitary and Unsafe Conditions
The structures located on lot 1 itself appear to be in fair condition. However, the façade on the building east of lot 1 (lot 56), which faces the gas station and parking area, is in poor condition. As shown in Photograph B, the façade has been plastered over and is painted with graffiti. The plaster has crumbled in areas, exposing the underlying brick. In addition, as shown in Photographs C and D, portions of the lot’s asphalt surface are pot holed (Photograph C shows a drainage grate near the lot’s entrance that has sunk below grade) and areas of the sidewalk surrounding the lot are cracked and uneven.

Underutilization

As indicated above, lot 1 is in an R7A zoning district, with a C2-4 overlay and an FAR of 4.0. Although the 18,574 sf lot can accommodate up to 74,296 zsf of built space under current zoning, it hosts a one-story 1,913 gsf building, utilizing less than 3 percent of the lot’s development potential.

Environmental Concerns
The Phase I ESA identified known subsurface contamination on lot 1. The site is undergoing remediation within the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Spills Program....

The DDDB response

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn's (DDDB) blight response counters that the ESDC overstated indications of deterioration and attributed a blighting influence to a separate property:
John Tsao has operated this first-class gas station and car repair shop for 31 years. His is a clean, attractive business, open 24/7, with a small convenience store out front. Prospect Heights residents with cars depend on John Tsao for the smooth functioning of their automotive lives. Should the FCR plan be realized, Prospect Heights will not have a single gas station or auto repair shop left...

The main Lot 1 blight complaint raised in FCR’s report deals with the lot next door – the demolished 461 Dean Street, a.k.a. Lot 56 (Blight Study Photograph 1127-B-1): “the façade has been plastered over and is painted with graffiti. The plaster has crumbled in areas, exposing the underlying brick.” Why does the Blight Study even mention this? FCR demolished 461 Dean St., Spring 2006: the alleged ‘blight’ vanished. Graffiti mentioned here and elsewhere in the Blight Study is of such a small amount as not to be noticeably different than any other neighborhood, particularly in the surrounding 1/2-mile radius. Again, most of the heavy graffiti in the study area is on MTA owned property and has been negligently left alone.

FCR [sic; actually it's the ESDC] mentions that “portions of the lot’s asphalt surface are pot holed.” (Blight Study p. C-70 & 73) These so-called potholes are in fact asphalt patches applied to holes drilled by Roux Associates in the course of making soil sample borings for AKRF when FCR was purchasing the property. It is not evident as asserted in Photo 1127-1-D that the entry drainage grate has sunk below grade. Likewise, the concrete sidewalk has cracks so very modest and so easily fixed, they do not merit “blight characteristic” status.

New York City, again, has been lax about enforcing NYC sidewalk maintenance laws. This scrupulously well-maintained Mobil station, is needed by motorists on heavily trafficked Flatbush Avenue and residents whose cars are out of tune and out of gas.

Real estate wonderland, Part 2

At the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush avenues, at the tip of the Atlantic Yards footprint, a real estate entrepreneur has begun to tout affordable housing... in Atlanta.

The phone number leads to this real estate agency.

The photo at right was taken from the Flatbush Avenue side of the fence, with the Newswalk condos, not part of the AY footprint, in the distance. (Newswalk, of course, would be dwarfed by the project.)

The photo below was taken from the Atlantic Avenue side of the fence. The wedge of property, long guarded with razor wire, was used for storage by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and not in recent years suggested for development.

Real estate wonderland, Part 1

Had my Internet access been functional this morning, I would've pointed people to the Riviera Gallery in Williamsburg, where, as part of the Conflux Festival, the gallery became "an artist’s interpretation of a real estate agency called “Riviera Real Estate”, comprised of a full real estate office set as well as improv actors acting the part of Real Estate agents."

(Conflux is "the annual New York festival for contemporary psychogeography, the investigation of everyday urban life through emerging artistic, technological and social practice" and Williamsburg, with its out-of-control real estate market layered on a community artists helped make hip, was an appropriate location.)

I wandered by on Friday night--the gallery, at 103 Metropolitan near Wythe is virtually catercorner to a very real project known as 80 Metropolitan, whose advertisements on the wooden fence surrounding the property (once home of the Old Dutch Mustard building) have been subject to some severe graffiti.

The hipster huckster real estate agents, plying guests with Pernod, offered some creative deals to get buyers into buildings, even if the buildings, as the "Riviera Real Estate Agency" web site suggests, might have their downsides.

For example, Room with a view (above) "may seem a little overtly industrial at first but it's actually very cosy and completely private."

And HPT5054, the "Instant Architectural Liquid Hydrocarbon dream!" (right) from "Harry Trismegistus City Living" (could that be Toll Brothers?) explains that foam-molded construction means "individually customized exteriors are just minutes away."

The web site offers more, including a truly capitalistic take on community:
Give back to the community, and let the community give back to you. We believe that the health of any community is dependent on the interchange of business and profit.
(Emphases in original)

When it comes to slam-dunk criticism, the Times can go only so far

Today's New York Times Book Review contains a mostly positive review of Until Proven Innocent, a thorough dissection of the Duke lacrosse rape case by legal reporter Stuart Taylor and Brooklyn College history professor KC Johnson, who, the review fails to note, published voluminous criticism and analysis of the case via his Durham-in-Wonderland blog.

From law professor Jeffrey Rosen's review:
But they are also sharply critical of what they call the one-sided reporting of the nation’s leading newspapers, including The New York Times. With a few exceptions, the authors suggest, The Times’s coverage consistently showed a “pro-Nifong bias,” most notably in a front-page article apparently trying to resurrect the case after it seemed on the verge of collapse.

At least “many of the journalists misled by Nifong eventually adjusted their views as evidence of innocence” came to light, the authors conclude. That’s more than can be said for Duke’s “activist professors"...
(Emphases added)

Note that the reviewer, despite several other critical assessments of the Times's performance (as compiled by Slate media critic Jack Shafer), was unwilling (or not permitted) to offer a conclusion as to whether the Times's coverage was inadequate, instead simply framing the critique as an allegation or suggestion.

Given the Times's defensiveness about its Atlantic Yards coverage--witness the response to my critique of the newspaper's front-page scaleback coverage--I think it's unlikely that any future critique will be treated as more than an allegation.

The Times errs in the other direction

From today's New York Times, not (yet?) online, p. 21 of the SundayStyles section, under Weddings/Celebrations:
Shabnam Merchant and Daniel E. Goldstein were married Monday...
The bride and bridegroom are community organizers for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, an organization that promotes affordable housing and is against the proposed Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn. The bride also serves as the organization's director of fund-raising, and the bridegroom as spokesman...

Well, DDDB certainly opposes Atlantic Yards, and it doesn't oppose affordable housing, but the latter--as opposed to "responsible development"--is hardly its raison d'etre. DDDB would not be confused with ACORN or the Fifth Avenue Committee or the Pratt Area Community Council, affordable housing organizations on different sides of the Atlantic Yards fight.

AY "proposed" or "planned"?

As for "proposed Atlantic Yards," the Times has used the term six times since the project was approved last December. It's used the term "planned Atlantic Yards" four times, or so a search says.

I've been using "planned Atlantic Yards" more since project approval, because the term "proposed" suggests it hasn't gone through any official process. (Whoops--I just changed "proposed" to "planned" in the summary up top.)

It's easy to be a lot more careless and the Times has too often failed to question the developer's narrative. Last week, the architecture critic suggested that the project was getting under way, without acknowledging that it has been delayed by lawsuits and could be derailed by them.

Nets CEO: FCR hopes to break ground in October-November

In an interview with WFAN on Wednesday, Nets CEO Brett Yormark spoke confidently that the Nets would move on schedule--though, as he didn't mention, lawsuits likely will push things back. He later hedged a bit.

Optimism about move

At about 6:00 into the segment, Yormark declared, unequivocally, "We'll be in Brooklyn for the 09-10 season."

At about 18:30, he said, "There's a lot of activity on the site right now, we're doing a lot of demolition. We're relocating the railyards. We've just ordered steel and we're expecting, hopefully, to break ground, in October-November. It usually takes about 24 months to build an arena that's 850,000 square feet, so we think we're going to be right there for the 09-10 season, and very excited about it."

If FCR breaks ground this fall, the developer would almost certainly have to work around some buildings it does not yet own and have not been condemned.

Bruce & Brooklyn

At about 22:00, in response to a fan eager to have the Nets come to Brooklyn into a new arena, Yormark offered some praise for his boss: "When you talk about Bruce Ratner, you're absolutely right. He is dedicating himself to putting Brooklyn on the map, and he's really done that in all the right ways, obviously with MetroTech, Atlantic Center, and now obviously the Atlantic Yards project, which will be anchored by the Barclays Center."

Yormark added some good market research, if not a solid construction estimate: "And when you think of Brooklyn, if it wasn't a borough it would be the fourth largest city in the U.S., it's been underserved in the area of sports entertainment for years, and we will be there for the 09-10 season, and it's going to be one of those great moments in sports."

Hedging a bit

Finally, at about 24:20, Yormark hedged slightly, saying, "We do have at least two years in Jersey."

And, of course, team owners are hedging their bets, as they've extended their lease at the Continental Airlines Arena through the 2012-13 season, just in case.

"Listening to the City" and Atlantic Yards

Could the Atlantic Yards project have been improved--or would a different development have emerged--had there been more citizen input? It's worth thinking about.

Thomas Bender's Power Broken: To build great cities, we need more citizen input - not another Robert Moses (reg. required), in the Fall issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, takes off from the recent Robert Moses exhibits and companion book to muse on the way forward.

Before doing so, Bender suggests that recent projects, including Times Square redevelopment and Battery Park City, contradict claims of stasis, and notes that "the recently approved Atlantic Yards project, a huge mixed-use development in central Brooklyn including an arena for professional basketball, proceeds, after a great deal of public discussion and review (albeit a controversial one) by government bureaucracies."

In Streetsblog, Brad Aaron says that "Bender missteps by citing the progression of Atlantic Yards and Hudson Yards as rebuttals to the Mosesist ethic." I'm not sure they're as much rebuttals to the latter but rather, as Bender writes, to "the supposition of urban paralysis."

But Aaron's closer to the target in observing, "It would be difficult to find many people, if any at all, from the public advocacy arena who would say Atlantic Yards has been anything other than a developer-driven monster."

A democratic path forward

Bender suggests a path forward:
Instead of talking about a new construction czar for cities, we should be talking about democratic institutions for managing current and future development. We need deliberative planning tools that work better than the grab-bag of clumsy mechanisms for public participation we have now, which are rightly resented by developers and neighborhoods, if for different reasons. Transparency and responsibility–with respect to public financing in its various forms–are fundamental. Representative institutions also are necessary, ones that organize dialogue at the different scales of the neighborhood, the borough, the city, and perhaps even the region. City planning should understand itself as, ultimately, the work of city-making rather than simply the agency of growth and development. The mechanisms of citizen empowerment must be clearly defined, and that power must be appropriate to the role envisioned.
(Emphasis added)

Remember, the Regional Plan Association's (RPA) Rob Lane in May cited Atlantic Yards as an example of "city-making"--a multi-year project that required much more input beforehand and a mechanism for oversight.

Listening to the City

In March, Thomas Wright of the Regional Plan Association (RPA) called the RPA-sponsored deliberation exercise for the World Trade Center site, Listening to the City, an example of a new model for public input that transcends the rancor and posturing of a typical public hearing.

Bender seems to agree:
To accomplish that, some institutional innovation is necessary. We need to think more imaginatively about future forums, perhaps turning to creative uses of new technologies. Without making too much of it, let me mention a recent example. When the future of Ground Zero was still undecided, a group of 80 civic organizations led by the Regional Plan Association, using a novel technology of networked laptops and some kind of sorting program, brought together in two meetings a few thousand representative New Yorkers to deliberate on guidelines for rebuilding.... The preferences that emerged from our table and others were then fashioned into a set of design directives. The results were fairly general, but they pointed toward a plausible urban aspiration for an area of the city that had evolved into something both more and less than a financial center. A memorial was the highest priority, with some disagreement as to whether it should be figurative or abstract. Mixed use for the area was strongly favored–offices, street retail, residence, and cultural. Anything suggesting a new "freedom tower" was rejected.

Listening to the City, by the way, was run by an organization called AmericaSpeaks, which "designs and facilitates large-scale town meetings on public policy issues." Did the founders of BrooklynSpeaks, the coalition of groups that aim to significantly change but not kill Atlantic Yards, choose a deliberate echo?

But who listened?

Bender, however, notes the flaws in the Listening to the City plan:
This was in many ways a model for public participation. The problem was that nobody with power was listening; a non-accountable, appointed authority made all of the decisions. The result–an abstract memorial, a "freedom tower," maximization of office space–was Moses all over again...

(In contrast, see Benjamin Hemric's critical comments below.)

Goldberger's take

In his chronicle Up from Zero, about the contested process to rebuild at the World Trade Center site, architecture critic Paul Goldberger offers measured praise for the Listening to the City process. Describing the first meeting, where participants sought a consensus vision of Lower Manhattan a decade hence, he writes:
Out of all of this, not surprisingly, nothing particularly fresh or different emerged. The groups favored mixed-use, lively neighborhoods and attention to both the commemorative aspects of a memorial and the commercial aspects of the city. The conclusions of Listening to the City were earnest and well-meaning, if unexceptional, but the event did help to move pubic sentiment closer to compromise between the extreme voices that had predominated earlier in the process, when the discussion was polarized between those who wanted Ground Zero to be entirely a memorial and those who felt that restoring the city's commercial life was the only priority that mattered on the site.

The second meeting, a much larger gathering of some 4000 people at the Jacob Javits Convention Center, participants looked askance at the six plans presented, even as Alexander Garvin, an academic and planner working at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, insisted, "We are not talking about architecture here--we are talking about site plans and principles."

Goldberger points out that participants wanted to restore the street grid, which "seemed in a way to represent the ultimate triumph of Jane Jacobs over Robert Moses." (Indeed, in the New York Observer this week, Matthew Schuerman writes about how "Greenwich Street" has become the choice address in the new grid.)

To Goldberger, the effort represents a significant step forward from the dominant Moses-era mode of neighborhood protest in response to ambitious projects:
At Listening to the City, they programmed themselves to say yes, to ask for more vision, not less... It may have taken the extraordinary circumstances of September 11, or it may have been part of a broader evolution....

What if, in Brooklyn

In Brooklyn, could there have been such an exercise? What would the "site" have been, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's 8.5-acre Vanderbilt Yard or Forest City Ratner's 21-acre (later 22-acre) "footprint"? If an arena was at issue, should alternate sites have be considered, like Coney Island?

How trade off density and cost, market-rate and subsidized units? Even the post-Atlantic Yards UNITY plan workshops came up with a design for the railyard that proved not completely feasible, at least if you consider the subsequent Extell bid, which implied more density.

The most recent UNITY exercise suggested some very affordable housing--but how to pay for it? (Stay tuned for a revamped UNITY plan to be released on Sep. 24.)

Those in the public who support Forest City Ratner's vision believe that the benefits are worth the costs; opponents say the opposite. But how to evaluate those costs and benefits without consideration of larger issues like the overall opportunities for density and affordable housing in the city and borough?

At the very least, though, some competing plans or even frameworks could have dispelled the "Atlantic Yards or nothing" meme that still persists. (Imagine if the process had begun with an RFP from the MTA, rather than have the agency issue one belatedly, 18 months after the project was announced.)

And the participation of a wide range of civic organizations, planners, and architects could have engendered public discussion about the values and tradeoffs at hand, rather than the more limited perspectives of Forest City Ratner and its Community Benefit Agreement "negotiation" partners. (Remember, Bertha Lewis of ACORN, whose role, understandably, is to advocate for affordable housing, said she couldn't address environment, density, and traffic.)

Might a Brooklyn version of "Listening to the City," for example, suggested an override of antiquated guidelines regarding parking and instead called for many fewer parking spaces?

Instead, on 12/10/03, we got a press conference in which top elected officials announced their support for Atlantic Yards. Mayor Mike Bloomberg said, "I can just tell you that this administration will put on a full-court press for the approval of this project."

The next day, the New York Times's starchitecture critic, Herbert Muschamp, declared, "A Garden of Eden grows in Brooklyn." It seems clear in retrospect that he was not listening to the city, nor even to the neighborhood.

There's a balance, obviously between critical judgment and public consensus, between public planning and public participation. Still, it's notable that Atlantic Yards has, in Lane's example, the silence of PlaNYC, and much public rhetoric, emerged as an example of what not to do.

DOT hires Jan Gehl to evaluate streets; urbanist critiqued Ratner's Brooklyn

Streetsblog reports that the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) has hired the firm of Danish urbanist Jan Gehl to evaluate city streets and other public spaces in "Major pedestrian and commercial corridors in Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan."

Gehl himself famously walked around Downtown Brooklyn on a cold morning in November 2005, expressing dismay at the sterility of Forest City Ratner's MetroTech and skepticism about the developer's plans for Atlantic Yards.

Ezra Goldstein of the Park Slope Civic Council's Civic News did a good job of capturing Gehl's take, in an article headlined Plan for Life. The Gehl formula quoted differs from the sequence behind Atlantic Yards:
Instead of planning large buildings and then working down, he said, “you look first at the space you want to develop and ask what kind of life can be envisaged there. Then you ask what kind of public space will create that life. And only then do you design the buildings that create the public space you want.

(More, including photos and quotes, from DDDB.)

Gehl 2005 New York visit had been hosted by Transportation Alternatives. So his hiring seems another example of the startlingly progressive moves by DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, who has also hired Andy Wiley-Schwartz from Project for Public Spaces, Jon Orcutt of the Tri-State Transportation Council, and transportation consultant Bruce Schaller.

ESDC, FCR fire back in fierce eminent domain defense

Plaintiffs in the eminent domain lawsuit challenging Atlantic Yards have already received a major setback in the case, after a federal court judge dismissed it for failure to state a claim, and as the appeal proceeds, a fierce set of response briefs from the defense ups the ante considerably.

The plaintiffs (a mix of 15 homeowners, commercial property owners, and residential and business tenants) and the defense (government agencies and officials) see controlling issues quite differently. The defense, drawing on U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis’s emphatic opinion, declare that the inquiry should end because the government—the ESDC—found that the project would achieve a public purpose, including affordable housing, an arena, and open space.

While that reflects longstanding Supreme Court doctrine, the plaintiffs look at it from another angle, arguing in their appeals brief that the court’s 2005 Kelo v. New London decision and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence require a more transparent sequence, which must be followed for condemnation to be legitimate. And in response, the defense says that Kelo doesn’t apply to this case and, even if it did, the sequence was legitimate.

The plaintiffs’ framework to some degree pushes the envelope—the ESDC points to the paradox that most commentators believed that Kelo “confirmed—and possibly even loosened—the already extremely deferential judicial review of the public purposes of proposed takings.” But the plaintiffs think it gives them more leverage.

(The case will be heard October 9, and the plaintiffs get one more chance to respond in court papers.)

A winding road

Still, it’s clear how far the Atlantic Yards case differs from some precursors. The ESDC defends its embrace of developer Forest City Ratner’s project by citing a clause in the law establishing the Urban Development Corporation (UDC), the agency’s alter ego, which aimed to clean up the slums. And Atlantic Yards, which would be mostly luxury housing, is hardly a slum clean-up effort.

Also, a reading of the Supreme Court’s foundation eminent domain cases, Berman v. Parker (1954) and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984), shows the doctrine upholding deference to legislative pursuit of eminent domain emerged in dramatically more dire situations than the one facing Brooklyn.

Had Forest City Ratner and government officials not announced their Atlantic Yards plan, later to be justified by a finding of blight, arguably, the simple decision to put the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Vanderbilt Yard up for bid would have attracted numerous developers for part of what Chuck Ratner of parent Forest City Enterprises has called “a great piece of real estate.”

(For the record, my analysis and speculations are my own; I haven’t communicated with the plaintiffs’ legal team.)

Crux of the case

In its response brief, the ESDC forcefully challenges the plaintiffs’ claim, as per language in Kelo describing impermissible use of eminent domain, that the public benefits are a “pretext” for a much larger (though unspecified) private gain:
Invoking the Public Use Clause, Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) make the far-fetched, conclusory claim that a host of state and local public officials, none of whom has any evident or even alleged motive to curry favor with the private defendants named in this action, abdicated their public responsibilities by conspiring to foist upon New York a redevelopment project that, though undeniably supported by numerous public purposes, is a mere “pretext” for their desires to confer private benefits. Even if allegations of nefarious motive alone could state a viable Public Use Clause claim, the allegations here, resting as they do on pure, implausible speculation, cannot survive a motion to dismiss. The district court properly so concluded.

Stripped of its conclusory accusations, the pleading in this consolidated action boils down to a series of complaints about the procedures New York’s eminent-domain-empowered agencies use to exercise their powers—procedures this Court has already concluded pass constitutional muster—and the bidding and contracting processes used in connection with the redevelopment project at issue. The Public Use Clause, however, is concerned not with Plaintiffs’ proffered model of good government, but rather with whether a taking of private property serves a conceivable public purpose. Because the proposed taking here plainly does so, the district court’s decision should be affirmed.

Beyond that, if the plaintiffs are correct that “a subjective inquiry into the hearts and minds of public officials” is required, the ESDC argues, the federal courts should stay out of the matter, which instead should go to state court.

Fighting blight

The ESDC reminds the court that the state law that established the UDC/ESDC aimed to fight slums and blight. Then the brief offers a curious framing to justify the Atlantic Yards case:
To remedy these and other problems, ESDC is directed to “encourag[e] maximum participation by the private sector of the economy,” id. (emphasis added), “in part by promoting large-scale real estate projects that create and retain jobs and/or reinvigorate distressed areas.” Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn v. Empire State Dev. Corp., 31 A.D.3d 144, 146, 816 N.Y.S.2d 424, 427 (1st Dep’t 2006).

However, as I wrote, the UDC, with its vast powers to override local zoning and condemn land, was not conceived to engage companies like Forest City Ratner to manage projects like Atlantic Yards. Rather, in the wake of urban riots, it was aimed to get the private sector to help clean up slums, to invest in low- and middle-income subsidized housing. (Atlantic Yards would contain 2250 affordable units, but they're hardly its raison d'etre. It’s unclear how subsidies for this affordable housing would compare to other projects, and some affordable units would be not so affordable.)

Indeed, the “maximum participation” quote, in context, offers a different meaning; it cites “encouraging maximum participation by the private sector of the economy, including the sale or lease of the corporation's interest in projects at the earliest time deemed feasible.”

In other words, the situation was so bad in the late 1960s that the UDC was prepared to invest its own money to get a project going, then to try to sell it off.

Moreover, as I wrote, the citation regarding ESDC’s role in “promoting large-scale real estate projects” may come from a state appellate court decision, but the language comes directly from the ESDC itself—a tautology.

Fruitless clean-up?

The ESDC, in its reply brief, offers a rather strained history of development over the Vanderbilt Yard:
At the heart of the Project site lie portions of the “Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area” or “ATURA”—an area that, as Plaintiffs concede, the City first designated as blighted in 1968. All prior plans to remediate this blighted site have proven fruitless. As late as April 2004, the City reconfirmed, for the tenth consecutive time, the ATURA’s blight designation and accompanying renewal plan.

Whether prior plans to remediate the site “have proven fruitless” is a matter of debate. As Winston Von Engel of the Department of City Planning said in March 2006, the city hadn’t considered development over the railyard because it was heavily used by the MTA.

Forest City Ratner’s plan came in just a few years before the city concluded, as it did this year, that, given the growing cost of land, it was financially feasible to develop over railyards and highway cuts--and with a more transparent process. As to whether plans would be “fruitless,” the railyard—much less the AY footprint—was never put out for a bid before AY was announced, though its real estate value was rising.

Public purposes

The ESDC brief cites multiple public purposes, including the elimination of blight both in ATURA and the “Takings Area”—the blocks on Pacific and Dean streets where plaintiffs’ properties are located.

Another public purpose is “a publicly owned state-of-the-art arena to accommodate the return of a major-league sports franchise to Brooklyn [and] a valuable athletic facility for the City’s colleges and local academic institutions.”

Note that “publicly owned” is a formality; the state does not reap the rewards of ownership, since the developer, which gets state assistance in issuing tax-exempt bonds to pay for the arena, gets to sell naming rights, which could pay for a substantial portion of construction. As for the value to colleges and schools, a planning document indicates there might be only ten sports events a year.

Along with the housing—both affordable and market-rate—the brief cites “8 acres of publicly accessible open space that links together the surrounding neighborhoods.” But given the new population, the seemingly significant chunk of open space would most likely benefit the new project residents more than the public at large. As to whether it links neighborhoods, that’s been challenged by BrooklynSpeaks and others.

Also cited are improved public transport, “environmental remediation of the Project Site”; and a host of “economic benefits,” including the creation of “4,538 new jobs in the City” and the generation of hundreds of millions of new tax dollars for the City and State. The plaintiffs, as noted by the defense, did not challenge Garaufis’s specific assessment of the public benefits, though I wrote that his analysis could be questioned.

Indeed, there’s a legitimate question as to whether the project would offer a net gain in tax receipts; not only has no complete calculation been done to incorporate the impact of new costs generated by the project, the city’s additional $105 million contribution suggests that the arena itself might be a loss rather than a modest gain for the city.

Beyond that, the New York Observer recently pointed to a little-noticed clause in the General Project Plan that suggests that government entities could wind up paying half of Forest City Ratner’s contribution.

Plaintiffs’ theory

The ESDC is scornful of the plaintiffs’ theory, that public officials “band[ed] together to support the Atlantic Yards Project for the sole purpose of conferring a benefit on the Project’s corporate sponsor, FCRC, and its CEO, Bruce Ratner” and that the “facts” are merely “complaints about the process and sequence by which the Project was proposed and developed.”

The brief notes:
Plaintiffs do not dispute the District Court’s conclusion that they failed to allege that the Project serves no public purpose. Instead, on appeal they contend that the primary motive behind the Project is to enrich Bruce Ratner, and that any public benefits are therefore only secondary or incidental.

That language draws on Kelo.

The defense states:
Judge Garaufis articulated what he deemed to be the pertinent inquiry under that Clause: “[A] taking fails the public use requirement if and only if the uses offered to justify it are ‘palpably without reasonable foundation,’ such as if (1) the ‘sole purpose’ of the taking is to transfer property to a private party, or (2) the asserted purpose of the taking is a ‘mere pretext’ for an actual purpose to bestow a private benefit.”

Blight or not

Beyond that, the issue of “pretext” as noted by Kelo, says the ESDC, doesn’t apply to the Brooklyn case:
The Kelo Court’s suggestion that “pretext” might offer a fruitful avenue of constitutional attack is limited to those cases, like Kelo itself, in which the sole public purpose being proffered for a project is economic development—a purpose that is not inherently public. Even in those cases, moreover, the “pretext” inquiry is an objective one—not a roving search into the hearts of all the public officials involved in the proposed project.

That may be murky; the court decision in Kelo did note:
There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized.

How much public purpose?

The ESDC says the plaintiffs can’t win an argument about the degree of public benefit:
Plaintiffs’ gripe, then, is not about whether the Project serves public purposes, but rather to what extent some of the stated purposes will actually be realized, and whether taking of their properties is necessary to the accomplishment of the Project’s stated (and admittedly public) aims.

The plaintiffs had argued:
Surely Defendants cannot avoid the kind of meaningful review endorsed by the majority in Kelo, by merely mouthing the words “blight” (or “jobs” or “housing”) in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.

But the ESDC notes that the Supreme Court, in Kelo, said courts shouldn’t second-guess the condemnor’s choice of boundaries, or “considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan,” or try to evaluate for itself whether the public purpose asserted will actually be realized.

Sequence issues

The ESDC points out that the plaintiffs challenge the sequence in the case, but argues that any holding that a developer-driven project violates the constitution “would do violence to the UDC Act,” given the “maximum participation” issue.

Whatever the “alleged irregularities” in the bid for the railyard, the ESDC insists, that doesn’t “support an inference that the public Defendants actually named herein acted solely to enrich Bruce Ratner.” (The plaintiffs also use the term "primarily.”)

Kelo, however, raises questions. Was Atlantic Yards, as the Kelo majority noted regarding the New London project, “executed pursuant to a ‘carefully considered’ development plan.” It depends, perhaps, on the meaning of “development plan.” Is ATURA, which didn’t include more than one-third of the Atlantic Yards site, a development plan or just a framework?

The defendants apparently consider the ESDC’s review of Atlantic Yards a development plan. Forest City Ratner, in its brief, points out:
“Connecticut law does not establish procedures comparable to New York’s EDPL [Eminent Domain Procedure Law], which requires a condemnor to hold a public hearing and make a record that then can be reviewed by the courts. In Connecticut, unlike New York, a condemnor may make a determination to condemn without holding a hearing or making a record.

In his Kelo concurrence, Justice Kennedy noted that:
the trial court conducted a careful and extensive inquiry into “whether, in fact, the development plan is of primary benefit to … the developer [i.e., Corcoran Jennison], and private businesses which may eventually locate in the plan area [e.g., Pfizer], and in that regard, only of incidental benefit to the city.

Kennedy’s framework

But Kennedy’s concurrence suggests differences between the two cases; notably, in New London, as the judge observed, there was a “substantial commitment of public funds by the State to the development project before most of the private beneficiaries were known” and “evidence that respondents reviewed a variety of development plans and chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand.”

Forest City Ratner responds that, were the plaintiffs’ theory the law,
it would penalize private developers who approached condemnors with sound proposals. Furthermore, it would be especially inappropriate here, because large-scale public private development in New York City is inherently complicated and difficult, and FCRC has a record of success in the implementation of sophisticated large-scale public-private projects in Brooklyn (MetroTech Center and Atlantic Terminal) and elsewhere, including the new headquarters building for The New York Times Company in Manhattan.

City explanation

Interestingly, a city official questioned in 2004 framed the Atlantic Yards decision in terms of economic development—the justification for Kelo—rather than the later broader set of public purposes. Andrew Alper, then president of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, testified at the 5/4/04 City Council hearing:

This particular project came to us. We were not out soliciting, we were developing a Downtown Brooklyn Plan, but we were not out soliciting a professional sports franchise for Downtown Brooklyn.

The developer came to us with what we thought was actually a very clever plan. It is not only bringing a sports team back to Brooklyn, but to do it in a way that provided dramatic economic development catalyst in terms of housing, retail, commercial jobs, construction jobs, permanent jobs.

So, they came to us, we did not come to them. And it is not really up to us then to go out and find to try to a better deal. I think that would discourage developers from coming to us, if every time they came to us we went out and tried to shop their idea to somebody else. So we are actively shopping, but not for another sports arena franchise for Brooklyn.

That plan led to special discretionary benefits, including $305 million in direct funding, tax-exempt bonds, and a zoning override. It also led the ESDC to conclude, at least, that it would serve a public purpose. What went on after the developer proposed the plan?

Unresolved in the pending case is whether “intent” simply means legislative intent, as expressed by government in its public decision, or whether, as the plaintiffs argue, it involves the hearts and minds of the governmental actors. The ESDC notes:
Federal courts are wary enough about discerning legislative intent from the face of an available public record. They should be especially loath to look behind a public record to attempt to ascertain the personal motivations of individual legislators.

Garaufis's framework

Forest City Ratner quotes a passage from the March 31 hearing, in which Garaufis mused:
“If an area has been designated a blighted area, ... or I drive by there every business day for six years and I say, This is an area that is undeveloped, considering what’s all around it ... , and I am an entrepreneur, I’m in real estate, all around me, in the entire City of New York, they are building high-rise condos and apartments and office buildings, and [here] is an area that is close to transportation, that is served by numerous arterial highways and large boulevards and it’s near the center city and there’s just nothing there except ... an open pit with railroad tracks, and I say, Wow, this is a great place to put a major development, and I think I can do it, which will serve several purposes – one is, I’ll profit from it, I’ll provide a use that is needed by the community ... and it’s already been determined that this is an area that is ripe for development because it’s ... in large measure fallow in terms of its highest and best use, it’s been recognized by the government on repeated occasions that it is such and is designated as such, and I take that to the agency which is sponsoring or developing plans for such blighted areas, among others, and that’s the process that brings us to a determination that there ought to be a redevelopment of that area, and then the agency ... puts out a notice, an RFP or whatever, I respond to it because it was my idea in the first place and I have the best plan, and I get selected and here I am, why doesn’t that comport – why isn’t that a lawful type of result? What’s the problem with that? “

In court, plaintiffs’ attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff responded that it would have to be an area that had been already been determined to be blighted.

His clients’ properties are not in ATURA, he reminded the judge. Secondly, he said, there was no competitive bidding process for the entire 22-acre footprint, just the MTA’s 8.5 acre Vanderbilt Yard, and that was questionable.

Other evidence

There are some other pieces of evidence, not mentioned in the original complaint, that hint at a predetermined outcome. For example, Empire State Development Corporation Chairman Charles Gargano, even before the environmental review had gotten started, told the New York Observer in December 2005 that “There is no need to scale down the project.”

And while the project went through two token scalebacks, that final eight percent cuts, ostensibly a response to a letter from the City Planning Commission, represented reductions in building heights mostly placed on the table more than eight months earlier by Atlantic Yards architect Frank Gehry.

Forest City Ratner rebuttals

Forest City Ratner’s brief is also scornful and, beyond reprising some of ESDC arguments, goes further to rebut claims made by the plaintiffs. Notably, FCR argues that “supplemental allegations” made in the plaintiffs’ brief are “either irrelevant or untrue – or both.”

FCR argues:
The MTA’s Hudson Yards RFP is entirely irrelevant to the Vanderbilt Yards RFP, and the MTA, which issued both RFPs, is not even a defendant in this action.

The plaintiffs argue that that points to the proper sequence to develop over railyards.

FCR continues:
Plaintiffs’ unattributed assertion that the City’s financial contribution to the project has increased from $100 to $205 million, as well as their assertion that financial calculations for one site were omitted from one report to ESDC, might affect the project’s finances if true, but would not alter the fact that the project includes numerous public uses.

Why it was unattributed is the plaintiffs’ lapse, but arguably, decreased tax revenues continue to call into question any net revenues, a significant element of the public use claim.

FCR cites a case regarding the assignment of a lease from Henry Weinstein’s tenant Shaya Boymelgreen to a Forest City Ratner affiliate:
The decision in 752 Pacific Carlton LLC v. Pacific Carlton Development Corp. concerned a private contractual dispute between fee owners that oppose the project and long-term ground lessees that attempted to assign their leaseholds to an FCRC affiliate; neither FCRC nor its affiliate was a party to the lawsuit or was found to have engaged in misconduct.

However, Forest City Ratner has, according to Weinstein’s lawyer, agreed to fund attorneys representing Boymelgreen.

FCR states:
Finally, the report entitled Delivering the Promise of New York State: A Strategy for Economic Growth and Development, which was prepared for ESDC by a consultant, is quoted in a misleading and out-of-context manner, because the quoted language specifically refers to two ESDC subsidiaries that have nothing to do with the Atlantic Yards project.

True, they have nothing to do with AY; the question is whether that offers telling commentary on the agency as a whole.

FCR also argues that the total value of the deal with the MTA, while less than the cash offered by rival bidder Extell ($150 million), was far more valuable: “$329.4 million dollars before the cash component was increased from $50 million to $100 million.” (The complaint states that the MTA refused to answer technical questions from Extell; it's unclear whether that developer was able to present a complete package regarding railyard improvements.)

Blight and Block 1128

FCR goes further to defend the controversial blight study, focusing on the 100-foot stretch east of Sixth Avenue between Pacific and Dean streets. FCR noted that the study “reported that in the small portion of Block 1128 that is within the project’s footprint, the mid-block area was ‘overgrown with weeds, enclosed by a chain-link fence, and occupied by several parked cars, many of which appear to be abandoned.’”

Unmentioned is that the lot was on sale for $2.25 million.

Plaintiffs’ paranoia?

FCR contends that the plaintiffs are grasping at straws in challenging the role of public officials:
Here, the emptiness of plaintiffs’ assertions was exposed at the hearing before the District Court when plaintiffs’ counsel responded to a question by Judge Garaufis as to the basis of plaintiffs’ claim that Mayor Bloomberg’s role in the approval of this project was improper:
“Mayor Bloomberg’s background is, he’s a businessman. What happened here is, a businessman approached another businessman and said, Hey, I have a great deal. Let’s do a deal together. And he said, I love it. Let’s do the deal. He completely jettisoned his responsibilities as a public official ....”

This assertion is “paranoid fantasy,” FCR argues.

Indeed, it may sound paranoid, but the continuation of the quote, omitted in the brief, provides more context: “which also requires him to look to other possibilities, look to other uses, to not use the power—he has the governmental power to seize somebody’s home, to take it from them forcibly, and that power can’t be used in the service of one private developer to the exclusion of all others, and that’s exactly what happened here.”

Legislative decision?

FCR points out that the appellate court “has specifically rejected ‘examination of the thought processes of those exercising the legislative prerogative’ to condemn as ‘a judicial invasion into an area exclusively reserved for the legislature,’” citing a case called Brody v. Village of Port Chester.

And FCR points to Garaufis’s question, during oral argument, “Aren’t you asking for more of the ESDC than was ever required in the Board of Estimate or most other legislative bodies about land use?”

In response, plaintiffs’ attorney Brinckerhoff distinguished between the Board of Estimate, which was functioning as a legislative body, and the less-representative ESDC, which he called “purely a creature of the executive branch.”

Kennedy’s rules

By FCR’s reading, even applying Kennedy’s reading of Kelo to Atlantic Yards snuffs out the plaintiffs’ claim:
In Kelo, the “taking occurred in the context of a comprehensive development plan,” and “the economic benefits of the project [could not] be characterized as de minimis.” Here, too, ESDC’s exercise of eminent domain is part of a comprehensive development plan that is expected to engender substantial public benefits.

As noted, whether the plan is comprehensive and the benefits substantial remain under debate.

FCR notes, that, in Kelo, the condemnor complied with elaborate procedural requirements that facilitate review of the record and inquiry into [its] purposes.” Similarly, here ESDC complied with the procedural requirements of the EDPL, SEQRA and the UDC Act and, in the process, generated an extensive record containing numerous documents that are matters of public record.

Finally, in Kelo, "[t]he identity of most of the private beneficiaries were unknown at the time the city formulated its plans.” Here, of course, the project’s sponsor is alleged by plaintiffs to have been determined from the outset. The Amended Complaint acknowledges, however, that the MTA issued a request for bids for the right to build over its property, and a competing bid was received .

However, that bid came 18 months after city and state officials announced their backing for the Atlantic Yards plan, and the 22-acre site, rather than the 8.5-acre railyard, was not bid.

Public v. private

In describing the difference between Kelo and the Brooklyn case, FCR argues that “major portions of the project” will remain under public ownership by ESDC, the MTA, and the LIRR, the city may lease space for a school, and the project’s open space will be owned by a not-for-profit entity.

By contrasts, other cases cited by the plaintiffs “all involved condemnations that would effectuate a ‘one-to-one transfer’ of property from one private party to another.” In other words, there’s enough public use:
Here, the undisputed benefits of the project to the public at large are numerous. The fact that a private developer also will benefit does not render the condemnations unconstitutional. See Kelo (“the government’s pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties”).

Adverse treatment?

FCR challenges the plaintiffs’ claim of an equal protection violation, noting that Brinckerhoff argued in court that “we are being singled out for adverse treatment than others similarly situated, namely the other people who are right next door to us.”

FCR argues:
Had this been further argued, FCR would have submitted documents from the public record that show that the portion of Block 1128 not being condemned is not blighted, but contains numerous properties determined to be historic resources by New York State or the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, including a church and several rowhouses in officially designated historic districts.
(Above, the first five Dean Street buildings would be demolished.)

Similarly, the developer says, it was reasonable to exclude the Newswalk condo building on Pacific Street between Sixth and Carlton avenues, because it would have displaced 168 households. Unmentioned, however, is why the clearing of blight didn’t include an empty lot (right) just outside the footprint.

Done deal?

FCR points out that the massive record argues against claims of a “done deal”:
Prudence dictates that ESDC not embark on such a huge expenditure of time and resources unless the project had the support of high governmental officials. However, the inference that plaintiffs seek to draw – that, because of these senior officials’ support, the outcome was predetermined – is unreasonable and cannot be accepted.

There is no factual allegation of any act of interference in the process by the Governor, the Mayor or anyone acting on their behalf, nor is there any factual allegation of any other wrongful act. There is no factual allegation of any specific defect in the review process. Therefore, there is no viable claim of a corrupt process.

There may be no smoking gun, and the defense argues that plaintiffs should not be allowed to pry into e-mail of public officials. But some evidence suggests that the outcome was never in doubt, given, for example, the ESDC board’s perfunctory and uninformed review of the project last December.

As for defects in the review process, while the plaintiffs didn’t make the point, the ESDC arguably published misleading information. The environmental review suggested that FCR “controlled” property owned by Weinstein, but with an asterix indicating that “the property owner has objected to such assignments.” Weinstein later won his case in court, which indicates that the property might more neutrally have been described as “in dispute.”

City response

The city of New York’s response in many ways repeats defense arguments offered by the ESDC, noting that the court found the plaintiffs’ allegations were conclusory and insufficient to go forward, given the public benefits the project would provide.

The brief responds to the core argument of the plaintiffs:
Nor is there anything inherently sinister in involving a private developer before a redevelopment plan takes final shape and has completed the review process, as plaintiffs seem to suggest. As an initial matter, the redevelopment of this area has been contemplated since at least 1968, when the ATURA was created, and a stadium has been planned since the 1970s before Forest City Ratner’s involvement.

The area, however, does not include the blocks south of the Vanderbilt Yard on Pacific and Dean streets where the plaintiffs live. A sports facility was not so much planned as contemplated; a 1974 “preliminary feasibility study” suggested two locations within ATURA for an arena, but no effort was made to establish such an arena.

Foundation case

The brief points to Midkiff as a foundation case for Kelo:
At any rate, the individuals who would benefit from the legislation at issue in Midkiff were certainly known to the Legislature before they acted, and yet, the Court nevertheless found that the legislation was enacted “not to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals but to attack certain perceived evils of concentrated property ownership in Hawaii -- a legitimate public purpose….. Indeed, this fact is even less sinister given that Forest City Ratner undeniably has a demonstrated track record of successfully spearheading large-scale, complex redevelopment projects of this nature in New York.

The Midkiff reference, however, might be seen to be tightened by Kennedy’s concurrence in Kelo.

State case

The State of New York, representing former Gov. George Pataki, argues separately that plaintiffs have stated no claim for damages against Mr. Pataki personally. Their vague, conclusory allegations that Mr. Pataki ‘controlled’ and ‘conspired’ with ESDC do not sufficiently suggest that he was personally involved in the particular actions they challenge as unconstitutional.

Just because Pataki backed the project from the start and his policy preferences may influence others, the defense notes, “he had no supervisory authority over ESDC and no power to approve or veto its decisions.”

Though such details were not mentioned in the suit, Pataki’s stamp was clearly on the ESDC, with Gargano, his chief campaign fundraiser, serving as chairman, and several of the appointees big Republican donors. How much does this resemble a legislature?

Looking at the precursors

The 1954 case Berman v. Parker involved a part of Washington, DC where 64.3% of the dwellings were beyond repair, 18.4% needed major repairs, only 17.3% were satisfactory; 57.8% of the dwellings had outside toilets, 60.3% had no baths, 29.3% lacked electricity, 82.2% had no wash basins or laundry tubs, 83.8% lacked central heating.

Wrote Justice William O. Douglas in eloquent outrage:
Miserable and disreputable housing conditions may do more than spread disease and crime and immorality. They may also suffocate the spirit by reducing the people who live there to the status of cattle. They may also be an ugly sore, a blight on the community which robs it of charm, which makes it a place from which men turn.

Does this sound like Prospect Heights? No, but eminent domain law has evolved.

Douglas described the need for planning:
The experts concluded that, if the community were to be healthy, if it were not to revert again to a blighted or slum area, as though possessed of a congenital disease, the area must be planned as a whole. It was not enough, they believed, to remove existing buildings that were insanitary or unsightly. It was important to redesign the whole area so as to eliminate the conditions that cause slums…

That ultimately led Douglas to write language that has been applied to some vastly different projects:
It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line, nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch.

The other main case, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, involved a severely skewed system: In the mid-1960's, after extensive hearings, the Hawaii Legislature discovered that, while the State and Federal Governments owned almost 49% of the State's land, another 47% was in the hands of only 72 private landowners…. The legislature further found that 18 landholders, with tracts of 21,000 acres or more, owned more than 40% of this land and that on Oahu, the most urbanized of the islands, 22 landowners owned 72.5% of the fee simple titles.

The court pointed to a malfunctioning market:
Nor can we condemn as irrational the Act's approach to correcting the land oligopoly problem. The Act presumes that, when a sufficiently large number of persons declare that they are willing but unable to buy lots at fair prices, the land market is malfunctioning.

Was Atlantic Yards an example of such a malfunctioning market--was there an open chance to bid on the Vanderbilt Yard, or for a rezoning to encourage new, more dense construction?

Back to the agency

In Midkiff, the court stated:
Judicial deference is required because, in our system of government, legislatures are better able to assess what public purposes should be advanced by an exercise of the taking power. State legislatures are as capable as Congress of making such determinations within their respective spheres of authority. See Berman v. Parker… Thus, if a legislature, state or federal, determines there are substantial reasons for an exercise of the taking power, courts must defer to its determination that the taking will serve a public use.

The ESDC notes in its brief:
Although the Berman Court used the term “legislative branch,” Congress had in fact delegated its power of eminent domain to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency…. Hence the Court’s admonition, elsewhere in its opinion, that federal courts defer to “congress and its authorized agencies.” (emphasis added).

So, a key question for the appeal is whether the ESDC is simply an authorized agency that expresses the will of the Legislature, or whether it is an expression of the executive branch.

Defining deviancy down & Dolly Williams

Lumi Rolley of No Land Grab offers a summary of City Planning Commissioner Dolly Williams' questionable behavior, taking off from a New York Post report that her company stiffed some subcontractors, and now Crain's New York Business adds more troubling details about her company's work on that Forest City Ratner project.

Williams is Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz's sole appointee to the City Planning Commission and, as an investor in the Nets, recused herself from the commission's hardly-fierce discussion of Atlantic Yards.

Scholar and U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously coined the phrase "defining deviancy down" in an essay in the Winter 1993 issue of The American Scholar:
I proffer the thesis that, over the past generation, since the time Erikson wrote, the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can "afford to recognize" and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the "normal" level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard.

Now let's acknowledge that Williams might come up with some explanation for the allegations. Still, a City Planning Commissioner who thinks she (or someone driving her car) can park with impunity at a fire hydrant might think she can get away with more questionable behavior.

Forest City executive: AY lawsuits cleared by mid-2008

Could the planned Atlantic Yards arena (aka Barclays Center) open for the 2009-10 basketball season, as Forest City Ratner officially insists, even though the project is way behind schedule?

Well, officials from parent Forest City Enterprises (FCE) didn't assert an arena timeline yesterday during a conference call with investment analysts. However, when one executive predicted that legal cases challenging the project likely would persist through the midpoint of 2008, he again provided evidence that contradicts the company's stated timeline, which assumed that arena block would be flattened by now.

[Update 12/30/07: Forest City Enterprises ends its fiscal year in January, so the end of the first half of FY 08 would be July 31, 2008]

Without resolution of the Atlantic Yards legal cases--a pending challenge to the environmental review in state court, and a federal eminent domain appeal to be heard on October 9--certain buildings can't be demolished and/or construction can't go forward.

Could the cases be closed in less then ten months? That's not implausible, but it's not a lock, either. It implies success at the appeals court level for the defendants in both cases and (likely) no final appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court or the New York State Court of Appeals. So further legal delays could push the timeline back even more.

AY overview

Yesterday FCE's Bob O’Brien (right), Executive Vice President, Strategy and Investment Management, provided an overview of several projects, and got to Atlantic Yards at about 22:00 of the webcast:

We continue to move forward with our most visible and perhaps most ambitious project, Atlantic Yards. As we’ve indicated previously, we’ve acquired or controlled the vast majority of the land in Brooklyn necessary for this development. We’ve obtained all of the public approvals needed to proceed with this development. However, those approvals have been challenged in the courts. We are working with the support of the city and state and other interested public parties to defend and clear those lawsuits. We remain confident in our positions in all legal challenges and we are targeting resolution by the first half of fiscal year 2008.

Our long-term objective there is to build the Nets basketball team into a great franchise, relocate them to Brooklyn, a city of more than two-and-a-half million people, and develop a large-scale mixed-use project with the Nets and a Frank Gehry-designed arena as catalysts for the project and the further revitalization of downtown Brooklyn. Our commitment to build not only market-rate but also affordable housing as part of this development is one of the largest of its kind and addresses a significant housing shortfall for the people of New York.
(Emphasis added)

Long-term view

Forest City CEO Chuck Ratner (right), at about 32:00, again spoke about how the developer's long-term commitment to projects ultimately pays off. He cited MetroTech in Brooklyn as among several "ten to 20-year projects, and all had significant uncertainty in a time of significant risks," but worked out well for the company and investors.

He was not quite so candid as he was last March, when he acknowledged:
We are terrible, and we’ve been a developer for 50 years, on these big multi-use, public private urban developments, to be able to predict when it will go from idea to reality.

However, the timeline flexibility he mentioned again suggested that Atlantic Yards likely would not take ten years, as planned.

Office market

One investment analyst pointed out that Forest City seemed to be putting more emphasis on retail and housing. What's the outlook for office space?

The New York portion of that answer was turned over to Joanne Minieri (right), the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Forest City Ratner in New York. Her answer, at about 43:45, contained enthusiastic words but was delivered in a less authoritative tone, perhaps given the current slowdown in the Brooklyn office market, and the cut in projected Atlantic Yards office space.

She commented:
We think it’s still a very strong office market, we continue to look for opportunities where they exist and as part of—some of the development in the Atlantic Yards project, there will also be some office opportunity there. Y’know, we’re very committed to the office development.

We believe New York is a strong market. We’re committed to the office business in the New York area. We’ll continue to look for opportunities to the extent they’re available. Land is difficult to find, but we keep our options open, and we’ll continue to produce that product here in the city.

Forest City Ratner has a considerable amount of land at Atlantic Yards for its office business. It just chose (for now) not to build office space, likely because housing is more lucrative and a switch from office space placated Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who was concerned about competition with his Lower Manhattan district.

Moving cautiously

At about 47:50, Chuck Ratner talked about moving cautiously, and placed a special emphasis on Atlantic Yards:
As we’ve told you guys often, as a large developer, perhaps the more risky part of the real estate business, as opposed to acquisition, but the part where we think we can add more value, clearly you have to look to ways to moderate and manage your risks. And one of the ways we’ve learned that you manage and moderate your cost risks is by making sure you don’t start before you have complete plans and prices.

Particularly in a market with the kind of cost pressure that New York has and building a building with a signature architect like Frank Gehry, we’re being very cautious and careful that we know where we are before we start, and Joanne and her team have done a great job of managing this process.

Investor conference in NYC

On October 9, the same day the eminent domain appeal will be heard in federal court in New York, FCE will hold an "investor conference" during which analysts will get a closer look at the New York portfolio, including the site of the conference, the new Times Tower developed by Forest City Ratner along with the New York Times Company.

"It'll be a great day, an exciting day; you'll get to meet our New York team," said Chuck Ratner in closing the conference call yesterday.

Atlantic Yards through a Jacobsian lens

The exhibition Jane Jacobs and the Future of New York won't open at the Municipal Art Society until September 25, but the companion web site launched yesterday, immediately providing some food for thought: while Atlantic Yards might subscribe to at least one of Jacobs's principles, it would violate others.

The exhibit, accompanying programs, and attendant commentary undoubtedly will stimulate discussion of the relevance (and limits) of Jacobs' penetrating vision. I'm sure there will be several opportunities to view Atlantic Yards through a Jacobsian lens (and the lenses of her critics).

Jacobsian principles & AY

For a start, however, consider the exhibit's summary of the late urbanist's principles, as expressed in her groundbreaking 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities:
Jacobs observed four key qualities of healthy, vibrant cities: mixed uses, frequent streets, varied buildings, and concentration.

The planners behind Atlantic Yards certainly were not unmindful of such qualities. The project would be a mixed-use development: largely housing, but with retail and community facilities at the base of towers--a distinct improvement over monolithic modernist design that left a single function to 1960s-era towers.

And the arena, unlike numerous standalone sports facilities, would be nestled in towers, and also activated by retail around its perimeter. (There would even be a narrow row of shops, known as a b-market, along Atlantic Avenue, thanks to the insistence of the City Planning Commission Chairperson Amanda Burden, who considers herself Jacobsian.)

That idea, however, worked better in its initial conception, when the towers housed offices, and the occupants would be entering and leaving the towers during the day, keeping the block busy before evening events began. Developer Forest City Ratner has since traded most of the office space for more lucrative housing--an experiment, indeed.

The Jacobsian elements have drawn support from some observers; architect Robert A.M. Stern earlier this year said that "in many ways the [AY] scheme is quite Jane Jacobs-like in its urban pattern." Lumi Rolley of NoLandGrab "overkilled" his failure to see the larger picture.

How much concentration?

Yes, Atlantic Yards would certainly represent concentration, but arguably too much--just as density near a transit hub is wise, but there are limits. Indeed, in a Death and Life chapter titled "The Need for Concentration," Jacobs wrote:
Obviously, if the object is vital city life, the dwelling densities should go as high as they need to go to stimulate the maximum potential diversity in a district. Why waste a city district's and a city population's potential for creating interesting and vigorous city life?

It follows, however, that densities can get too high if they reach a point at which, for any reason, they begin to repress diversity instead of to stimulate it...

The reason dwelling densities can begin repressing diversity if they get too high is this: At some point, to accommodate so many dwellings on the land, standardization of the buildings must set in. This is fatal, because diversity in age and types of buildings has a direct, explicit connection with diversity of population, diversity of enterprises, and diversity of scenes.

The challenge of open space

Jacobs warned that there was a significant tradeoff between diversity and open space--the more such space, the difficulty of achieving variety. Her examples were public housing projects and developments like Stuyvesant Town, where the open space reached 75 percent.

(Atlantic Yards would be 22 acres, with eight acres of open space--a ratio of 36 percent open space that might allow variety if the buildings weren't so big and the streets weren't demapped. The rendering was produced by the Environmental Simulation Center for the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods and subsequently adapted to emphasize Newswalk. A few buildings now would be reduced in size.)

And how high could it go? Jacobs allowed that North End of Boston managed at 275 dwellings per acre, albeit at the cost of ground coverage--the land behind the buildings devoted to additional housing. Clearly open space was sacrificed.

She wrote:
I doubt that it is possible, without drastic standardization, to go higher than the North End's density of 275 dwellings per net acre. For most districts--lacking the North End's peculiar and long heritage of different building types--the ultimate danger mark imposing standardization must be considerably lower; I should guess, roughly, that it is apt to hover at about 200 dwellings an acre.

Atlantic Yards would be nearly 50 percent more dense, at 292 dwellings an acre. Also, the presence of the arena and the taking of streets further intensifies the residential density.

Frequent streets, varied buildings

The remaining two Jacobsian qualities, frequent streets and varied buildings, would be absent from the Atlantic Yards plan. It would create two superblocks--one for the arena and another for the second phase, bounded by Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues and Pacific and Dean streets.

Indeed, as a commenter on this blog pointed out, only via the demapping of the streets can the project include as much open space as it does--even though streets themselves add crucial space.
(Jacobs wrote: Long blocks with high ground coverages are oppressive. Frequent streets, because they are openings between buildings, compensate for high coverage of ground off the streets.)

And the creation of superblocks would demolish some varied buildings, among them two industrial buildings renovated into market-rate condos, another renovated but awaiting more full use, and the Ward Bakery, deteriorated but salvageable, though too costly, according to the developer.

Architect Frank Gehry said in a 10/31/05 appearance at Columbia University, "[H]ow do you make a complex that doesn’t look like a project even though one architect’s doing it? Normally I would’ve brought in five other architects, but one of the requirements of this client is that I do it."

That makes achieving diversity of buildings a bigger challenge. Not only would they not come from different eras--new ideas need old buildings, Jacobs famously wrote--but they wouldn't be designed by different architects, nor be conceived by different developers. So that reflects urbanist Roberta Brandes Gratz's observation that Jacobs did not oppose change, just cataclysmic change.

A second look at the Con Ed rate increase and Atlantic Yards

Did Consolidated Edison, requesting an unprecedented 17 percent rate increase, really blame Atlantic Yards? A NY1 report--and subsequently other reporters, bloggers, and advocates--singled out the development as increasing demand on the electric grid.

I similarly cited the NY1 report, but it wasn't fair to single out Atlantic Yards. A belated look at a May 23 hearing transcript shows that it was just one of numerous projects increasing demand. Indeed, NY1 apparently updated its story sometime later.

However, Con Ed shouldn't be let off the hook so easily. A look back also shows that, as Atlantic Yards was being evaluated, the utility was closemouthed about the significant fiscal impact of its preparations to serve a growing city.

In other words, even though Con Ed claimed confidence it would be ready to supply power to Atlantic Yards, it failed to acknowledge that the project, along with others, would trigger a significant rate hike.

The rate announcement

In a May 4 press release, Con Ed announced a state filing that calls for an 11.6 percent average increase in customer bills beginning 4/1/08, which includes a 17 percent rise for a typical residential customer and 10.7 percent for the typical business customer. Also proposed were overall increases of 3.2 percent in 2009 and 3.7 percent in 2010.

Con Ed had an explanation, stating:
New York City and Westchester County are booming. Among the many new projects are the development of Lower Manhattan and Manhattan's West Side, and new construction in the South Bronx. New developments are also planned for the New Rochelle waterfront in Westchester and Long Island City in Queens...."This growth is good news for the people of New York as well as for those who continue to come here to improve the quality of their lives, but it means our present infrastructure must grow, too. These projects will place further demands on the transmission and delivery infrastructure," [Chairman and CEO Kevin] Burke added. "Many of our substations are already operating near 100 percent of their capacity

The storm increases

The rate hike generated criticism from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who charged that the "bold attempt to once again extract a blank check from ratepayers flies in the face of common logic." A public hearing was called for May 23.

From the hearing, NY1 initially reported that Con Ed, blamed, among other things, Atlantic Yards:
Con Ed came before a State Assembly committee to explain the rate hike. Officials argued Wednesday the system is strapped and that massive projects like the Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn will burden the system even more.
They say the rate hike would cover improvements to handle energy needs, some of which have already been made, but have not been fully paid for by customers.

When I followed up, Con Ed spokesman Chris Olert challenged the nomenclature. “They are the ones who characterized it as burden,” he told me. “We characterize it as demand,” and that involves more than Atlantic Yards.

Indeed, it looks like NY1 updated that story, which now states:
Officials say that an investment into the system must be made to support large city projects, such as Atlantic Yards, the development of the West Side Railyards, and the new Yankee and Mets Stadiums.

The transcript

Olert was unable to provide me with a transcript of remarks by Con Ed representatives at the hearing, and it took quite a while to get it from the State Assembly. Indeed, testimony by John Miksad, senior VP of Electric Operations, cited a large amount of growth beyond Atlantic Yards:
All you need to do is look at the skyline to see the cranes throughout the five boroughs and Westchester County... And it ranges from we've got the Millennium Tower down in Battery Park to the new New York Times Building. We've got the new Manhattan Auto Mall up in Harlem. And we've got Trump up in Westchester as well as on the west side of Manhattan. Queens, you got Silver Cup West going in place. And there's many, many other examples. Now, this is not particularly unique. We always have had high rises in the city. It's just the number that are coming together at this time. In addition, housing from -- residential housing permits are currently at a 30-year record level. And that is also driving a lot of this growth that we're experiencing. And one of the things that this rate proposal does is it makes sure we keep up with this kind of growth.

But there's also really an unprecedented level of infrastructure projects that are going on. We've not seen this in 30 years or 40 years and even 50 years. You've got two new stadiums for the Yankees and the Mets for Opening Day 2009. You've got the Atlantic Yards Project in downtown Brooklyn, which is a commercial and residential development, as well as bringing the Nets arena into Brooklyn. The Second Avenue Subway. When was the -- when was the last time a subway line was built in the city?.. As well as, obviously, the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site starting -- it actually already started with 7 World Trade Center, which is actually up and running, and the Freedom Tower is now being constructed. The plans for the Hudson Yards, even without a Jets stadium, is significant. It accounts for 65 million watts of -- of energy usage. And the Seventh Avenue -- the No. 7 subway line extension, which brings service over to the west side for the whole redevelopment of the Javits Center, as well as supports that residential and commercial development going on over on the west side. For those of us who have lived or worked in the City for some time remember a very different picture in Times Square.

The AY environmental review

So, were we warned? Not quite.

n the November 2006 Atlantic Yards Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Chapter 24 explained, as I noted:
...increased demands on electricity, water, and sewage services as a result of the proposed development would not be significant and can be accommodated largely through existing infrastructure systems with local improvements in sewer pipes, water mains, electrical and gas lines, and the proposed project’s stormwater management techniques.
(Emphasis added)

Apparently the word "largely" is key, because the rate increase implies the need for increased capacity.

Beyond that, the FEIS stated:
As discussed in the DEIS, increased demands on electric and gas service as a result of the proposed development would be insignificant compared with overall energy consumption within the City (the proposed project would add less than 0.1 percent to this demand).

That may be true, but incremental “insignificant” demand is part of a package that’s driving the rate hike. In other words, the FEIS answered the question of whether the demand would overburden the system, not whether consumers would pay more to ensure the system would meet the growing demand.

At the Borough Board

At the 3/2/06 Brooklyn Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee Meeting on Infrastructure, Air Quality, Noise and Energy, according to notes of the session, Con Ed's Joseph Murphy and Lawrence Laskowski seemed sanguine about the utility’s capacity.

Q. How will the grid accommodate the 7,000 new residences? Looking ahead at the demands, how is Con Ed going to keep up? Do you work with the city and state agencies overseeing this to be sure the construction will not negatively impact the service?

L. Laskowski: Each year we look at the projections for community – called the load – and at how that impacts our facilities. We evaluate against the ratings of the system. Con Ed is a network design, so that on the forecasted peak day, we can beat that load with any two facilities. That is our criteria. Right now, we have an annual system improvement budget that covers this, as well as improvements on a secondary system.
(Emphasis added)

Unmentioned, apparently, was how and when that system improvement budget would come due, and who would be paying.

J. Murphy: Two things. One, much of this project will not be supplied from our network system, so we don’t envision that it will impact. It won’t have the traditional network supply. It will have network supply feeders because the need is so intensified, with high tension feeders into the building. For a portion of the project, it’s closely married to the Borough Hall network, which is probably one of the most robust, that represents one of the only day-peaking networks in the borough. So this gives us the opportunity to use some of our existing capacity, swinging to evening use of the arena and residential units.

Clearly, however, the existing capacity was not sufficient.

Who pays?

Q. Who bears the costs of this work? General rate payers? The developer?

J. Murphy: It depends. It is an as-of-right as a customer that Con Ed is obligated to extend facilities. There are instances, whether or not there are space limitations, like a sidewalk. For the arena and towers, the burden of the installation of transformers are shifted to the developer because it’s inside property line. The bulk of the cost is installation, and that would be shifted to the developer.

The bulk of the cost for outfitting the project's electrical capacity does fall on the developer, because of the new equipment, Olert told me. However, because of growth in the Downtown Brooklyn area, “we would still have to make investment.”

Did that system improvement budget Laskowski mentioned in March 2006, I asked, contemplate the 11.6 percent increase--the increase that means a 17 percent jump for residential customers?

“It’s no one project that triggers the rate case,” Olert responded. “We have to plan for the future. The increase is for the whole system. Atlantic Yards is a piece of it.”

Sufficient disclosure?

It's understandable that Con Ed has to plan for the future, but should there have an acknowledgement last year that such planning includes a rate increase, I asked Olert. “That’s understood,” he suggested, offering this metaphor. “The time to save for child’s future is not when they’re in college… You’ve got to make investments today.”

And when did Con Ed first acknowledge that rate increase? In March, Olert said. “We do this every three years.” He noted that the utility had been able to keep rates down by selling property, among other tactics.

The bottom line, apparently, is that a big utility bill was due to come due this year, in part because of Atlantic Yards. Con Ed didn't warn anyone about it. And the AY environmental review didn't address the question.

Rate case continues

As the New York Times reported Saturday, in an article headlined Con Edison Is Supported on Bid to Raise Rates, the State Public Service Commission recommended that Con Ed be granted only a portion of its request, and it was unclear what the effect would be on customers’ utility bills.

Con Ed and city officials have until September 28 to respond to those recommendations, and a final decision will be made by a board by the end of next March.

Sham process?

The Times reported:
“This is all part of the sham that goes on with every rate hike request,” said Assemblyman Michael N. Gianaris, a Queens Democrat who sits on the Assembly’s power committee and who has criticized the utility for its response to the 2006 power failure in his borough. “Con Edison asks for more than it expects to get,” he said. “The P.S.C. rides in on its white horse and takes credit for slashing the request. But the end result is still what Con Edison wanted all along.”

Con Ed prepared?

As far as I could tell, none of the New York State Department of Public Service staff testimony before the Public Service Commission made specific reference to Atlantic Yards. However, testimony did indicate that Con Ed could have planned better:
The Company’s transmission lines average approximately 40 years in age. Con Edison’s aging transmission and distribution equipment needs to be reinforced and upgraded to meet both its Public Service Law requirements and its customers’ expectations for a safe and reliable system.

...Although the Company is accelerating many of its existing programs and adding new programs in an effort to address its aging infrastructure, load demand, growth and systemwide reliability, the Company has known about these major issues for several years. For this reason, this, our specific recommendations are, in part, made to ameliorate rate impacts while allowing the Company to address its system-wide problems.

AY phase one redesign coming, says Times critic

So we've been waiting and waiting for the new dimensions of Frank Gehry's "Miss Brooklyn," which last December was taken down from 620 feet to (apparently) 511 feet, a sliver less than the Williamsburgh Savings Bank.

But what would be the bulk of the building, once projected at three times the size of the bank building? Almost certainly Gehry's building would remain much larger.

Soon, apparently, we may find out, thanks to a hint not in any announcement from the government or developer, but from the New York Times's architecture critic, who managed a brief but error-riddled update on the Atlantic Yards project.

Project under way?

In a "New Season" season preview in the New York Times's Arts and Leisure section, in an article headlined Architectural Shifts, Global and Local, Nicolai Ouroussoff writes:
New Yorkers will see several major nonmuseum projects getting under way this season, and these could bring about the biggest shift in decades in the city’s physical identity.

The most startling is a $14 billion plan by the developers Stephen M. Ross and Steven Roth to rebuild a swath of Midtown that includes Madison Square Garden, Pennsylvania Station and the James A. Farley post office....

Another huge project is the $4 billion Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn, and Frank Gehry will soon unveil his redesign of its first phase, so it will soon become clear whether Brooklyn will receive a dazzling 21st-century version of Rockefeller Center or a conventional retail-entertainment-sports complex inside a pretty architectural wrapper.

First, it's hardly certain that Atlantic Yards will actually get under way; that depends on the resolution of a federal lawsuit, now in the appeals stage, and a state lawsuit, awaiting a trial court decision, as well as other delays.

Like the Rock?

Second, it's doubtful that Gehry can redesign the first phase, which is four towers wrapped around an arena, plus one tower to the west across Flatbush Avenue, to make Atlantic Yards echo Rockefeller Center.

The latter notably added rather than subtracted streets. The first phase of Atlantic Yards would close Fifth Avenue between Atlantic and Flatbush avenues, and Pacific Street between Flatbush and Sixth avenues.

(This is from the General Project Plan, issued 12/8/06. Click to enlarge.)

Any effort to make AY look more like Rockefeller Center would have to focus on the design of the project's open space, which would come in the second phase. Indeed, Ouroussoff in June 2006 criticized the open space design as suggesting a private enclave.

It's about housing

Third, Atlantic Yards would not be a retail-entertainment-sports complex. More than three-quarters of its square footage (nearly 6.4 million sf out of nearly 8 million sf) would be occupied by housing (see p. 18 of this PDF), and at 292 units/acre, the project would be far more dense than any other major project in the city.

Rather, Atlantic Yards would be, as another Times reporter more accurately described it, "essentially a large residential development with an arena and a relatively small amount of office and retail space attached to it."

On journalistic criticism, process, and governmental competence

Are the issues revolving around Atlantic Yards uncomplicated? A 5/11/07 New York Times article about Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, "perhaps the nation’s only investigative reporter turned big-city mayor," quoted Miller as predicting she won't return to journalism:
“It’s very easy to see things as black and white and to just sit there in your bathrobe at 2 o’clock in the morning eating M&M’s and drinking black coffee and skewering everybody,” she said. “But now that I’ve been the hunted, I could never go back and be the hunter.”

That's a lesson, indeed, for critics and opponents of the Atlantic Yards plan, and the politicians and developer backing it.

Everyone loves Extell?

For example, many Atlantic Yards opponents backed the bid by the developer Extell for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard, because Extell would build a project limited to the 8.5-acre railyard, add rather than subtract streets, and go through the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP. (A smaller project would include no arena and less affordable housing.)

The Extell plan was based on, but not completely faithful to, the community-developed UNITY plan and the subsequent Principles for Responsible Community Development on the Vanderbilt Rail Yards The difference is that the Extell plan also would be very dense, though, as a smaller project overall without an arena and as much housing (both market and affordable), the strain on the area infrastructure would be much less than with Atlantic Yards.

But had the Extell project emerged on its own, without the competing Atlantic Yards plan, it's likely the community would have been divided, with opponents calling it too dense and defenders saying that such density was required to make the project work economically.

Extell has generated significant controversy on the Upper West Side with its Ariel luxury towers, which at 31 stories and 37 stories in contrast to the typical 16-story limit on Broadway north of 96th street. (The developer bought air rights from neighboring buildings rather than got a state override of zoning, as with Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project.)

After all, some AY opponents have emphasized the scale of row-house Brooklyn, while, to be realistic, some mid-rise development, at the least, would be constructed over much of the railyards as well as on the adjacent Pacific Street industrial block. Indeed, a revision of the UNITY plan, to be unveiled on September 24, likely will call for more density than did the original.

Affordable housing

As for the affordable housing component, ACORN's Bertha Lewis, who signed the Housing Memorandum of Understanding with Forest City Ratner, defends the deal as the best that was possible, given the significant amount of housing being built nearby with no affordable component.

Given that this was public land, rather than private as-of-right development, any project would contain some affordable housing; the question was how much. How negotiate the tradeoff between the value of increased density and the potential impact on infrastructure and quality of life? After all, if the goal is housing at all costs, we could always build subsidized housing in Prospect Park.

The issue is process

This issue is how to mediate among competing claims.

Amanda Burden, director of the Department of City Planning, discussed the issue an October 2006 interview:
There is no such thing as successful planning or a good plan without real, ongoing community involvement. An engaged community is what makes a neighborhood work. No one has all the answers--not planners, not governments, not elected officials, not even community groups or citizens. Good plans, real plans that can do their job of making people's lives better, come from the often tedious, often frustrating, always complex and iterative process of involving everyone who has a stake in the community.
(Emphasis added)

That process has been absent in the Atlantic Yards debate, given the bypass of city review; even the contentious Columbia University Community Benefits Agreement looks far more transparent than the "pioneering" Brooklyn example.

The need for density

The Regional Plan Association (RPA) has offered praise and criticism of Atlantic Yards, citing the importance of density near a transit hub. In testimony last August, the RPA offered measured support for the project:
In this instance, however, it would not be in the public interest to start from scratch. Even an improved process should still likely result in a project approximating the scale and ambition of the Forest City Ratner proposal. The city and the region need to aggressively develop offices, housing, retail and entertainment in appropriate locations, and there are few locations more suited for dense, mixed-use development than the Atlantic Yards.

I think that's speculative, since an improved process would involve many more voices. Also, the statement that "the Atlantic Yards" is suited for development fudges the difference between development over the railyards and development over adjacent blocks.

Atlantic Yards would be 292 apartments per acre--"extreme density" compared to Stuyvesant Town, Battery Park City, and even new projects like the New Domino and Queens West.

What's the limit? That hasn't been discussed.

Better planning

More recently, however, the RPA, with dismay, has cited Atlantic Yards as an example of "city-making" that requires much more planning.

Of course, planning does not imply consensus. At some point, the city perspective must be balanced with the neighborhood's view, the big picture with the smaller one. As Jerilyn Perine, former director of the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development, said in May: “I think there’s a real difference between planning and what people think of as community planning. Planning should be done by planners.”

But the work of planners does require some oversight. Dallas Mayor Miller suggests that it's never easy, from the outside, to get the balance right. On the other hand, as Mayor Mike Bloomberg's PlaNYC 2030 suggests, there are much more transparent ways to develop over railyards, stating:
Building communities requires a carefully tailored approach to local conditions and needs that can only be developed with local input. We will begin the process of working with communities, the agencies that operate these facilities, and other stakeholders to sort through these complicated issues.

That was absent in the Atlantic Yards plan.

Stern's critique

Former City Parks Commissioner Henry Stern, now helming New York Civic, wrote a 5/25/07 commentary, headlined LOYALTY IS DEMANDED, BUT CONFLICT IS INEVITABLE AS FOURTH ESTATE IS CRITICAL OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS, noting the adversarial relationship between journalistics and elected officials:
There are many totally legitimate questions to ask and the press conference is a worthwhile institution. Often officials skirt the edge of truth telling by their evasive, ambiguous, or misleading replies. They are not under oath. In fact, the inadequate answers may come because they are unready, unwilling or unable to provide accurate information.

They may be involved in negotiations, or embroiled in a lawsuit, where out-of-court commentary is inappropriate. They may not know the answer to a question, yet not wish to appear ignorant by saying so.

The failure to disclose the housing subsidies for Atlantic Yards before its approval, I think, falls in the category of "unwilling."

He continues:
...Of course, some journalists are relentlessly hostile to some officials, and try to make their bones by proving that the people they cover are crooks, imbeciles, racists or frauds. There is danger from slanted reporting, and if it is done cleverly enough it is difficult to detect. When the reporter is dripping with indignation, he does not believe that what he writes is slanted. There is a significant difference in the way The New York Times or Fox News may report the same event. Yet neither believes it is unfair, one in fact promotes itself as fair and balanced.

When it comes to Atlantic Yards, as I've commented, objectivity and neutrality can be complicated issues.

Mistakes made?

Stern writes:
It is particularly difficult for an observer to comment adversely on an action or position of a generally good administration, or about a public official with whose policy objectives one is sympathetic. Other officials may be frequent objects of criticism, often for ethical reasons. But even honest and decent public officials make mistakes. There are cases where the good guys are wrong and the bad guys are right. The fair-minded journalist discusses issues on their merits, not on the basis of what the sides are.

Errors are usually based on ignorance, sometimes corruption, rarely malice.

From this perspective, Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz--lauded by Coney Island USA's Dick Zigun, who called the city administration "shockingly competent" when it comes to Coney redevelopment--may think they're doing the right thing with Atlantic Yards.

But Bloomberg, for example, wouldn't acknowledge that the subway system is overcrowded. And when it comes to Atlantic Yards, the record suggests, the "shocking competence," apparently, has its lapses.

Coming: the Jane Jacobs exhibit and discussions; AY gets some notice

If earlier this year we encountered a reassessment of Robert Moses, soon we’ll have a chance to examine his one-time antagonist, author and activist Jane Jacobs, whose 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities took on an entire generation of urban planners.

The Municipal Art Society (MAS), with sponsorship from the Rockefeller Foundation—which funded Jacobs and now funds medals in her honor—will on Sept. 25 open the “Jane Jacobs and the Future of New York” exhibit. MAS then will host several panels regarding Jacobs’s relevance today, three of which will touch on Atlantic Yards.

(A web site for the exhibit will go live on September 10.)

AY effect?

While there’s no clue yet what the exhibit might say about Atlantic Yards, the press release hints at potential criticism. “The project presents the principles and activism of Jane Jacobs and challenges New York City residents to study the use of their city, its streets and the built environment,” said Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation. “The project inspires citizens to support and fight for the health of their own neighborhoods, and it encourages city officials, developers, planners and architects to embrace and implement Jane Jacobs’ teachings.”

The MAS itself has not joined the main Atlantic Yards opposition, steering clear of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and its lawsuits, but has spearheaded the BrooklynSpeaks coalition, which began last year and called for major changes in the project, hoping for some political and community leverage. Some of BrooklynSpeaks' criticisms, including the need for the project to "respect and integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods," reflect Jacobs' influence.

Panel discussions

Along with the exhibit, “Jane Jacobs and the Future of New York” will include several programs “that apply Jane Jacobs’ principles to contemporary New York City while seeking to initiate a dialogue concerning the future of the city.” And three of the seven, including one in which I’ll participate, will touch on Atlantic Yards. (Cost for each is $12 non-members, $8 members & students.)

Below is the text as taken from the promotional material, with some footnotes added.

The press

NEW MEDIA, NEW POLITICS?: JANE JACOBS AND AN ACTIVIST PRESS
Tuesday, October 9, 7 pm, Housing Works Used Books Café, 126 Crosby at Houston

This panel will consider the lineage of activist journalism, from pamphletting and the early Village Voice to today’s online investigative journalism and community organizing.

Sewell Chan, The New York Times — moderator
Gay Talese, author
Norman Oder, Atlantic Yards Report
Alberto Vourvoulias-Bush, El Diario
Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake.com

Civic activism

A CIVIC ACTIVIST BOOT CAMP: WORKING WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE SYSTEM
Tuesday, October 16, 7 pm, Municipal Art Society, 457 Madison Avenue at 51st Street

In the spirit of Jane Jacobs, this panel not only will explore ways to open up urban planning processes but will detail concrete ways that individuals can acquire the tools necessary to make their voices heard. Participants will outline ways to make stands, including basic organization, media relations, community relations, government relations, and the use of legal action.

Richard Kahan, Urban Assembly — moderator
Alexie Torres-Fleming, Southern Bronx Watershed River Alliance/Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice
Reverend Billy, Church of Stop Shopping
Joshua David, Friends of the High Line
Marshall Brown, Atlantic Yards Development Workshop

I'll note that Brown has helped develop the alternative UNITY plan for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard; an update is expected soon.

The "oversuccessful city"

THE OVERSUCCESSFUL CITY, Part 2: NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IN THE FACE OF CHANGE
Tuesday, December 4, 7 pm, Municipal Art Society, 457 Madison at 51st Street

How can neighborhoods guard against the pitfalls of “oversuccess,” not least of which are gentrification and displacement? Who gets to say “Enough!” and when? This panel will look at recent controversies over specific large developments and tangle with the complexities of development’s benefits and its considerable perils and inequities.

Matt Schuerman, New York Observer — moderator
Rev. Calvin Butts, Abyssinian Development Corporation
Errol Louis, New York Daily News
Ron Shiffman, Pratt Center
Michelle de le Uz, Fifth Avenue Committee

I'll note that Shiffman is on the advisory board of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the main coalition opposing Atlantic Yards and de la Uz is a leader of BrooklynSpeaks. And columnist Louis has been a strong supporter of the project.

“Affordable” studio would cost more (per square foot) than market-rate studio

We all know that the term “affordable” when it comes to housing is “a relative thing,” to quote Brooklyn Assemblyman Vito Lopez, but that's ever so true when it comes to Atlantic Yards.

The fine print--and it is fine--in the Atlantic Yards Financial Projections document unearthed in the lawsuit by Assemblyman Jim Brennan and State Senator Velmanette Montgomery suggests something quite curious: affordable middle-income studio apartments in the Atlantic Yards project would cost more per square foot ($55.83, above) than market-rate studios ($51.62, below) in the same building.
(Click to enlarge)

The document projects that phenomenon in every rental building. (See Tower 2, on p. 13 of the PDF.) The market-rate units would still cost a bit more on a monthly basis, $2151 vs. $1861, but that’s because they’d be 500 square feet, as opposed to 400 square feet.

In rental apartments constructed later in the planned build-out, costs for both types of units would rise; in Towers 12/13 (see p. 43 of PDF), the market rent would be $53.33/sf, leading to a $2169 monthly rent (500 sf), while the rent for upper-tier affordable studios would be $57.83/sf, leading to a $1928 monthly rent (400 sf).

Given that rate increases for both market-rate and affordable units would be governed by rent stabilization, the difference in value between the market-rate and upper-income affordable studio seems negligible.

Top tier only

Note that this applies only to the most expensive of the affordable units, those available to households earning 141% to 160% of Area Median Income, or AMI. (There would be 450 such apartments, with perhaps 112--one out of four--studios.) A single person eligible for such a unit would earn $69,403 to $79,408, according to the developer's chart of estimated rents (right, click to enlarge).

For the purposes of the document released to Brennan, there are four different income categories, as two low-income bands, up to 50% AMI, are conflated into one. (There are five income categories in the affordable housing Memorandum of Understanding.)

Staggering rents

The document suggests a significant inconsistency between market-rate and affordable units. In Tower 2, for example, the market-rate rentals—studios, 1 BR, 2 BR, and 3 BR—all would rent at $51.62/sf. The middle-income affordable rentals would range from $34.93/sf for the 3 BR to $55.83 for the studios.

Similar laddering is evident in all the affordable income bands--smaller units are significantly more expensive than larger ones. In fact, a studio apartment in the second-highest income band (101% to 140% of AMI) would rent for $44.67/sf, more expensive on a square foot basis than affordable units (except for studios) in the highest income band.

Explanation, please

Not all this is new. The projected monthly rents were revealed last year in the developer's housing chart and the size of the affordable apartments, governed by a New York City Housing Development Corporation (NYC HDC) program, was also publicized last year.

But the cost per square foot was not discussed until this document surfaced. Most crucially, the developer had not announced the projected costs and sizes of the market-rate apartments.

The laddering among the affordable units is apparently not triggered by the developer but by the NYC HDC , which would authorize bonds for the market and affordable rental housing. I asked for more details from NYC HDC spokesman Aaron Donovan, who responded, "Forest City Ratner has not applied for financing from us, so it would be premature to speculate about rent structures."

[Update: A year ago, I reported that I had received from NYC HDC Resolutions of Declarations of Intent, passed between July 20, 2004 and July 19, 2006, passed by the HDC board, which do not assure tax-exempt bonds for a measure of affordable housing; they simply mean that a developer may apply for such financing.]

The paradox of unaffordable ($7313!) "rent-stabilized" Atlantic Yards housing

Forest City Ratner recently announced that "Applications for low and middle income apartments will be available beginning in 2009, with occupancy beginning in 2010"--implying that the project will proceed on time, which is questionable.

That raises a question: would Atlantic Yards rental housing--the 2250 affordable units and the 2250 market-rate units--all be rent-stabilized, as has been promoted?

The answer: sort of, but in a confounding way that somehow would classify a market-rate apartment renting for $7313 as rent-stabilized.

And it would classify middle-income affordable units, some costing well more than $2000 a month, as rent-stabilized, even though such sums generated skepticism about affordability from potential renters last year and, indeed, $2000 is the trigger for decontrol of current rent-stabilized units.

According to the developer's chart of estimated rents (click to enlarge), 450 of the 2250 affordable units would rent from $1861 to $3084 a month and another 450 would rent from $1488 to $2467.)

Previous rhetoric

Bertha Lewis of ACORN, in a 7/31/06 article in City Limits, described all 4500 Atlantic Yards rentals as rent-stabilized:
Beyond building new affordable units, all 4,500 rental units at Atlantic Yards will be rent-stabilized -- no small victory in an era where thousands of rent-stabilized units return to the free market every year.
(Emphasis added)

I criticized that at the time, contending (imprecisely) that market-rate units could not be rent-stabilized. A Forest City Ratner presentation earlier that month stated, in describing the affordable housing program, that "All rental units will be rent-stabilized."

In an 8/15/06 letter to the Village Voice, Lewis described it differently:
ACORN has worked with Forest City Ratner to guarantee that 50 percent of the 4,500 new units planned for Atlantic Yards will be rent stabilized and affordable to low, moderate, and middle-income families.

However, the Brooklyn Tomorrow supplement to the New York Post issued June 14 repeated the claim, stating:
Of the 6430 units of housing, 4500 will be rent-stablized rental apartments and the rest market-rate condos.

What does it mean?

The state Division of Housing & Community Renewal defines rent stabilization as covering apartments in buildings of six or more units built between Feb. 1, 1947 and Jan. 1, 1974 as well as tenants in buildings of six or more units built before Feb. 1, 1947, who moved in after June 30, 1971. A third category, which would apparently include Atlantic Yards, covers buildings with three or more apartments constructed or extensively renovated since 1974 with special tax benefits.

But rent stabilization implies a cap on rents; indeed in New York City, apartments can be deregulated when rents for vacant apartments reach $2000 (aka "vacancy decontrol") and also when existing tenants earn incomes of $175,000 or more and their rent hits $2000 (aka "luxury decontrol"). Housing advocates argue that the ceiling for decontrol should rise significantly, perhaps by 50%, given inflation and the cost of rent in Manhattan.

Working with HDC

The rules would be different for Atlantic Yards rental housing, which would be funded via the New York City Housing Development Corporation (NYC HDC). The term sheet for the agency 's mixed-income program--50% market, 30% middle-income, 20% low-income units--states:
Upon project stabilization, New HOP and Market rate rent increases will be governed by allowable rent stabilization increases with no vacancy decontrol.

So, indeed, there would be rent stabilization, but with a twist. For the 2250 market-rate rental units, it would come after the fact, after the developer works out the rent.

I asked Aaron Donovan, spokesman for the NYC HDC, who confirmed, "The market sets the initial rents and subsequent to that, rent increases are governed by rent stabilization. If Forest City Ratner were to apply for financing under our Mixed-Income Program, these terms would apply."

Rent-stabilized luxury

According to a Forest City Ratner planning document released in response to the lawsuit filed by Assemblyman Jim Brennan and State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, market-rate units in the first round of buildings would rent for $51.62 a square foot annually. The monthly rents would be:
Studios (500 sf): $2151
1 BR (630 sf): $2710
2 BR (950 sf): $4087
3 BR (1700 sf): $7313.

While rent-stabilization would govern future increase in rents, the 2250 market-rate units, with such hefty price tags, hardly embody the "no small victory" ACORN's Lewis claimed. Even the middle-income affordable units, however welcome to some, would be beyond the reach of ACORN's core constituency, most of whom would be eligible for only the 900 low-income affordable units.

Stop-work order rescinded

Yesterday, according to a Department of Buildings filing, the stop-work order issued regarding part of the Atlantic Yards site was rescinded after approved plans were available.

The Observer on AY delays and possible increased public costs

In the New York Observer this week, in an article headlined Atlantic Yards: The Suspense Builds, Matthew Schuerman reports that, while Forest City Ratner spokespeople claim the project is on schedule for as 2009 arena opening--despite being way behind stated schedules--they wouldn't answer follow-up questions.

(Meanwhile, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn wouldn't reveal the size of its war chest, though it plans to appeal an adverse eminent domain ruling--the case is pending before a federal appellate court--to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

Schuerman observes that the delays suggest some contradictions, costing the developer millions but also supporting claims of blight, arresting and reversing the slow gentrification on the blocks adjacent to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard.

Public costs rising?

So what’s the total "extraordinary infrastructure costs", Assemblyman Richard Brodsky asked Empire State Development Corporation Chairman Charles Gargano last December, a reference to a line in the 2/18/05 Memorandum of Understanding that said that “the Public Parties will consider making additional contributions for extraordinary infrastructure costs related to the mixed-use development on the Project Site (excluding the Arena Building Site).”

Brodsky never really got an answer.

Schuerman's article, though it doesn't reference Brodsky, offers a follow-up:
Forest City is planning to spend $4.2 billion on Atlantic Yards, with some $305 million pledged from the city and state so far. A little noticed clause in the project plan approved by the state last year states that “additional fundings shall be made … provided that at no time will the costs reimbursed to [Forest City] by the city and state, in the aggregate, exceed 50 percent of the total costs. …”

The state and city would, however, have to agree to increase their contributions to the project. Mr. Cockfield, the spokesman for ESDC, said, “As far as the state goes we don’t contemplate reimbursing any more than $100 million for infrastructure.”

Closer look

In greater detail, that clause in the Atlantic Yards General Project Plan (see p. 7 of this PDF), states: Additional Fundings shall be made taking into account amounts spent by FCRC

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that the developer is spending $4 billion--though it sure would be helpful to get the Empire State Development Corporation to explain the verbiage it approved.

While the project would cost some $4 billion, the developer's own funds, and the funds assembled from equity investors, might be half that.

If you add the direct contributions of the city and state, and the government-assisted bonds for the arena and the affordable housing, that means more than half the $4 billion cost (which is higher, if you add financing) of the project would come from public and [updated] public-assisted sources.
(Click to enlarge)

That would leave less than $2 billion to be raised privately, with a smaller amount expended by the developer. So half of that unspecified sum--certainly more than the $305 million already pledged--could be reimbursed by the government, according to my reading of the General Project Plan.

Either way, it certainly protects Forest City Ratner's own investment.

In Seattle, Neighbor Power; in New York, too much neighbor rancor

Given the contentiousness around development in New York, especially Brooklyn, it's refreshing to read Neighbor Power, by Jim Diers, who in 1988, was appointed by Seattle Mayor Charles Royer to head the city's new Office of Neighborhoods. That's right--an office concerned with neighborhoods. Diers was reappointed by the subsequent mayors and, after his 14-year tenure, the four-person office had grown into a Department of Neighborhoods with 100 staff.

As Diers writes:
The Department of Neighborhoods differs from other city departments that are responsible for separate functions such a transportation, public safety, human services, or parks and recreation. Neighborhoods is the only department focused on the way citizens have organized themselves: by community. That unique focus enables the department to decentralize and coordinate city services, to cultivate a greater sense of community and nurture broad-based community organizations, and to work in partnership with these organizations to improve neighborhoods by building each one’s special character.

Some contrasts

The question is: how might that translate in New York City? Not directly, given that the average neighborhood in Seattle has 5000 residents. (That would make Atlantic Yards, if built as planned, nearly three neighborhoods.)

The concepts have value. Seattle, which learned from St. Paul, MN, and Portland, OR, has seen its examples emulated: neighborhood matching fund programs in Houston, Detroit, Cleveland, and neighborhood service centers in Baltimore and San Diego.

There's a big caveat; this doesn't mean that neighborhoods are ensured a role in development plans, the hot issue in New York, but it implies that neighborhoods are worth listening to. "Government must learn to see neighborhoods not only as places with great needs, but as communities with tremendous resources," Diers writes.

What about the NIMBYs?

Diers suggests that good planning can stave off knee-jerky NIMBYism:
While I admit that some individuals are narrow-minded, I have come to trust the community, especially when the community organizations are broadly based, democratic, and empowered. I believe that people act responsibly to the extent that they are given responsibility. It is when people know they have no power that communities take extreme positions, expecting their positions to be moderated by the decision makers. NIMBYs are usually the product of centralized decision making, especially when officials try to sneak a project past the community and impose one-size-fits-all solutions regardless of local conditions.
(Emphasis added)

That certainly seems to be the case in New York, though the NIMBY tag can be thrown too casually, as regarding Atlantic Yards.

He suggests that empowerment serves all:
Too many local governments treat citizens as nothing more than customers; citizens, in turn, think of themselves only as taxpayers; government resources, consequently, continue to decline. As Daniel Kemmis wrote about public hearings, “The one element that is almost totally lacking is anything that might be characterized as ‘public hearing.’”

Indeed, consider the examples of the hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement in August 2006 and the recent hearing on Columbia University's planned expansion.

Livable neighborhoods

A 2005 report, prepared by the Municipal Art Society Planning Center in coordination with the Community-Based Planning Task Force, Livable Neighborhoods for a Livable City, suggests several steps New York City should take to improve the capacity of communities to plan

As Eve Baron and Micaela Birmingham wrote:
New York’s current planning process is out of date, out of touch and out of ideas. At times, communities have no other option but to resort to lawsuits to have their voices heard. New planning tools that take advantage of the skills, knowledge and abilities of local communities would allow for faster, less costly and more innovative development.

Promise and reality

On paper, the report points out, the city is supposed to fold community-based 197-a plans into planning and policy decisions, but even if they're adopted by the City Planning Commission and the City Council, they're ignored when rezoning is spurred by market forces.

(Such community plans have been developed both in Williamsburg and West Harlem. There was no 197-a plan for the Atlantic Yards site, in part because it straddles three community districts. It's hard to call the city's designation of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area, or ATURA, planning for the AY site because it did not encompass the footprint and the city had focused on the mall north of Atlantic Avenue rather than the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard.)

The report recommends that community boards and community-based organizations get increased training and technical resources; after all, the average community district has a population of over 100,000--the size of some small cities, like Albany--but a budget of $200,000, barely enough to keep the doors open. (Albany’s Division of Planning itself had an annual budget of $369,996, with six full-time staff, at the time of the study's writing.)

A 197-a plan can cost between $50,000 and $250,000 to create, but there's no regular source of funding. Beyond that, smaller plans, easier to fund, might also prove helpful.

Improvements needed

The study states:
A new planning framework must also be able to accommodate calls for changes to city policy—addressing critical and growing needs for affordable housing, job creation, open space, and sustainability. As it now stands, planning in New York City is heavily politicized, driven by market forces, and has in the last few decades taken place largely outside the public realm. The current administration has done a better job at conferring with communities about zoning decisions. But there is much more to be done before we can declare that New York City is balancing efficiency with equity and has embraced a new approach to planning.

It recommends that the Department of City Planning (DCP) do much more to provide professional planning assistance to community boards and that it should advocate for community plans to be ingregrated with broader city initiatives. DCP and the Department of Buildings should notify the community board whenever any new large-scale development is proposed, even as-of-right projects.

Of course, when DCP steps out of the way and lets the Empire State Development Corporation take the lead, as with Atlantic Yards, the challenge is even more stark.

(Some of this all could change as PlaNYC 2030 is implemented, but that plan doesn't include a major revamp of community boards.)

Reinvent community planning

Last year, Project for Public Spaces' (PPS) Nine Ways to Transform New York into a City of Great Places, endorsed the Livable Neighborhoods recommendations under the rubric "Reinvent Community Planning."

PPS explained why community boards have a reputation for fighting projects, rather than smoothing the way for them:
Community Boards tend to act as vehicles of opposition because that's how their role has been defined in practice. In a typical development project involving public property, the Community Board becomes involved usually after something has been proposed. This process does not encourage community representatives to exercise real creativity or leadership. They can only react to what's already on the table.

The city should reinvent Community Boards by adopting their plans as legitimate goals and asking communities to articulate their aspirations, needs, and priorities at the beginning of the development process. When officials, developers, and designers start working with communities as equal partners, they will benefit from the collective expertise of the people who have the most at stake in the project. The community, in turn, gains more say in changes to their neighborhood and thus becomes more invested in seeing them through.

Easier said than done, of course, but in doing so, PPS suggested, community boards "must become more open, transparent, and engaged with their constituencies." (Community Boards 2, 6, and 8 in Brooklyn have held open meetings and taken testimony regarding Atlantic Yards; they just weren't given any say.)

And so should city agencies, right? In Coney Island, there may even be a start, even as city officials leak strategically to eager tabloids.

The Coney contrast: the city sticks to its guns, challenges developer

On Sunday, I caught the annual “State of Coney Island” address, delivered by Dick Zigun, the unofficial mayor—“I’m not a real mayor; the truth is, I’m an arts guy”—of the amusement zone, the founder of Coney Island USA, the organization that sponsors the Mermaid Parade and the Sideshow and the Coney Island Museum, maintaining and advancing the district's raffish spirit. (More, including photos and video, from The Gowanus Lounge.)

Zigun’s speech at the museum, preceded by a rendition of Amos Wengler’s song “Save Coney Island,” came as the future of the amusement district is very much up in the air, as developer Joe Sitt of Thor Equities has purchased about three-quarters of the central area, and has proposed putting lucrative residential units (originally condos, now apparently time-shares) near the beach as part of a ten-acre amusement and entertainment project.

The city has said no; next season could leave much of the amusement district razed and boarded up; meanwhile, a land swap, in which Sitt instead got city land west of KeySpan Park, is under discussion.

For Atlantic Yards watchers, it was stunning to notice:
--city government hailed
--a city plan adhered to (so far) rather than bent for a developer
--a developer denounced as duplicitous by a person of authority.

Bloomy's competence

While Mayor Mike Bloomberg believes in capitalism and development, Zigun said, “his administration, compared to others I’ve seen, is shockingly competent.” (Atlantic Yards watchers might disagree, given that PlaNYC 2030 proposes a much more consultative process to develop over railyards.)

Zigun recounted how Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia put Robert Moses in charge of Coney, leading to public housing in the amusement district. Mayor Ed Koch was wary about Coney. Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s was eager to build a minor league baseball stadium as legacy, hassled the Mermaid Parade, and ripped down the Thunderbolt roller coaster, not even for a parking lot.

For the first time in 60 years, he said, Coney has three politicians with a positive attitude, citing not just Bloomberg, but also Borough President Marty Markowitz, who marches in the Mermaid Parade and got city to put lights on the Parachute Jump. City Council Member Dominick Recchia helped get the terra cotta-clad Child's Restaurant west of KeySpan landmarked, helped get the subway terminal rebuilt, and got the Coney Island Development Corporation (CIDC) funded. (Zigun’s now on the CIDC board.)

Real estate scams

“The history of Coney Island has been the history of real estate scams,” Zigun observed, pointing to the current exhibit at the Coney Island History Project in a Surf Avenue space under the Cyclone. The CIDC had agreed that property west of KeySpan and north of Surf Avenue could have ground floor amusement or entertainment uses, and condos above—but not in the central amusement zone. “Goddamn it, these competent people have never budged off that initial compromise,” Zigun said.

“The city’s good intention was to fill in the problem areas,” he said, pointing to a coming plaza under the Parachute Jump that will house the relocated and repaired B&B Carousell and a restaurant. “It wasn’t the city’s fault Joe Sitt began buying up what already was good.”

Zigun hinted that nostalgia was inappropriate, as Coney has always changed and could always improve. The Albert family, “our industry leaders,” sold Astroland to Sitt, but “if you go back to the start of Astroland, it was a real estate deal,” given that Dewey Albert bought the famed Feltman’s restaurant. “You’d be protesting [then],” he told about three dozen people in the audience.

Dealings with Thor

Coney Island USA would like to preserve and make use of the Grasshorn Building, a historic space on Surf Avenue, and has on-and-off negotiations with Thor. Three weeks ago, said Zigun, breaking some news, Thor called up and reopened the deal, but set conditions that made it impossible to buy the building.

While as a CIDC member, Zigun said, he must judge proposals by their merit, “personally, I will tell you Thor has been dishonest, has lied to us." He ramped up his criticism, "Here in Brooklyn, excuse me for going a little Jewish… Joe Sitt, let my building go.”

Sitt, he observed, has a history of being “a flipper,” turning over properties for quick profit and, indeed, has already done so in Coney. “His specialty is to jump into marginal urban areas and assemble a package,” Zigun said. He has met Sitt a number of times, calling the developer “incredibly accessible,” but warning, “My personal experience is, I don’t believe a word he says.”

“This is a game for very big stakes,” Zigun said. “This is New York City, where the big boys play.”

The Ratner contrast

Indeed. In contrast to Sitt, Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner got his support lined up from the start. Markowitz wanted Brooklyn to be major league more than anything else. Bloomberg likes big projects. Ten thousand office jobs sounded good too.

Except, unlike with Coney Island, the city established no guiding principles. The city agreed to let the state override zoning, and did not set any upper limit on the size of the project, which grew, went through two strategic cuts,then settled at about the same square footage as announced. At 6430 apartments over 22 acres, the number of apartments per acre would top 292, “extreme density” in comparison to projects like Battery Park City or Stuyvesant Town.

And the supporters remained quiet. Ratner said he wouldn’t block the clock of the Williamsburgh Savings Bank, but when his design shifted, no supporters criticized him. The 10,000 office jobs evaporated, with space for 1340 jobs, maybe 375 new, but no one said a word. And the $6 billion lie—the developer’s spurious claim of new tax revenues—has earned no skepticism from supporters.

Even a bald-faced lie like the claim that the three affected community boards participated in the "crafting" of the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement met with criticism from no previous supporters or major newspapers.

Unlike Sitt, Ratner has not had to win over skeptics or opponents—he’s been protected from scrutiny (though he could not evade that famous spontaneous kiss from ACORN’s Bertha Lewis).
Superior political skills? A much easier process? Both?

Stop Work Order issued at Pacific and Vanderbilt site

Another Stop Work Order has been imposed on part of Forest City Ratner's planned Atlantic Yards site, this time at the northwest corner of Vanderbilt Avenue and Pacific Street, formerly the site of a gas station. (A previous order was imposed on the Ward Bakery site, then lifted.) Workers have apparently been drilling in the soil but lacked approved plans, a Department of Transportation permit, and a listing of a general contractor, according to the violation.

The Department of Buildings (DOB) web site indicates that the site was inspected on Thursday and the order issued Friday. I learned about this Sunday evening and was unable to get a comment from the DOB yesterday. [Update Sept. 5: the order was rescinded sometime yesterday, after an inspection one day after the initial violation.]

Below is a view of the site, with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard extending west, and the towers of the Bank of New York (over the Atlantic Terminal mall) and the Williamsburgh Savings bank in the background.

The citation

The DOB web site states:
Category Code: 73 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN
Last Inspection: 08/30/2007 - - BY BADGE # 1995 KRIKORIAN PHILIP QUEENS
Disposition: 08/31/2007 - - A3 - STOP WORK ORDER VIOLATION ISSUED
Disposition Entered By: FAN 08/31/2007 11:56:22
Comments: NO APPROVED PLANS, NO DOT PERMIT POSTED, NO GENERAL CONTRACTORS PROVIDED
DOB Violation #: 083007KOST00100I

Under the DOB's complaint categories, Failure to Maintain, 73 is Category C, among a range from A to D, with A being most urgent. It's unclear whether the violation can be remedied by posting plans and permits, or whether a fine would be levied.

Slow weekend?

Also, a panel of plywood fence guarding the Ward Bakery had been pried off as of yesterday morning (right). Given the holiday weekend and the absence of construction crews, it was not immediately attended to.

The only action regarding the Atlantic Yards footprint, when I walked around in the morning, were two reporters and two photographers wandering about, encountering each other, and the regular drive-by performed by CopStat Security, which keeps tabs on the site for Forest City Ratner.

The Atlantic Yards Community Liaison Office was closed, given that it wasn't a workday. And the Atlantic Yards ombudsperson promised by the Empire State Development Corporation is not yet on the job, but expected soon.

The Times's eminent domain blind spot, again

On July 29, the New York Times ran a round-up article on eminent domain controversies in the tri-state area, as I wrote, "portraying some victims of eminent domain abuse sympathetically while giving advocates, who consider it an important tool in the redevelopment toolbox, their due."

The article appeared only in the weekly Sunday regional sections (Westchester, Long Island, New Jersey, Connecticut), not the City section that circulates within the five boroughs. So city residents missed learning that the region is "long seen by property-rights advocates as home to some of the worst abuses of eminent domain" and that there's been relatively little legislative response.

Oops, did it again

And this past Sunday, the Times did it again, running an article sympathetic to the "little guy" in the Westchester section but not elsewhere.

The article, headlined How Eminent Should Domain Be?, portrayed Nicholas J. Bianco of Yorktown, who, as a member of the Town Council, the Times reports, engineered passage of a law barring the town from condemning private property for commercial purposes, while allowing it for traditional public uses, like the building of roads, sewers and schools. A vague declaration that a neighborhood is blighted or dangling a promise of jobs and taxes could not be used to expropriate a home or shop for a developer’s benefit.

The need for condemnation

The article does quote New Rochelle’s mayor, Noam Bramson, who supports eminent domain for development, “judiciously and only when the broad public interest demands it,” pointing out that it's needed for site assemblage. But the article is essentially sympathetic to Bianco's crusade.

Bramson raises legitimate issues about the use of eminent domain. And, yes, this article was about Westchester.

The bigger picture

But when is the Times going to look more broadly and ask how eminent domain reforms in other jurisdictions, if applied in New York City, would affect controversial projects like Atlantic Yards?

After all, vague and contested declarations of blight and shifting promises about jobs and new tax revenues are hallmarks of the Atlantic Yards plan. And were standards recently adopted by New Jersey courts applied in Brooklyn, the exercise of eminent domain for Atlantic Yards might be stalled.

Times disclosure

The Times article Sunday contained this disclosure:
(Some of the property for the new headquarters of The New York Times was acquired through eminent domain.)

The Times usually has not printed such a disclosure when covering eminent domain. Maybe this is the beginning of a trend.

FCR goes Caribbean, supporting parade, exhibit (& more)

Today is the annual West Indian Day Parade, the largest public event in Brooklyn, and Forest City Ratner saluted the parade on Wednesday in an advertisement (right) in the New York Daily News, connecting the company, the parade, and the Nets' planned move.

Also, as No Land Grab pointed out, the developer is sponsoring Infinite Island, a Brooklyn Museum exhibition (Aug. 31–Jan. 27, 2008), recent works from artists, in the Caribbean and abroad, "that reflect the region's dynamic mix of cultures, its diasporas, and its socio-political realities."

A mix of corporate citizenship and the Atlantic Yards permanent campaign, such support comes a lot easier for Forest City Ratner when Atlantic Yards gets an extra $105 million from the city and a special tax break worth up to $200 million.

More outreach

Forest City Ratner sponsored a basketball clinic Aug. 27-31 in Downtown Brooklyn featuring Nets player Josh Boone. Promotional pictures were circulated.

Such p.r. wasn't designated for the major newspapers but for small papers like the black-oriented Daily Challenge, which gave the clinic prominent coverage (right).

Also, the developer is sponsoring Tribute: A Concert Honoring the Teachers of America, a concert that will air on Channel 13 on October 4. The concert will be recorded September 6 at Town Hall in New York. The Thirteen/WNET production is in association with the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and supported by several donors, including FCR.

UFT President Randi Weingarten has supported Atlantic Yards, so maybe this is part of an ongoing relationship.

In Canada, the value of "heritage" in "historic" properties

While visiting Halifax, Nova Scotia, recently, I was struck by the plaque (right) attached to an 1828 building--and the message about valuing "heritage" behind it. It's occupied, quite appropriately, by the Nova Scotia Association of Architects, as a photo below shows.

The building, as the plaque indicates, is a "Registered Heritage Property." According to the Nova Scotia Department of Tourism, Culture & Heritage:
The Heritage Property Act was passed in 1980, and amended in 1990. The purpose of this Act is to identify and protect built heritage--buildings, structures, districts--of historic, architectural and cultural value, and to encourage the continued use of this resource.

The term "heritage" is also used on a national scale; indeed, Canada has a Department of Canadian Heritage. According to the department's web site:
Canadian Heritage is responsible for national policies and programs that promote Canadian content, foster cultural participation, active citizenship and participation in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among Canadians.

And UNESCO, of course, has a World Heritage List.

The resonance of "heritage"

The word heritage, which includes among its definitions "inheritance," has a particular and enduring resonance. In other words, a heritage property should be valuable to all of us today, rather than set aside under the more common designation of "historic," which might be valued only by those who place a special value on the past.

History vs. costliness

Thus some in New York and elsewhere have resisted "historic" designations for buildings and neighborhoods, fearing that such a regulation would be costly to builders and/or deter the production of more affordable housing. And obviously it's legitimate to assess costs and benefits.

But see for example the testimony arguing that the cost of retaining a historic building in the Domino sugar refinery in Williamsburg adds to the cost of the New Domino plan. (There's pretty much consensus about that building; the dispute now is about adding buildings.)

Forest City Enterprises has a track record of converting old industrial buildings like the Ward Bakery, now slated for demolition in the Atlantic Yards plan, into housing. Forest City's Ron Ratner said in 2002, "As a developer, I am sometimes asked if we would ever be willing to sacrifice profitability to achieve excellence in historic preservation. My answer is that's a false choice. Using technical and financial creativity, and working in public-private partnerships, we can have it all, including economic return."

Not so much in the Brooklyn project, where retention of buildings would interfere with the overall project design, including sustainable elements. According to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the partial mitigation for the loss of the bakery and another building would include “archival documentation of the buildings and additional measures that would document the history of the buildings.”

That's definitely history more than heritage, though it remains debatable whether a designation of "heritage" would have changed the cost-benefit equation.

Mixed nomenclature

Canada does seem to use the terms "heritage" and "historic" interchangeably. For example, Parks Canada states:
The Historic Places Initiative is a collaboration involving all levels of government - local, provincial, territorial and federal. Together, we have created the tools to enable Canadians to learn about, value, enjoy and conserve our country's historic places.

While there is The Canadian Register of Historic Places, there's also The Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund. The initiative aims "to build Canada's culture of heritage conservation," warning of "a dramatic deterioration of Canada’s built heritage over the past 30 years."

Canada has a more collectivist ethos, as expressed in initiatives like national health insurance. The flip side, critics might say, is that the United States has more entrepreneurial energy and social mobility. (Well, social mobility seems to be lagging, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.)

In other words, here in the U.S. "heritage" might not always be as important. The National Trust for Historic Preservation emphasizes the other "h" word. Then again, some jurisdictions do use the word; for example, there's a (state of) Washington Heritage Register. And the United States was the prime architect of the World Heritage concept and the first country to ratify the World Heritage Convention, in 1973.

So maybe there's room for both.

Facing change with vision and a transparent approach... in Canada

When visiting Halifax, Nova Scotia, recently, I wandered into the public library, where, on a table in the lobby offering items of local interest, I found a copy of SEEK: the Planning & Design Centre newsletter, published by the Cities & Environment Unit of Dalhousie University's Faculty of Architecture & Planning
on behalf of the Planning & Design Centre.

An effort to connect the public to important local planning issues, it's a good example of vision and transparency for other communities facing change.

The genesis:
In Halifax Regional Municipality [HRM], there is a compelling need for increased awareness, discussion and new ideas to build on what we have and provide a direction for the future. The idea for the Planning and Design Centre arouse from this need... It is a response to the idea that only when a place's citizens are aware, involved and up-to-date on what's happend in their community, can that community work toward realizing a common vision.

And the first issue has some inspirational words:
A great city deals with change through a shared and broadly understood vision; a transparent, open and energetic approach that embraces positive change and action; welcomes popular engagement in shaping the community; and supports a culture that values quality, understands that local design makes a difference and that mediocrity is never acceptable.
HRM by virtue of its manageable size, fortuitous geography and human capacity has unparalleled opportunities to embrace change and shape its own future, to value its history and see that its best days are still ahead. Focus, innovation and imagination will make Halifax into a great city of the 21st Century.

A store-front presence

The goal is a store-front center accessible to the public:
The Planning and Design Centre is a store-front operation that makes planning and design visible, open to discussion and sources of innovation. It is seen as a collaborative enterprise, common ground and a think tank that brings together the public, the business community, the development industry, and different levels of government for a tangible purpose.

Manageable region and list

The list of projects is manageable, and the HRM Region, which includes 23 municipal districts and more than 200 communities, has a manageable population of about 382,200 (as of 2006), about 40% of Nova Scotia's population.

(By contrast, New York City's 59 Community Boards, with minimum staffing support, serve a maximum population of 250,000, the size of a not-so-small city. In New York, organizations like the Municipal Art Society and the Pratt Center for Community Development weigh in on planning controversies or assist communities, but they can't be comprehensive. Imagine if each community board had a store-front planning center.)

The Regional Plan, which became effective in August 2006 spawned VisionHRM, the Community Visioning Pilot Project, implemented in three communities. It states:
The Community Visioning Process is intended to allow a community to determine its own priorities; priorities which will guide the community into the future. The visioning process will not only focus on land use or planning issues, but will respond to a broader range of community concerns and opportunities crossing over many of HRM’s areas of program and service. The visioning process will therefore foster more meaningful problem solving and action planning.

HRM has a new Regional Plan, Cultural Plan, Active Transportation Plan, Economic Strategy and Immigration Action Plan.

VisionHRM

While SEEK is a university-sponsored response, involving local professionals, academics, students and members of the wider community, VisionHRM is a public engagement and consultation process:
Unlike traditional planning processes, VisionHRM aims to be a more flexible and comprehensive process designed to allow for meaningful discussion and problem solving as communities set their own priorities for the next 10, 15 or 20 years.

Shared responsibility

While SEEK remains in the formation stage (the link list isn't live), but it's still remarkable. From the newsletter's second issue:

Each of us is touched by the city’s skyline, streetscapes and the landscape of civic and solitary places. The type, quality and intensity of development; the balance between cars and transit; the environment, the economics, the physical infrastructure and the social network not only affect our individual lives, but also reflect our collective values. In a great city these fields are not seen as separate nor are they viewed as the domains of experts. The region is rich with opportunities and we all share a sense of responsibility to be informed, involved and engaged in shaping our community.

The future does not just happen, it is not predicted or projected or incrementally negotiated, or a simple extension of the past. We can have a hand in shaping it. Planning is about establishing a vision, setting a direction and taking informed strategic action. It is not restrictive or mysterious. It cannot be imposed nor can it be seen as the exclusive realm of professionals. It needs to be a process and an approach that is open and inclusive and part of everyday life. Similarly, design quality as it is reflected in every proposal, development and policy cannot be seen as a luxury, expensive or optional. We have to expect and demand creativity, quality and excellence.