The (relative) silence about the long-delayed Ingersoll Community Center and the breadth of blogs

When, earlier this month, I covered (for the Brooklyn Downtown Star) the annual convention of FUREE (Families United for Racial and Economic Equality), which advocates for low-income women of color, many in the housing projects of Fort Greene, I was surprised to learn that the Ingersoll Community Center, under construction for more than six years, still isn't open, in stark contrast to the steadily rising condos nearby. The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), whose web site says not-so-clearly that the center has been "rebuilt," now promises it will open in the fall.

(Photo from New York Daily News. Graphic below from NYCHA site.)

It's a story of promises unfulfilled, one that deserves far more scrutiny, but the media coverage has been scant. I found an 8/31/01 Daily News article indicating that the contract had been awarded. A 4/16/04 Brooklyn Eagle article reported that completion was anticipated by December 2004. A May/June 2005 City Limits article noted that the community center had been "rendered unusable for years." Last August, the Brooklyn Paper quoted a NYCHA spokesman as saying the center was complete and in the "sign-off phase."

On Tuesday, following up on the mention in my Brooklyn Downtown Star article, the Daily News covered the story, under the headline Fort Greene's Ingersoll Center still not open after seven years.

Getting the word out

Some advocates have made Ingersoll an issue. FUREE's Downtown Brooklyn Accountable Development Campaign explains, "The Ingersoll Community Center, rebuilt and beautiful, remains unopened."

Still, it makes me wonder: if Ingersoll residents and their advocates had gotten the word out more, or started--hmm--a blog, wouldn't this have generated more notice?

What about a countdown clock, like the one NoLandGrab mounted regarding the long-delayed Atlantic Yards ombudsman?

Given the paucity of press coverage of Brooklyn in general, I've said publicly that I'm less disturbed by the disproportionate number of bloggers--some good, some not--in Brownstone Brooklyn than by the fact that the Brooklyn bureaus of the city's dailies each have only a handful of people.

I still am. Then again, if online journalism does influence print coverage--and I know some online journalists/bloggers who regularly see their work lifted--then that also impacts subjects like the Ingersoll Community Center.

Perhaps online journalists/bloggers, as with the press in general, should cast a wider net. But there should be ways to encourage and train a broader spectrum of Brooklynites on how to get the word out on their communities.

PlaNYC 2030 and the need for parking policy

Last December, I described how Mayor Mike Bloomberg's much-praised PlaNYC 2030 contains a glaring omission, a failure to address the antiquated anti-urban policy that mandates parking attached to new residential developments outside Manhattan, even when such developments, like Atlantic Yards, are justified precisely because they're located near transit hubs. I called the current situation PlaNYC 1950.

(Ironically enough, the Empire State Development Corporation, which will override several aspects of city zoning to facilitate the Atlantic Yards project, chose not to override the city's parking policy.)

Last month, a year after Bloomberg's plan was announced, a watchdog group identified parking policy as among six administrative initiatives in order to implant the principles of sustainability into the city's governmental structure.

According to Building a Greener Future: A Progress Report on New York City’s Sustainability Initiatives, by The New York League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (NYLCVEF), the parking policy is threefold:
Create a variable-price parking program that would increase the price for street parking in the Manhattan Central Business District during peak hours, begin a comprehensive study of the parking requirements in the Zoning Resolution and increase city funding for the MTA.

(Emphasis added. Note that new parking revenues could support public transportation.)

On the city's agenda?

At a panel April 23 on PlaNYC hosted by the NY Metro Chapter of the American Planning Association, Marcia Bystryn of the NYCLVEF pointed to parking policy as a reform that should be on the city's agenda.

Ariella Maron, Deputy Director of the Mayor's Office of Long-term Planning and Sustainability, had given a thoroughly upbeat presentation about the city's accomplishments to an appreciative audience, but parking policy wasn't part of it.

I asked directly whether the city would address the antiquated zoning roles that require .4 units of parking for each apartment unit in an outer borough development, no matter its location. She responded briefly: "The city is looking at overall parking issues. There is planning and conversation around it."

Stay tuned. A reform of parking policy seems like a no-brainer, but, even so, it might be too late for Atlantic Yards--unless the plan is scrapped or revised.

AY ten-year timetable realistic or p.r. scheme? ESDC, residents battle in court

The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) has filed legal papers asking for a state court to dismiss the lawsuit filed April 30 that charges that the ESDC’s willingness to give developer Forest City Ratner 12+ years to build Phase 1 of Atlantic Yards violates a provision of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). The suit also requests a new public hearing to evaluate the benefits of the amended project.

In arguing against the lawsuit, filed by 13 residential tenants in two buildings within the project footprint, the ESDC curiously claims that the courts should view Bruce Ratner’s May 4 Daily News op-ed asserting a 2018 completion date as more credible than his interview in the March 21 New York Times regarding the project’s stall, and that the penalties facing the developer for delaying the project are “draconian.”

Ten-year timetable realistic?

While the lawsuit, filed on behalf of petitioners who have lost two other suits filed by attorney George Locker, attempts to break new legal ground and thus must be seen as an uphill effort, it brings an important public policy issue to the legal arena. At essence is whether the project approved by the ESDC in December 2006, with a ten-year “anticipated” timetable for an arena, 16 towers, eight acres of open space and more, remains realistic.

The ESDC says it is: “Petitioners cite an exhibit to the [State] Funding Agreement that describes the draconian contractual remedies that would be available to ESDC if FCRC fails to complete established Project milestones by certain outside dates. The fact that ESDC could bring to bear certain contractual remedies in such circumstances does not change the Project approved by ESDC on December 8, 2006. Moreover, a change in the construction schedule would not be the type of significant change in public use that would require a new EDPL public hearing.”

However, the funding agreement does not address a starting or ending date for the 11 towers of Phase 2, instead leaving that to be resolved in yet-unfinished “Project Documentation.” The petitioners thus contend that the ten-year project “that was studied and approved by ESDC in December 2006, as having sufficient public purpose and public benefit, ceased to exist on September 12, 2007, when by agreement AYP [Atlantic Yards Project] became an uncertain project of an unspecified duration.” The petitioners charge that the agreement “was kept hidden from petitioners and from the public for six months.”

While the deadlines may be a “contractual remedy,” Locker’s legal affirmation states, “these descriptions are public relations jargon, not legal analysis. By agreement, a ten-year AYP has become an amended-AYP of unlimited duration.” Moreover, “The amendments represent an enormous loss of the Project’s stated public benefits--most of the housing, open-space, and construction job/years--and portend decades of developer blight, vacant lots, and ever-mounting public costs.”

The project, as approved, “might have been financially unrealistic from its inception,” Locker states. "Respondent’s 10-year [project] is a public relations and marketing scheme; it does not exist in a legally enforceable form.”

ESDC: under negotiation

An affirmation by ESDC lawyer Philip Karmel explains that “Project Documentation” has not been finalized and remains under negotiation; the term refers “to the real estate, financing, construction and other contracts involving ESDC, FCRC, and the City of New York that are required to effectuate the [General Project Plan].”

While Locker included as an exhibit the March 21 Times article headlined Slow Economy Likely to Stall Atlantic Yards, the ESDC objected to the article’s admission because “the purported quotations from Bruce Ratner are pure hearsay as to ESDC,” the statements do not represent ESDC policy, and the article post-dates the September 2007 Funding Agreement challenged in the lawsuit.

“If and to the extent that [the article] is considered,” Karmel adds, “however, it should be noted that Mr. Ratner has made other recent statements concerning the Project--most notably, in his recent article in the Daily News--that shed light on the statements he is quoted as having made to the New York Times.”

In other words, an op-ed from Ratner trumps an interview.

ESDC: claims fall short

In a legal memorandum, the ESDC argues that Locker’s lawsuit fails to state a cause of action because the provision of the EDPL at issue applies only when the condemnor has already acquired the property by eminent domain, the project has been abandoned, and the condemnor seeks to sell the property within ten years of its acquisition. None have occurred.

Further, the EDPL requires that the property be “materially improved” within a decade after acquisition, and the ESDC states there’s no assertion that it wouldn’t be improved, since the term does not require completion of a project.

Further, the response argues that the petitioners do not have any ownership rights and thus lack standing to sue--a claim that raises questions about a previous lawsuit. Locker responds, “ESDC is walking on thin ethical ice by arguing that petitioners, who were determined to be condemnees at ESDC’s legal urging in a previous action, possess standing to assert rights under EDPL section 207, but lack standing to assert the rights accorded to all condemnees under EDPL section 406."

New public hearing?

The petitioners in the latest case also claimed that the EDPL requires a new public hearing “because the Funding Agreement allegedly changed the GPP [General Project Plan] construction schedule,” the ESDC response states. “The Funding Agreement, however, explicitly requires FCRC to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve the GPP construction schedule.”

Even if the Funding Agreement had modified the construction schedule, the ESDC argues, construction delays on complex public projects are “hardly uncommon,” so if every delay were to require a new public hearing, eminent domain “would cease to serve the role intended by the legislature when the statute was enacted.”

Indeed, the ESDC cites a case involving Times Square redevelopment in which the Court of Appeals rejected the idea that new hearings were required “because the passage of time had rendered stale the data upon which ESDC had relied to make its blight and environmental findings for the project.” Only when there’s a significant change in public purpose is a second public hearing “potentially required,” the ESDC states, and there’s been no such change in public purpose alleged.

In response, the petitioners include an affidavit by Tom Angotti, professor in the Hunter College Department of Urban Affairs & Planning, who notes that Atlantic Yards was always presented as a ten-year project, with the financial, environmental, and infrastructural, analyes predicated on that timetable. Given that there is no stated commencement date nor completion date for the 11 buildings of Phase 2, which would contain an estimated “70% of the affordable housing units, 100% of the open space, and 75% of the construction job/years,” the ESDC should precisely describe the project and hold a public hearing where the public can comment on the “costs and benefits of the amended project,” Angotti states.

"Draconian" remedies?

The ESDC, in its legal papers, calls the contractual remedies cited in the lawsuit “draconian.” The term is doubly curious because the State Funding Agreement cited in the lawsuit describes the penalties incompletely, leaving any analysis inconclusive without a look at the separate City Funding Agreement. That agreement, released later after a Freedom of Information Law request, spells out some provisions that, to my mind, don't seem very draconian, given that the developer need build only 1.5 million square feet over 12 years to escape penalties.

Beyond those remedies, the ESDC states, “it is expected that the Project Documentation will provide for additional remedies available to ESDC in other circumstances.” The contractual remedies, the agency claims, “do not modify the Project schedule.”

Moving ahead

The ESDC further argues that the State Funding Agreement, rather than retard the project, accelerates infrastructure work because it allows work to proceed before Project Documentation is finalized. Even if the developer defaults completely, that would not mean abandonment by ESDC, which could continue the project with another developer. In other words, the ESDC contends, it’s the condemning agency, not the developer, that must abandon the project.

If the motion to dismiss is denied, the ESDC argues that, if the schedule-related provisions of the Funding Agreement were determined to violate the EDPL, the court should annul specific provisions rather than annulling the Funding Agreement as a whole or requiring a public hearing.

The petitioners respond, “ESDC wisely contemplates losing the instant motion and asks this Court to ‘annul any offending portion’ rather than order a hearing, etc. It is unclear how this Court may alter the completion dates of a $4 billion construction project when one of the parties to the agreement is not even before the court and there is every reason to believe that FCRC could not comply. If ESDC wishes to have a ten-year AYP construction deadline imposed on FCRC, as law requires, ESDC should do so on its own.”

"Voodoo" actuary provokes firestorm, but "voodoo" economist for AY gets a pass

The New York Times and others have rightly made a big deal out of the scandal that an actuary paid by unions was relied on by the State Legislature in its estimate that a bill that would offer early retirement to city workers would not cost a cent. But a not too dissimilar reliance on a partisan source regarding Atlantic Yards raised nary an eyebrow.

The May 16 Times article, headlined Unions Bankrolled Analyst Vetting Pension Bill, made the front page. Later that day, faced with a storm of press criticism, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver decided that any bills with fiscal notes prepared by that actuary would be placed on hold, with new, more objective analyses sought. The headline on the Times's City Room blog: Speaker Tosses Work of ‘Voodoo’ Actuary.

Critical editorial

On May 24, the Times's editorial page was in high dudgeon, in an editorial headlined Have We Got a Deal for You:
Just when it appears that the New York State Legislature has hit bottom, we find a false floor. The Times’s Danny Hakim recently uncovered another appalling example of how a politically powerful group can order up laws in Albany, even skewing the estimates of how much it will cost taxpayers.

... When asked about his estimating methods, Mr. Schwartz told The Times that his job is “a step above voodoo.”

New York City officials would certainly agree since they estimate the bill’s cost at $200 million a year.

AY "voodoo"

Curiously, Atlantic Yards backers openly relied on a partisan expert, but were never called to account for it. For example, the ESDC and governor's office both on 3/4/05 issued press releases relying on revenue projections made by the developer’s paid consultant, Andrew Zimbalist, rather than commission their own analysis. The press release stated:
The project is expected to create 15,000 construction jobs and over 10,000 permanent jobs. According to an economic analysis completed earlier this year for FCRC by the economist Andrew Zimbalist, the net fiscal benefit to the City and State from the Atlantic Yards project is estimated to be at least $2.819 billion over thirty years, or a present value of at least $812.6 million.

Unlike with the pension bill, there was no "other side" sought out to argue that the figures in the governmental projection were off. The city's press release, interestingly enough, cited a study by the NYC Economic Development Corporation that had not been released. I wonder whether city officials were more wary of appearing to endorse a partisan study.

This episode does not directly parallal that of the "voodoo" actuary, given that it involved a press release rather than a bill to be passed by the legislature. However, there was an "other side," just disregarded. Some seven months earlier, the Times reported briefly on a study critiquing Zimbalist's report. But the newspaper gave Zimbalist the last word and never sought independent review of the costs of the project.

Zimbalist's study was, arguably, "voodoo," ignoring costs that, for example, the Independent Budget Office later found. The Zimbalist study was enormously flawed, and should not have been relied on. But it was and nobody blew the whistle on it at the time.

Just as the Times pointed out in recent coverage that city officials reached very different conclusions than that of the "voodoo" actuary, so coverage of Atlantic Yards should have acknowledged that there were alternate views.

For example, see 3/29/07 testimony of Brad R. Humphreys of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, testifying on public financing for sports facilities, during a hearing of the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Humpreys stated:
Since “promotional” economic impact studies are forecasts, they have the same inherent weaknesses as any other economic forecast, like a forecast of the growth rate of GDP over the next five years. But “promotional” economic impact studies always project a high degree of precision. Rather than being stated in terms of a predicted value plus or minus some margin of error, the forecasts in these studies are always a single number, implying a higher degree of precision than other economic forecasts, even though there is no evidence that they are more precise.

(Note that Zimbalist's report assumes a timetable for construction and an office space allotment that no longer exist, thus rendering his forecast significantly imprecise. Add to that his reliance on counting taxes paid by new residents, which economist James Parrott commented, "I don't know of any serious cost-benefit analyses of mixed-used economic development projects that count the taxes of residents.")

The importance of peer review

Zimbalist's study got no backup from anyone but Forest City Ratner spokesman Barry Baum, whom the Times quoted.) Humphreys pointed out that "promotional" studies don't get peer review:
The most important difference between evidence from academic research and evidence from “promotional” economic impact studies is the degree of scrutiny they undergo. “Promotional” studies are typically carried out by consultants. They are released with great fanfare in the local media, and typically get widespread coverage for a brief time. The press releases and sound bites associated with these studies are typically short on details and long on large round numbers. Very few people ever read the entire reports. The vast majority of these “promotional” studies disappear within a few days of their release. The methodology used in “promotional” studies, and the results, are not reviewed or evaluated in any way. I do not know of a single instance where the predicted outcomes from a “promotional” economic impact study have been systematically evaluated for accuracy after a sports facility was completed.

In stark contrast, academic research on the economic impact of professional sport published in scholarly journals goes through a rigorous peer review process. In this process, the papers are
distributed to other experts in the field, often stripped of identifying information about authorship, who are asked to anonymously evaluate the quality of the research.

Zimbalist vs. Zimbalist

Zimbalist himself has criticized "promotional" studies. For Forest City Ratner, however, he wrote one. Humphreys, in his testimony, laid out the difference:
In contrast, journals that publish academic research on the economic impact of professional sports charge researchers submission fees to consider their papers for publication. They do not pay royalties to research who write the papers they publish. A researcher in this area has no personal financial stake in the outcome of the research.

Humphreys concluded:
It is imperative that those who make decisions on sports subsidies understand this important difference in the evidence about the economic impact of professional sports. Results that have been through the peer-review process should be given much more credence by decision makers than “promotional” economic impact studies. We do not make health policy decisions based solely on the claims of pharmaceutical companies, and we should not make decisions on subsidies for professional sports based solely on the claims made by professional sports team owners and others proponents of these subsidies.

At West Side hearing, Brodsky questions subsidies, muses about eminent domain for MSG

Presumably, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) confirmation Thursday of a second developer, the Related Companies, for the Hudson Yards project, after original bidder Tishman Speyer pulled out, somewhat undermined the rationale for the Assembly Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee, chaired by Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, to assess the status of various projects on Manhattan’s West Side.

So it’s understandable that the hearing held Friday attracted modest press coverage. To Reuters, the story was Brodsky’s provocative but somewhat theoretical suggestion that the city consider using eminent domain to condemn Madison Square Garden to effectuate a version of the Moynihan Station project. To the New York Observer, the story was MTA chief Lee Sander’s suggestion that the agency might add bus rapid transit or light rail to the West Side district, on top of the 7 line subway extension. WNYC radio reported a related story about how the Moynihan project, if it adds capacity for Amtrak, could draw additional federal funds.

For those concerned with Atlantic Yards, however, the story was Brodsky’s ongoing and unresolved effort to assess the proper level of public investment and subsidies in such projects, and the incomplete responses from government officials.

“We want to create the incentives to get the private sector do things they wouldn’t otherwise do,” explained Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Robert Lieber. “We want to use the resources of the public sector sparingly to create incentives for the private sector.” It was, he said, a question of risk and value.

That question deserves a close look in the context of Atlantic Yards. When calculating the value of direct and indirect government support, to what extent, for example, did city and state officials assess the value of naming rights for the arena (and other buildings) in the Atlantic Yards project? The value of luxury boxes? While not traditional subsidies, the opportunity for such special revenue sources was made possible only by the government’s backing of Forest City Ratner’s plan.

An AY hearing?

While Brodsky (right) mentioned Atlantic Yards in passing more than once, and suggested that the state’s willingness to pursue eminent domain for AY means it shouldn’t be philosophically opposed to using it for Moynihan Station, he wouldn’t commit to holding a hearing on Atlantic Yards.

“We’re going to proceed with a whole host of inquiries on these kinds of projects,” he said, in an interview after the hearing, indicating that, at the least, written questions would be sent. “Atlantic Yards is in that mix. Whether or not I hold a hearing is secondary as to whether I get the information.”

Brooklyn Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, whose district includes Atlantic Yards, is pushing for such a hearing and there are numerous questions--some noted below--that are pending. Indeed, the advantage of a hearing, as shown on Friday, is that in-person exchanges enliven and clarify contentious topics. (Assembyman Jim Brennan and Assemblywoman Joan Millman, whose districts border that of Jeffries, also support a hearing, according to Jeffries.)

Brodsky, who has served since 1982 and has a history of investigating authorities, made an abortive run for Attorney General in 2006 and has been rumored to be interested in succeeding Sheldon Silver as Assembly Speaker.

(Photo from NY Observer.)

Calculating incentives

Notwithstanding the news from Thursday, Brodsky opened the 3.5-hour hearing, held at 250 Broadway near City Hall, by saying that the West Side projects are at best delayed and to a certain extent more costly and more uncertain than ever. He expressed what he called his own bias, that the “single most important economic development and social investment is mass transit.” (Those who challenged Brodsky’s campaign against congestion pricing might allege some cognitive dissonance.)

He blamed a governance structure that scants the role of elected officials. “Bad governance has yielded unsatisfactory results,” he said. Also, as he’s expressed before, he said subsidies distort any view of such projects, since we can no longer tell what the market can produce. “Public investment should be made when it’s essential and necessary, not when it is merely a way to enrich developers,” he said, adding that he wasn’t casting aspersions on any specific project.

The city’s Lieber described “three broad buckets” in which the city could provide support and incentives to developers: direct subsidies, changes in zoning or land use, and financing and tax incentives. He described how the Hudson Yards UTEP (Uniform Tax Exemption Policy) has been amended to offer developers incentives to build office space in the western segment of the Hudson Yards zone; the discounts are 40% on payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) for the first 5 million square feet of development.

“It provides greater incentive to build farther from the core,” Lieber said, which sounds plausible. Then again, critics have suggested that the extension of the subway is an incentive in itself. “It seems particularly hard to justify committing to a policy of property tax cuts several years in advance of market conditions, and inconsistent with committing billions of dollars of public infrastructure investment,” testified James Parrott of the Fiscal Policy Institute in 2006 at a hearing before the New York City Industrial Development Agency.

“The development of Hudson Yards is going to take place over a series of economic cycles,” Lieber said, noting that it would take “decades to complete” 24 million square feet.

Atlantic Yards would be an arena encompassing 850,000 square feet and 6.5-7 million square feet of mostly housing, plus office and retail space. While the project, as approved by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) in December 2006, was “anticipated” to take a decade, a State Funding Agreement signed in September 2007 gives the developer up to six years after the close of litigation and the exercise of eminent domain to build the arena, and 12 years to build the four or five towers of Phase 1, with no timetable to build the rest of the project.

No government official has been challenged to justify that timetable, though presumably the issue would be aired in a hearing.

Assessing the incentives

“How do we know if the public investment is insufficient, adequate, or excessive?” Brodsky asked.

“We’re trying to create incentives to encourage development” on the western part of the site, Lieber responded.

“I’m asking for a general rule,” Brodsky continued.

Lieber suggested it was a determination elected officials like Brodsky could make.

“Why is [the discount] zero to 40%?” Brodsky asked. “Why not 40 to 80%?”

Lieber acknowledged that the number could be debated.

Brodsky pressed for the method to determine the discount.

Lieber said the challenge was to determine the “appropriate level” of risk and return to the private sector. He said the city engaged the real estate firm Cushman & Wakefield to assess the viability of the project.

How can you defend the 40% figure, Brodsky asked.

Lieber acknowledged that he wasn’t part of that decision-making four years ago, but would search for the analysis and provide it to Brodsky. While he couldn’t immediately explain the total value of the discount, later--after receiving communication via BlackBerry--he estimated the discount at $200 million.

Excess discount?

There are other places for subsidies to emerge. For example, the Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corporation, which finances development to be carried out by Hudson Yards Development Corporation and other public entities, has bought development rights from the MTA and will sell them to developers.

“At market rates?” asked Brodsky.

“Yes,” replied Lieber.

“No way,” uttered Anna Hayes Levin, a lawyer and member of Manhattan Community Board 4, in the audience.

She was similarly skeptical about the state’s plans to sell 5.4 million square feet of development rights for the Moynihan Station project, telling Reuters that the ESDC had priced the rights at half the market value.

Adding infrastructure to the list

Brodsky tried to drill down to the public costs and subsidies. Was it just sales tax exemptions and real estate PILOTs, he asked Lieber.

An aide whispered in Lieber’s ear. “Just to be clear, there are additional costs,” the deputy mayor told Brodsky, citing sewer, water, and utility upgrades. “We have $225 million in the city capital budget for infrastructure.”

That raises questions about the appropriate spending for infrastructure. For Atlantic Yards, a project less than one-third the size of Hudson Yards--and with an overall price tag of one-fifth or less--the city has committed $105 million for infrastructure and the state has committed $100 million. (The city has committed another $100 million for property acquisition.)

Then again, an arena may require more infrastructure, but it would be worth hearing some explanations from governmental officials.

Lieber later added that, on the West Side, there would be subsidies for affordable housing that “would inure to all residential projects.”

He allowed they were “subject to volume cap,” the limit on total bonds issues that has already affected numerous projects, including Atlantic Yards, and has caused Brooklyn developer John Catsimatidis to revise a Myrtle Avenue development from mixed-income to all-luxury units, the Brooklyn Paper reported this week.

Hidden costs

Though it didn’t come up, there may be additional, unmentioned costs in the Hudson Yards project. Former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch, recently appointed by Gov. David Paterson to head a commission on the MTA’s five-year capital plan and operating budget, has expressed skepticism about such costs.

Similarly, there are indications that the public contribution for Atlantic Yards could go up. Both the city and state, according to the Atlantic Yards Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2005, agreed to “consider making additional contributions for extraordinary infrastructure costs relating to the mixed-use development on the Project Site (excluding the Arena Building Site)."

Given that Forest City Ratner once claimed it was paying $163 million in "extraordinary infrastructure costs incurred by the developer to build on the MTA parcels," including a new platform and public open space, but no longer makes that claim, it’s reasonable to conclude that the developer will seek reimbursement.

Who’s in charge?

Gary Dellaverson, the MTA’s chief financial officer, said that, under the agreement between the MTA and Related for the Hudson Yards project, if the 7 line subway extension isn’t available by 2014, there’d be a 50% rent holiday, some $32.5 million a year.

Brodsky: How did the HYIC get the legal right to control PILOTs?

Lieber said the decisionmaking involved both the city and city agencies.

Brodsky: “What is the mayor’s legal authority to assign revenues in a PILOT?”

“He’s the mayor,” Lieber replied, serving Brodsky a fat pitch.

“Here we come to the heart of the problem,” Brodsky responded, with indignation. “If I wasn’t under control I’d make a reference to dictators.”

“I’m certain he doesn’t do this without legal authority,” Lieber replied, not without some exasperation.

It was another opportunity, however, for Brodsky to suggest that properly balanced oversight was missing.

Looking at Moynihan

When it came to the Moynihan Station project, which could involve a new rail station in the Farley Post Office, the relocation of Madison Square Garden, and new office towers and retail over the current Penn Station/MSG site, Brodsky had the same basic questions. “How do I know how the public investment should be made versus private--what’s the rule?” he asked.

You make what’s “necessary to maintain the infrastructure, to maintain the stature of the city” replied Avi Schick, acting president of the ESDC. “This is not a subsidy for economic development. It is maintaining and enhancing transportation.”

Brodsky asked the “value of 5.4 million in FAR.” (He was referring to Floor Area Ratio but meant, simply, development rights.)

It’s not a simple answer, Schick said, saying that the working number is $125/square foot--the figure Levin later disputed.

Brodsky again asked about the appropriate relationship between public and private investment.

“We take into account the nature of the project,” Schick replied gnomically.

Brodsky acknowledged he was facing a formidable rhetorical foe. “I’m going to get you, Mr. Schick, but it’s going to take a bit longer,” he said playfully.

(At the close of the hearing, he offered public thanks to Schick for service to the state, suggesting that this might have been Schick’s last public hearing. Schick is leaving in September, so that suggests that, at the least, Brodsky’s not planning to hold an Atlantic Yards hearing by September.)

Who’s paying?

Brodsky brought up the apparent effort by Madison Square Garden to get government to advance the cost of building an arena.

“To my understanding, it’s not for the Garden, it’s for the [Moynihan Station] project,” Schick said.

Has the Garden asked for such support, Brodsky asked.

No, replied Schick.

Brodsky amended his question: Has the joint venture--involving Related Companies and Vornado Realty Trust--asked for such funding.

Yes, replied Schick.

Lieber added the entire financing plan was under discussion.

Eminent domain for MSG?

Then, as if out of left field, Brodsky brought up the eminent domain issue. “What are the arguments for condemning Madison Square Garden” to hasten the project, he asked. (At this point, the Dolan family’s Cablevision, which owns MSG, is planning to finance an arena upgrade in place, rather than move to the post office.)

It would be “a full-employment act for lawyers,” Schick replied skeptically.

“You’re doing it for Atlantic Yards,” Brodsky countered. “You have no philosophical opposition to eminent domain.”

“Within a 22-acre [AY] site, there is a limited use,” Schick said.

“Why pick on a homeowner, when you can pick on the Dolans?” Brodsky asked, to general laughter from the audience, who know the Dolans have been criticized for their stewardship of the hapless Knicks basketball team and their effort to continue a real estate tax exemption for the Garden. “What are the virtues of considering the use of eminent domain to break the logjam on this project?”

“I think if one is talking about breaking the logjam, and bringing certainty and clarity and speed to the project,” Schick responded, “there are very few virtues.”

Brodsky: Has ESDC considered use of eminent domain.

Schick: No.

Lieber backed Schick up, saying that there’s been no discussion of the issue, to his knowledge.

Brodsky again asked if eminent domain could achieve the project more quickly and effectively.

Lieber said he didn’t know the answer to the question.

It’s an opinion, Brodsky said.

“My own view, philosophically," Lieber mused, "is that the role--what would you do, if you condemned the Garden, the Dolans out of the Garden, for what purpose--?”

“The same purpose you’re doing in Brooklyn,” Brodsky interrupted, with a touch of exasperation.

“Where would they go?” Lieber continued.

“Same thing in Brooklyn,” Brodsky cut in.

“We would be looking at wanting to maintain their presence in New York City,” Lieber said.

“I want their presence in New York City too,” Brodsky said. “I think they’ve been great corporate citizens. I think they deserve a fair shake. I don’t think it’s necessarily a thing we ought to do. But I certainly think it ought to be considered. Would you gentlemen get back to us with your considered views on the wisdom of using eminent domain to advance this project?”

“As a legal analysis?” Schick asked.

‘No,” Brodsky replied. “The wisdom to whether it would advance the public interest.”

“With all respect,” Schick said, “the touchstone, the starting point for any condemnation--while I’ve never practiced law in this area, I believe, is the neighborhood condition study, is there blight? There are a number of preconditions. So I’m not sure that, in a vacuum, what Avi Schick or Robert Lieber on a random Tuesday think... is the right way to go with it. It’s a much more detailed and focal process, which is, what are the preconditions, as a legal matter, what would the analysis be, and what could be done?”

[Lawyer M. Robert Goldstein, who represents condemnees, writes, “While property may only be condemned for a 'public use' or 'public purpose,' the terms being synonymous, the definition of those terms, has become so broad that almost anything a condemnor wishes to do for the health safety and welfare of the public fits under this umbrella.”]

Brodsky shook off Schick's lawyerly analysis: “You won’t get to doing the studies until you decide you want to do the studies. My question is: Is it an attractive enough tool to go through the exercise of deciding whether it should be used in this project?... Will you get back to us with your policy conclusions?”

“My current thinking is that, given what the process needs is certainty and clarity, and what it suffers form is delay,” Schick said, “eminent domain would certainly inject a lack of clarity and... significant and substantial delay. So my current position is that, since it would just further some of the issues that came with the project and it would not solve any of those, it would not seem at first blush to make sense. But if the thinking changes I will certainly get in touch.”

“Mr. Lieber?” Brodsky said.

“I would say, as a policy matter, sitting here in front of you today, we’ve not considered it,” Lieber said. “It’s the first time it’s been asked.”

Speed and clarity?

“In terms of speed and clarity, I disagree with Mr. Schick,” Brodsky said. “You get control the day you write the check. You litigate the price. You can move forward. That’s a difference of opinion, but I understand your answer.”

Given that the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case, filed in October 2006, remains unresolved, and that the deep-pocketed Dolans spent nearly $19 million on lobbyists to fight the West Side Stadium, Brodsky was perhaps a tad optimistic.

Did Schick’s statement constitute an acknowledgement that the need to use eminent domain injected "a lack of clarity and significant and substantial delay” into the Atlantic Yards project? That's a question worth asking at a hearing concerning Atlantic Yards.

Afterward, I asked Brodsky if using eminent domain for MSG was a new idea or if had it come up before.

"It came up today," he responded.

"The rationale would be blight?" I asked.

"Don't get to be a lawyer on me," he responded. "The issue there is, whether or not, rather than concede to a"--he paused and shifted gears, apparently unwilling to put Cablevision on the spot--"this is a theoretical answer to your question. Eminent domain exists when an individual, by stubbornness or greed, is trying to hold up a project that is in the overwhelming public interest. I believe in eminent domain, and I asked today, without making a recommendation, whether that analysis should be applied to the Garden.”

Calculating the price tag

In closing, Brodsky attempted to tally the price tags for all the projects on the West Side, including Moynihan Station, Hudson Yards, and expansion of the Javits Convention Center. “We haven’t talked about downtown [projects],” he said. “We haven’t talked about Atlantic Yards.”

Does the public sector have the money to do all this? Brodsky asked. “If I had to choose, which ones should be done first?”

“You have to carefully assess costs and benefits,” Lieber said.

Brodsky pressed on. “What should I do first, with $10 billion?” he asked.

“I think you use it to seed multiple projects like we’re doing,” Lieber said.

Brodsky asked about the first $2 billion. Lieber said that’s where the city was with Hudson Yards.

Lieber further pointed out that, to some extent, Brodsky’s question of priorities is moot. “In many of [the projects], the city’s contribution and funding has already been made.”

That’s the case with Atlantic Yards--except that there might be additional contributions for “extraordinary infrastructure” costs as well as support for affordable housing. After all, CEO Chuck Ratner of parent Forest City Enterprises told investment analysts in April that "We still need more" subsidies.

Priming the pump

Earlier, Brodsky had asked about the general rationale for subsidies.

“From an economic development perspective, we think the city is going to benefit in the tens of billions,” Lieber said. “We think we can spend a couple of hundred million to do that.”

Brodsky said that, because he lumped the cost of the $3.5 billion #7 line extension into the costs for West Side development, he calculated some $4 billion in public support.

Lieber said that there’d be “significantly in excess of $20 billion” in private investment on the West Side.

The numbers for Atlantic Yards are more modest. It would be a $4 billion-plus project, with more than half of the funding for the project depending on government resources, both direct aid and a limited pool of tax-exempt financing.

Summing up

In closing the hearing, Brodsky said the general question of whether we’re subsidizing projects at an appropriate level still remains. Still, he said he appreciated the government officials’ willingness to answer questions at a public forum, calling it an important part of the governmental process.

“I hope we can move forward on these [West Side] projects,” he said. “I fear we’re in more trouble than we’re letting on.” (He noted that it was news to him that the hearing brought out the city’s commitment to spend up to $3.5 billion on the #7 line, given that he'd previously criticized the city for committing to only $2.1 billion.) He said he was recessing rather than closing the hearing, given that he hoped Port Authority representatives would testify as well.

Does the legislature have any power, he was asked after the hearing. While it may not have direct oversight of such project, he said, in the long run the legislature has the power to pass laws restricting certain actions.

Again he criticized governance mechanisms to manage projects that bypass democracy. "What we've structured is a set of governance mechanisms that eliminate democratic institutions," he said. "And the net result is that anonymous people.... this is a set of Soviet-style bureaucracies that are acting without any public accountability, even when they’re right. They would much rather discuss whether they're right or wrong.... The reason we're in this problem with these projects is that the governance is secretive and out of touch, and we don't have enough money."

Doesn't Brodsky favor a new authority, however, to oversee the Hudson Yards project?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," riposted Brodsky, never at a loss for words. "The answer is, right now, I'm wrestling with a series of emergencies and the fact of the matter is that the Hudson Yards deal does not represent a thought-out economic development strategy or priority for what the city and the region need. In defense of that, we're scrambling for ways of gaining some control. It's not necessarily intellectually consistent."

"Having said that," he continued, "what today's hearing was about was bringing out into public view the realities of decisions, like on Moynihan, like, for example, the Garden is now seeking public monies." (He said he'd seen documents that have not been made public.)

"The Dolans have every right to seek public support," he said. "The public ought to deal with it intelligently. That's what this is about. This is about returning these things to the control of public agencies."

Agencies, perhaps, but not--as per his comments--public authorities.

The "will to blog" and the need for distinctions

Way too many people have already commented on ex-Gawker editor Emily Gould's self-referential New York Times Magazine cover story, Blog-Post Confidential, but I have to complain not so much about Gould but about her editors.

New York Magazine's Daily Intel got there first:
What troubles us about Gould's oncoming article is not that it will be a rehash of everything we've seen before. It's that people will mistake her perspective on the Internet, writing, and fame as the perspective of an entire generation of bloggers.

The "will to blog"

Indeed, this paragraph from Gould's essay stopped me cold:
The will to blog is a complicated thing, somewhere between inspiration and compulsion. It can feel almost like a biological impulse. You see something, or an idea occurs to you, and you have to share it with the Internet as soon as possible. What I didn’t realize was that those ideas and that urgency — and the sense of self-importance that made me think anyone would be interested in hearing what went on in my head — could just disappear.

How did the magazine's editors let her get away with such a gross generalization? The "will to blog," as she refers to it, should be applied (mainly) to writers like her who are essentially publishing instant online diaries.

Stop lumping us all together

The term "blog," as a verb, is already way too inclusive. To quote Bob Guskind of the Gowanus Lounge, who paraphrased his remarks at the Third Annual Brooklyn Blogfest earlier this month:
In our own remarks, we noted that the blogging world had changed dramatically in the 24 months since the first event was held and that the universe of blogs had grown so large that the very term “blogging” has been rendered almost meaningless. Like the label “indie music,” it has come to mean so much that it means almost nothing. There are distinctions to be made between online journalism, place blogs, personal blogs, niche blogs, advocacy blogs and other sub-genres we probably haven’t even thought of.

The FCE annual report looks like the NYT Magazine

The cover of the Forest City Enterprises (FCE) annual report, featuring the highly-successful New York Times Tower, jointly developed by FCE subsidiary Forest City Ratner with the New York Times Company, not only uses the typeface from the New York Times Magazine but also is printed on paper of similar dimensions and heft, as opposed to the narrower dimensions of previous reports.

If anyone else did this, there might be some grumbling, but I bet Forest City can get away with it.



A recent New York Times Magazine cover.

Two more the Times got wrong early on

Wouldn't it have been nice if they'd gotten it right? And shouldn't they correct it? Looking back at early New York Times coverage of the Atlantic Yards project, a couple of errors surfaced.

In a 1/23/04 article headlined Bid for a Brooklyn Sports Complex Faces Challenges From All Sides, the Times reported:
The arena would sit on what is now the Long Island Rail Road's Vanderbilt storage yard. Mr. Ratner needs the railroad to move the 11 tracks crisscrossing the nine-acre site to the east.

He also needs the state to condemn four blocks to the east of the rail yard, which includes the homes of 864 people and businesses with about 200 jobs.
(Emphases added)

As the page from Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn reminds us, the arena would be built over not just the railyard. Also, he blocks extend south rather than east.

The first error, as I've pointed out before, is particularly important, because an arena built just over the railyard would not have required eminent domain and the ensuing court fight. Still, the Times has resisted making corrections.

(Top graphic from DDDB; bottom graphic from the Empire State Development Corporation. Click to enlarge.)

Jeffries says Assembly should hold AY hearing; FCR instead offers breakfast update

While the State Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions is holding a hearing today on the progress of development projects on Manhattan's West Side, there's a strong argument for a hearing to assess the status of the Atlantic Yards project as well.

Whether that hearing, including representatives of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and developer Forest City Ratner, will get scheduled is another question. Assembly leadership--apparently Speaker Sheldon Silver--has so far balked, according to Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries.

Joint committee hearing

Jeffries, who represents Prospect Heights and the AY footprint, is a member of the Corporations committee. He said last night that he and two neighboring legislators--Assemblywoman Joan Millman, who chairs the Oversight, Analysis and Investigation committee, and Assemblyman Jim Brennan, who chairs the Cities committee--want to hold a joint hearing of their committees regarding Atlantic Yards, given the uncertainty regarding the project.

"I'd like to get all of them, ESDC and the developer, on the record, under oath," Jeffries said at a meeting of the Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council at P.S. 9 on Underhill Avenue. (Among the questions worth asking: how exactly were the generous timetables for the project determined?)

"There's been some resistance," Jeffries said. "The developer has offered to meet with legislators at a legislative breakfast. I think there's been enough back-room conversation."

He said hoped a hearing could sort out plans regarding eminent domain, the financing of the arena, the commitment to build affordable housing, and any negotiations to sell the Nets to an ownership group that would have them play in Newark's Prudential Center instead.

In Silver's court

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, who chairs the Corporations committee, supports such a hearing, Jeffries said, but, "ultimately, leadership has to make the call."

While Jeffries didn't directly blame Silver, the Speaker wields ultimate power in the Assembly. Silver has supported Atlantic Yards. And Forest City Ratner's $58,420 contribution on January 7 to the Democratic Assembly Campaign Committee's Housekeeping account probably helps Silver bend an ear in the developer's direction.

Ward Bakery update: injured worker in good condition

Several people asked me about what happened at the Ward Bakery on Tuesday, after a worker was seen being removed on a stretcher and a stop-work order issued.

Empire State Development Corporation spokesman Warner Johnston offers this update: "The injured worker appears to be in good condition and we expect him to be released today. He was immediately taken to a nearby hospital... and my understanding is that he was kept over night for evaluation."

"With regards to the cause of the incident, the investigation is still being conducted," he added. "I don't have specific information to share until the investigation is complete." The stop-work order suggests a rotted beam as a possible cause for the collapse of a section of the floor.

(See pictures on Tracy Collins's blog.)

At MAS, AY as an example of a neighborhood planning struggle

When it comes to discussions of “David vs. Goliath,” the subject of a Municipal Art Society (MAS) Planning Center Forum on May 14, Atlantic Yards is an inevitable subject, though--as I’ll note below--the politics of AY means that more than one set of parties might consider themselves “Davids.”

(Photos by Jonathan Barkey)

The panel addressed the issue of “neighborhood planning in the face of large-scale development,” and planner/architect Stuart Pertz, in his introduction, noted that some projects are inherently large, and only work if built on a large scale. “Unfortunately, it often gets out of hand,” he said, suggesting that “Goliath in development has extraordinary leverage, using powerful lawyers, contractors, planners, and unions.” Then again, he said, “there are many Davids.”

So how empower communities? Anthony Borelli, Director of Land Use in the Office of Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, said the office has tried to even the playing field by offering land use training for Community Board members, a fellowship program that assigns urban planners to community boards, and practiced “proactive planning,” exemplified by a proposal for a West Harlem Special District, a reaction to Columbia University’s expansion. (The Manhattan Borough President is far ahead of the other four borough presidents on land use issues. Unfortunately, long-underfunded community boards are seeing their budgets cut rather than raised.)

City of limits

Architect Marshall Brown (right), a developer of the UNITY plan for the Metropolitian Transportation Authority’s Vanderbilt Yard (and beyond), said, with perhaps some retrospective bravado, “Four years ago we realized we needed to have something in place for the probable occurrence of Forest City Ratner’s plans running aground.” He suggested that Atlantic Yards exemplified a “willful ignorance of limits,” including the physical limit of an eight-acre railyard, the legal limit of eminent domain, the democratic limit of ULURP (the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, bypassed in this case for a fast-track state review), and “finally, the all too evident limit of the talents of a single architect.”

He noted that he wasn’t dissing Frank Gehry, just pointing out--as have others, and even Gehry himself--that megaprojects require multiple architects.

Brown suggested that questions of sustainability and the “looming environmental apocalypse” meant that the Bloomberg administration should prioritize quality ahead of quantity: “I’d say it’s a city of limits.”

Lawyer Candace Carponter (right), a co-chair of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN), described how the coalition, formed to respond to the Atlantic Yards environmental review, moved from officially agnostic to ultimately oppositional, joining a lawsuit challenging the review, and becoming a supporter of the UNITY plan. She suggested that the combination of a new governor, “detrimental economics,” and the Newark option for the Nets might provide an opening for the UNITY plan--though of course, that remains to be seen.

Jordi Reyes-Montblanc, former chairman of Manhattan Community Board 9, offered an earthy explanation for his civic role: “I got involved in the Community Board to keep an eye on the S.O.B.s.” He noted that Columbia President Lee Bollinger wanted to break ground on the expansion project in 2002, the same year it was proposed.

The East Side sleeper project

Ed Rubin (right), of Manhattan Community Board 6 in East Midtown, described the board’s efforts to respond to developer Sheldon Solow, whose 6.1 million square foot proposal on three parcels between 35th and 41st Streets generated less notice than the Columbia or AY controversies. Rubin said that the CB’s own plan, as well as “an incredible Power Point,” helped the community, via Council Member Dan Garodnick, to get Solow to reduce some of the floor area, lower the office tower form 864 feet to 553 feet, pledge $10 million for a pedestrian bridge to an expected park, and include 20% affordable housing. (Not everyone's on board.)

Still, Rubin said that the Department of City Planning, under control of the mayor’s office, wasn’t much help: “Sadly, City Planning, they do rezonings, but I think their policy is, when developers come up with plans, they hold back and think they’re a reviewing agency.”

Tools needed

Moderator Alberto Vourvoulias-Bush, Executive Editor, El Diario/La Prensa, pointed out that not all “Davids” and not all Community Boards are equally equipped to critique and resist development. What are the most important tools to have? Rubin noted that Manhattan CB6 had never resisted development, and that its own plan for the Solow site allowed for a significant amount of density.

Reyes-Montblanc argued similarly, saying that CB9’s alternative plan offered Columbia “80%” of what it wanted. Reyes-Montblanc noted that CB9 was able to get help from the Pratt Center for Community Development to provide recommendations and to respond to Columbia’s proposal. (Pratt's Brad Lander, who worked with CB9, has suggested it was 60%.)

Carponter said, that she’d “like to think” that when the story of Atlantic Yards is told, “the fact that we had an alternative plan” was essential. The more opponents get elected officials to support calls for change, the more they’re likely to consider the UNITY plan.

Brown said it was a matter of information (often concealed by developers), communication (tapping collective local intelligence), and storytelling (“you’ve got to tell a better story; who can argue with something as positive as UNITY?”).

ULURP gone?

Vourvoulias-Bush also referred to the rumor that Bloomberg wants to do away with ULURP. In a 5/11/08 column, headlined Mayor Bloomberg puts $2.1M on City Charter revision, Daily News columnist Kirsten Danis wrote that, “depending on various theories floating around,” would enable, among other things, a revision in “the way development deals and zoning changes are done in the city.”

(Lobbyist Richard Lipsky has commented that the phase-out of offices like the Public Advocate "could win the mayor support for what he really wants: putting his stamp on the way government works day-to-day - permanently -- and changing the way land use and development projects are approved.")

Borelli (right) said that it was essential that Community Boards have planning capacity. “Planning is not just about zoning and land use,” he said. He praised ULURP, contrasting New York with Toronto, where, without such a systematic process, development depends on a thumbs-up from the local elected officials.

The 7.5-month timeline in New York is “not that burdensome,” he said, noting that 99% of projects don’t go through ULURP because they’re not large enough. (Also, some large projects, like Atlantic Yards, have deliberately bypassed ULURP.)

News coverage

Vourvoulias-Bush also lamented the paucity of coverage regarding major development projects like Atlantic Yards and the Columbia expansion, observing that coverage is often “extraordinarily superficial,” despite clear evidence of the project proponents’ efforts to manipulate the media.

Borelli commented that it was very important to “use media.” Manhattan Community Board 4 was able to get an editorial from the New York Times backing its stance against the proposed West Side Stadium.

Brown said that, four years ago, a graphic designer friend suggested “you have a marketing problem, not an architecture problem.” Carponter said that blogs have been able to get the message out. (She might have mentioned that Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn has a blog-like news update and a--take your pick--persistent/pugnacious spokesman in Daniel Goldstein.)

She also suggested that Atlantic Yards opponents had helped push the New York Times to cover the delays in AY, culminating in the surprising front-page story March 21 declaring the project stalled.

Reyes-Montblanc said the Columbia coverage had gotten “tremendously large coverage,” most of it fair, some with “subtle pro-Columbia bias.”

Rubin observed that Atlantic Yards and Columbia actually got far more coverage in the Times than the Solow plan. (Indeed, a reporter at another newspaper told me last year that the East Side plan was receiving far less coverage related to its enormous size.)

Major newspapers, Rubin said, don’t necessarily look at a project from a community perspective and examine how the project might affect quality of life.

Some AY support

Then came a question from the audience that challenged one of the premises of the panel, that the side represented by Carponter and Brown constitutes the sole “Davids” of the Atlantic Yards battle. “Atlantic Yards means a lot of construction jobs,” asserted Martin Allen, a representative of People for Political and Economic Empowerment (PPEE), a Fort Greene-based group that tries to place construction workers at job sites and has loudly supported the project at some AY-related events, such as the Ward Bakery demolition and a community forum. “It’s a life-changing thing” for a person who can’t feed his family, Allen said.

Moderator Vourvoulias-Bush gave a partial nod to that sentiment but raised the question about whether pledges of housing and jobs in the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) are enforceable. (He’s editorialized critically about Atlantic Yards and his wife, author Jhumpa Lahiri, is on the Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn advisory board. His newspaper is moving to Forest City Ratner's MetroTech.)

“Nobody’s against development,” Carponter said, suggesting it was a question of scale. She pointed out that the template for CBAs created in California involves groups that ordinarily would oppose a project--here's the definitive testimony, from Good Jobs NY-- but in Brooklyn, “the developer created seven out of eight organizations.”

(Actually, both ACORN and the New York Association of Minority Contractors were well-established, BUILD was fledgling, and the other five groups in the CBA had no track record.)

Allen was unbowed. “You all never gave the Community Benefits Agreement a chance,” he said. “You’re stopping [workers] from eating if you delay this project.” Vourvoulias-Bush moved the discussion along, apparently not wanting to turn the event into a debate about AY--after all, the amount of special subsidies granted Forest City Ratner could be brought up as a counter-argument--but the issue surfaced a bit later.

Brooklyn changing

Brown suggested that Forest City Ratner underestimated Brooklyn, thinking the borough was little changed from 1985 or 1988, when MetroTech was proposed: “The areas have come into their own.”

“Atlantic Yards is a world-class location,” Brown said. “Harlem is a famous place. It has to inform how we deal with developers.” The proximity of the AY site to the Atlantic Terminal transit hub and the Brooklyn Academy of Music means that it should’ve been seen as a source of negotiating power. (Of course, there never was a negotiation.)

Carponter noted that, after the passage of Atlantic Yards, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz “fired” nine members of Brooklyn CB6. (They weren’t reappointed.) There were similar reprisals in the Bronx after Bronx CB4 opposed the Yankee Stadium deal. By contrast, said Reyes-Montblanc, there were no reprisals in Manhattan.

The art of compromise

Did Solow really compromise or had he planned for such a scaleback, Rubin was asked. “Obviously he was pleased at the end,” Rubin said, suggesting that the CB’s backup 197-c plan was helpful. Compromise is essential, he suggested, because “an area that’s fairly well-heeled can litigate forever.”

Reyes-Montblanc suggested it might be easier to deal with a developer than an institution, since the former might compromise while the seemingly-benign institution wants all it requested.

DDDB spokesman Goldstein, from the audience, suggested that community plans could be more powerful if they gained the endorsement of construction unions, since no one opposes jobs. Borelli responded that Manhattan BP Stringer has convened a Community-Labor Task Force on Responsible Contracting.

(According to the BP’s web site, the group “is forging a broad-based consensus in favor of development that provides job opportunities for community members, safe work sites governed by fair labor practices, and real opportunities for minority- and women-owned businesses.”)

The goal, he said, is to get labor unions and the community to speak in one voice. And another effort, he said, is to get union members on community boards.

In Brooklyn, so far, the “one voice” goal remains a challenge, as exemplified by the "Time Out" rally and "Build It Now" counter-protest on May 3.

The Manhattan Borough President stresses land use

As noted in the discussion May 14 at the Municipal Art Society, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has advanced ahead of the other borough presidents in stressing the importance of land use issues and in training Community Board members on land use issues.

A series of screenshots (click to enlarge) helps tell the story. Note, for example, how Community Boards and Land Use get two tabs at the top of the page.


Like other borough presidents, Stringer offers a page on ULURP.


Unlike the other Borough President, Stringer has urban planners devoted to community boards, as well as planning interns to offer additional help.


Particularly useful is the Land Use 101 presentation--one example is below.


Brooklyn

Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz's web page describes a range of roles and issues, including a certain amount of borough promotion. ULURP appears somewhat lower on the page.


Applications for Community Boards appear further down the page.



Queens

The web page for Queens Borough President Helen Marshall lists issues alphabetically, with Community Boards near the top, and Planning and Land Use somewhat lower down. Queens comes in second to Manhattan, at least according to how information is provided and presented on the web.


The Planning and Land Use page has several sections.


Notably, the page on Community Boards to a new Queens Community Board web site, with events, announcements, and other information, thanks to a grant from Con Edison.



Staten Island

Land use doesn't seem too high a priority on the web page for Staten Island Borough President James Molinaro.


There is, however, a zoning map with a special report on overdevelopment.


The Bronx

The web page for Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion mentions Community Boards near the top, but not land use.

The page on Community Boards does mention land use issues.

Stop-work order at Ward Bakery

[Updated: 11:05 am] Demolition at the Ward Bakery between Pacific and Dean streets was met with a stop-work order because the work is alleged to undermine an adjacent building and also because of an injury.

While the overview indicates it's been resolved, Department of Buildings spokeswoman Kate Lindquist says, "The Stop Work Order is not 'resolved.'” (The word is used by DOB as an administrative tool to track complaint dispositioning.)

(Photo by Tracy Collins.)

She offered this explanation, "The Stop Work Order was issued on Monday after a worker, employed by Gateway Demolition, was injured during demolition work. The worker was brought to a nearby hospital. The Stop Work Order remains in effect. Workers are able to conduct remedial work to maintain a safe site – such as removing loose debris and tools – but demolition remains halted at this time. The Stop Work Order will remain in effect until the engineer of record, Thornton Tomasetti, fully assesses the structural conditions of the building and submits a revised demolition plan taking into consideration its findings."

Brodsky on West Side deal: subsidy info needed

From yesterday's New York Times, in an article headlined New Developer Signs $1 Billion Deal to Transform West Side Railyards:
“Until we get a handle on the level of subsidies involved, there’s no way to determine whether this is a good deal or a bad deal,” said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester who is holding a hearing on West Side development on Friday.

Last week, I reported on similar comments. "Developers have learned the fight is about the subsidies," Brodsky said. "That distorting element is so powerful we don't know how much to give, what is proper." That, he said, makes it hard to assess "what exactly is the public good."

The same questions could be raised about the Atlantic Yards deal, where, for example, the amount of scarce housing bonds needed was not made public until after the project was approved.

Gehry's dutiful B1 charade and the marketing of naming rights

In for a dime, in for a dollar--or many, many thousands of them. The opportunity to build his first arena, and maybe even "a neighborhood practically from scratch", means starchitect Frank Gehry dutifully participated in a charade over the name of the flagship Atlantic Yards tower, which is now--as predicted by me and NoLandGrab--up for a naming rights sponsorship.

The New York Observer's Real Estate blog reported yesterday:
Bruce Ratner is looking for a new name for the signature office tower in his $4 billion-plus Atlantic Yards project.

The Frank Gehry-designed tower was known as “Miss Brooklyn” until it was shrunk, redesigned and re-unveiled in April under a new, more staid moniker: “B1.” It turns out that that name, too, may change, should developer Forest City Ratner, led by Mr. Ratner, find a tenant eager enough to attach its name to the building.

B1 was the original moniker.

Gehry's statement

“The design for Miss Brooklyn, which we now call Building One, has become very special for me," Gehry said in a May 5 press release from developer Forest City Ratner.

In a May 5 e-newsletter, the developer upped the ante, suggesting that the utilitarian placeholder "B1" had been "christened": And today Forest City Ratner released new renderings showing Frank Gehry's beautiful redesign of the Barclays Center arena, the first residential building and the office tower now christened B1 (formerly known as Miss Brooklyn).

As I wrote May 6, actually, it was always Building One; I noted comments in September 2006 from the Department of City Planning and the official site plan. It's likely, I added, that B1 is just a placeholder, ready to be jettisoned if and when an anchor tenant is recruited.

Unskeptical press

Still, the press wasn't skeptical enough. The New York Daily News, on May 5: Originally envisioned as a 620-foot residential and commercial tower, the newly named "B1" - or Building One - will be slashed to 511 feet and feature commercial office space only, Gehry said yesterday.

Curbed on May 5 called it [T]he unfortunately named B1...

The Brooklyn Paper, on May 6, wrote: Ratner has said he won’t build the Frank Gehry–designed tower, now called “Building B-1”

(Lumi Rolley of NoLandGrab commented on the likelihood the name was just a placeholder.)

Even Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn's press release stated: The paper reports that the so-called "Miss Brooklyn" signature skyscraper, is now called simply "Building 1."

Metro , on May 6, reported: Gehry — who once said his inspiration for his centerpiece building, “Miss Brooklyn,” was a bride he saw in the borough — jilted her for a tower now called “B1” (Building One).

The Toronto Globe & Mail, on May 19, wrote: The now dubbed B1 replaces the former Miss Brooklyn...

Expect more coverage if/when Forest City Ratner secures an anchor tenant.

Senate report warns of breach of duty in "done deal" Polytechnic-NYU consolidation

Two-and-a-half months after the board of Polytechnic University (Poly) in Brooklyn voted to approve a controversial consolidation into much larger New York University (NYU), the chairman of the State Senate Committee on Higher Education has raised some serious questions about the deal, though it's unclear whether those questions--outnumbered by allegations dismissed--are enough for the state Department of Education or the Board of Regents to withhold their approval.

State Senator Kenneth LaValle, a Republican who represents eastern Long Island, did not issue a statement accompanying the release of the report (PDF), titled Proposed Affiliation: Polytechnic University and New York University, which appeared yesterday afternoon on his web site. Nor does the report offer final recommendations.

That may indicate he considers the results inconclusive: while the report rejects most charges made by Poly alumni that the consolidation into NYU is a sweetheart deal, it does conclude that the Poly board, in its eagerness to approve the merger, in three instances did not act with the duty of care and/or loyalty required by a fiduciary, notably negotiations conducted in secret, the exclusion of dissident board members from working committees, and the failure to update a three-year-old appraisal of the university's valuable Downtown Brooklyn property.

There's little precedent regarding such findings; thus, it's hard to predict what the Department of Education and Board of Regents might do. Still, the report throws some cold water on the exuberant press release issued by Poly on March 6 and partially validates a statement made by a faculty member, who told LaValle's office that the plan was presented by the board as a "done deal."

[Updated Wednesday 1:45 pm: Poly board chair Craig Matthews commented, "I would just affirm that after an intensive four month review, the Senator found no basis to object to the merger, no evidence of fraud or impropriety and affirmed the propriety of the process. We are pleased that we can now proceed with the next step which is approval by the Board of Regents."]

NYU's Brooklyn opportunity

Poly, a small engineering school at Brooklyn’s MetroTech that draws mainly on local students, offers NYU, a Greenwich Village-based university with international reach, two things it needs: an engineering school and, crucially, land, including air rights subject to a letter of intent Poly has signed with Forest City Ratner, its neighbor and lead partner on MetroTech.

Poly would gain the umbrella and cross-pollination of a larger university, and significant potential increase in revenue: improved opportunities for grant funds and a larger and better-qualified student body, compounded by NYU’s higher tuition. Poly has been struggling, and the "merger"--the two universities' term of choice--would help it with enrollment, collaborative research, library resources, and overall financial reach.

However, NYU would gain control of Poly with no money down, offered to loan Poly $50 million over five years, according to LaValle's report (confirming previous reports), based on the engineering school’s unused air rights.

While a February 7 "Sense of the Board" vote indicated more than a supermajority (75%) supported the merger, the vote was postponed a month so LaValle could investigate charges raised by three dissident trustees, including conflict of interest, failure to do due diligence, secret negotiations, and failure to consult faculty. After the board voted its approval in March, LaValle expressed dismay that the board acted before his report was issued.

Issues dismissed; "done deal" claimed

LaValle's report first dismisses alumni claims that 1972 legislation that required NYU, then experiencing fiscal crisis, to let its school of engineering and science merge with Poly, subsequently barred NYU's re-entry into the field of engineering.

The report then goes through several allegations of conflict of interest. A few are summarized below.

While one Poly trustee is a partner with the law firm represeting the university in negotiating with NYU, the board had gotten a legal opinion that there was no conflict of interest and thus acted in good faith.

While the Poly board did not explain why it concluded that the use of an accounting firm that had previously done work for NYU to evaluate NYU's financial condition was not a conflict of interest, the choice was "conceivable." Though it would have been more sensible to avoid the appearance of impropriety, "there is insufficient evidence" to conclude the decision was a breach of fiduciary duty, the report concludes.

While Poly denies that President Jerry Hultin was promised a position with NYU, one Advisory Trustee recalls two NYU officials saying Hultin would head the "new Poly." Still, there's no evidence of a concrete promise, and Hultin would be a natural candidate, the report says; hence, no conclusion of misconduct.

While Poly did not conduct a faculty vote, it offered numerous meetings and noted that ten of eleven department heads supported the affiliation. One faculty member who wished to remain anonymous contacted LaValle's office and claimed that board members "consistently characterized the affiliation as something of a 'done deal'" and that faculty members could view the merger agreement only in the presence of a Poly administrator and were not permitted to take notes. Still, given the "overwhelming support" of the faculty, it does not appear that Poly trustees breached their fiduciary duty, the report concludes.

Money issues

The Polytechnic Alumni Association points out that the board long claimed that Poly was not financially viable without the merger, due to debts dragging the school into the red, but, in a May 2007 court filing, had claimed that the university had $154.6 million in assets.

While the Alumni Association has complained about the terms of the deal, given the promise of loans rather than cash, "it takes more than unfavorable terms and questionable decisions by the Board to conclude there was a breach of the fiduciary duty," the report concludes.

What's acting in good faith?

The Business Judgment Rule “bars judicial inquiry into actions of corporate directors taken in good faith and in the exercise of honest judgment," the report states.

The report cites three areas of concern that are not protected by the Business Judgment Rule. "While some of the remaining allegations suggest a significant lack of diligence or good faith on the part of Polytech, they are not substantiated by evidence which definitively says that the Board did not uphold the duty of loyalty and care owed to the institution," the report states.

The three areas:
(1) The affiliation negotiations between Polytech and NYU were being conducted by President Hultin some six months before they were announced to the rest of the Board. "There is no legitimate excuse for not holding these meetings sooner particularly when, by Polytech’s own admission, preliminary discussions began some three years prior," the report states.

2) Board members not supportive of the affiliation were excluded or marginalized from the working committees set up address the affiliation. "Additionally, the statements made by Deborah L. Devedjian, a Polytech Trustee who is not an alumnus of Polytech and has no obvious bias in favor of the Polytech Alumni Association, says [sic] that she was removed from one of the working committees for 'asking too many questions' and encouraging 'due diligence,'” the report states. "These two facts coupled with the resignation of Trustee Herman Viets... lead to the conclusion that those on the Board in favor of the affiliation were attempting to marginalize the participation of those individuals who opposed the affiliation."

3) An updated appraisal of Polytech’s real property was never obtained by the Board. The Alumni Association stated that the board has in part promoted the affiliation by claiming Poly is not solvent enough to operate independently for long. "While Polytech has claims [sic] that they are in debt by approximately $33 million dollars, by their own admission, they relied upon a 2005 appraisal of their real estate," the report states. (A January 2005 appraisal valued Poly property at $213 million; surely the value of Brooklyn real estate has skyrocketed, a point not made in the report.)

"Their failure to obtain an updated appraisal, regardless of the cost involved, is inconsistent with the duty of care that the Board owed to Polytech," the report states. "Given the fact that the Polytech Board is comprised of individuals who are, inter alia, attorneys and leaders of large corporations, it is inconceivable that they would not have thought it prudent to obtain an updated appraisal of Polytech’s real property."

What next?

The section of the report labeled Conclusion does not make any recommendation regarding the fate of the consolidation but instead raises general questions about affiliations and consolidations, including:

• Whether procedures should be put in place requiring institutions to inform students, faculty, administration and alumni about their plans and allow a "reasonable period of time" for input.
• When and to what extent an institution’s Board of Trustees and other members of the institution should be involved in negotiations.
• Whether procedures should be put in place to ensure that faculty, administration, students and alumni are aware of potential conflicts of interest regarding such mergers and the steps taken to resolve those conflicts.
• Whether procedures should be put in place, before a final vote is held to approve an affiliation/consolidation, to inform interested parties of the terms of the transaction and to obtain their input.

The Department of Education and Board of Regents are expected to examine the issues by the end of June.

How build big in NYC? Not via the AY example, panelists suggest

What are the right ways to build big projects in a growing city? Although panelists who spoke Monday night didn’t make the point explicitly, the answers they offered--public planning, realistic timetables, public ownership, infrastructure first, and media skepticism toward overhyped renderings--generally point to the opposite of the process behind Atlantic Yards.

The panel, titled Can NYC Build BIG Anymore?, was sponsored by Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century and held at Iguana Restaurant in Midtown. Notably, the acting head of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) also offered a hearty defense of Atlantic Yards, adopting some of developer Forest City Ratner's talking points.

The question, panelists agreed, was not “can” but “how.” “One of the problems we have to confront is that people want to build big too fast,” observed Avi Schick, acting president of the ESDC, which approved and is overseeing Atlantic Yards. “Sometimes they bit off a little too much when they tried to push an entire plan forward at once.”

It sounded exactly like Atlantic Yards, with its announced ten-year timetable, one “anticipated” by the Gov. George Pataki-era ESDC when it approved the 17-building project in December 2006. Schick and other appointees of incoming Gov. Eliot Spitzer did not weigh in on that timetable, though the ESDC in September 2007 quietly agreed that developer Forest City Ratner had six years after the close of litigation and delivery of property via eminent domain to build the arena and 12 years to build the (presumed) five towers of Phase 1, with no deadline for the remaining 11 towers.

Though it wasn't announced at the meeting, today's Times reports that Schick, who was said to be a candidate to head the ESDC, will step down in September and return to the private sector. Photo from New York Observer.

Infrastructure first

Robert Yaro, President of the Regional Plan Association, offered a slightly different formulation. “We need to build big but build smart... The city will grow if we create infrastructure,” he said. “The projects that are the product of a real process of engagement end up being better projects.”

Charles Bagli, who covers real estate and dewvelopment for the New York Times, suggested that Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s administration may have had “a lot of good ideas, but without a well-thought-out idea of how to pay for them or how long it would take.” Repeating a favorite riff, he noted that “the era of the grand PowerPoint presentation... has ended.” He noted that plans for redevelopment of Times Square went through several iterations.

A new Moses?

Do we need another Robert Moses, the panel was asked. Bagli said that Bloomberg had compared the departing Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff to Moses, but noted that Moses held power for 44 years, while Doctoroff served for six years. Whatever the criticism of Moses, he thought he was building “for the public,” Bagli said. “Critics of this administration would describe them as facilitators of the private sector.” (Indeed, critics of Atlantic Yards might say the same thing.)

Yaro scoffed at the idea that one powerful person is necessary. “What we really need are capable administrators in the agencies,” he said. “Empire State Development is the most powerful urban development institution in the country.” (Remember, planner Alexander Garving said the agency has "truly amazing powers.")

“If you’re going to build public works,, you have to pay for them,” he said, saying that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Port Authority of NY & NJ needed “real money.” The Bloomberg administration, he said, “didn’t discover public works until the second term.”

The “arena” was a public work, suggested the moderator. (While he used the term “arena,” subsequent reference suggested he was referring to the West Side Stadium.)

“It was private works with public money,” Yaro responded--again, another observation that could be levied at AY.

Schick praised the Bloomberg administration’s efforts at rezonings and said, “What you do need is planning.” He noted that the state had taken the last remaining parcel in Battery Park City and given it to the city to build a public school, so “the needs of the city can be met.”

Changed projects, overhyped renderings

A number of projects have been stalled, the moderator pointed out, and Moynihan Station and Atlantic Yards have generated some significant opposition. Schick noted that the Moynihan plan “morphed” from a project to build a new station to another that promised huge office towers to another that accommodated the relocation of Madison Square Garden--and that it wasn’t out of line to “ask a question or refuse to move.”

Schick suggested that the release of renderings creates unrealistic public expectations. When designs are released, he said, “the papers eat them up and it becomes real before it is.”

Was that a dig at the Times? (At right, the 7/5/05 rendering released exclusively to the Times.) Bagli noted that Moynihan Station plans have never been fully unveiled. But no one on the panel mentioned how Atlantic Yards has gone through four rounds of renderings, each treated as a media event, and how the Times--especially its architecture critics--bought into the hype.

Yaro brought up the concept of “city-building,” an effort that spans several terms of elected officials and demands structures to guarantee long-term input and oversight. “City-building doesn’t do well with term-limited mayors,” he said, noting that the city’s plans for the West Side, following the rejection of the stadium plan, are vastly improved.

Schick backs AY

Has community participation gone too far and should it be scaled back? Schick said that wasn’t feasible, and that “a transparent process” will make things better. He referred to Bagli’s reference to 46 lawsuits regarding the Times Square plan and said, “in Atlantic Yards, I think the litigation record is something like 18 and 0.”

In that case, Schick was repeating Forest City Ratner propaganda, since there have been five or six lawsuits, depending how you count, and if motions are counted as victories, they also should be counted as losses--not to mention a lawsuit that a Ratner ally has lost.

Schick acknolwedged that there are “vocal opponents” of AY, “and there are also supporters.” At a rally held May 3, he suggested, “there wasn’t press coverage because supporters outnumbered opponents.”

That doesn’t make sense. There was coverage in the Brooklyn media, but it’s likely that citywide media didn’t send reporters because 1) Saturday afternoon is a time when newspapers are understaffed and 2) Forest City Ratner, relying on stealth, deliberately did not cultivate press coverage for the counter-protest.

Typically, the developer tries very hard to attract press coverage. Nor did Schick acknowledge that the counter-protest was culivated by Forest City Ratner staffers.

Stadiums = "scams"

Bagli suggested that the West Side Stadium project was sui generis, since it was “condemned by every single civic group, except one.” He noted that economists uniformly conclude that sports facilities don’t provide much bang for the public investment buck.

Yaro said that the current bidding for the West Side Yards indicated the value of the site that was not acknowledged at the time. “I don’t think you can say the same about the parking lot next to Shea Stadium,” he said, adding that the new Yankee Stadium is more controversial.

Indeed, the city and state quickly arranged for parkland to be “alienated” for the Yankees owners, and promised to deliver replacement parks--in an asthma capital of the city--later on. Here's the analysis from Good Jobs NY.

Stadium projects, he said, are “one of the bigger scams in the country.”

AY deal "cut in 2003"

Bagli suggested that approval for Atlantic Yards and the two baseball stadiums was tied up in “the history” of the West Side Stadium, “a huge public fight” unprecedented in the city, with Madison Square Garden owners Cablevision in a “pissing match” with the city.

After that, he suggested, there was “more or less a tacit agreement” among politicians not to fight the mayor on every single thing. “The deal was cut in 2003 for Atlantic Yards,” he said. “To some extent, that precluded a lot of the impact of the opposition,” he added, which, though “as much as they bothered the hell out of me,” had grown from a small persistent group to a larger movement.

Curiously enough, he spoke in the past tense, as if the Atlantic Yards opposition had faded away or no longer had any role.

Schick on AY

Schick said that the previous administration had rushed to approve projects before the end of 2006. “Having gotten to ESDC on January 1, 2007,” he said, “the stack of things moved in November and December 2006 was pretty darn high.”

Schick was asked about second thoughts regarding Atlantic Yards. He noted that it had been approved by the Public Authorities Control Board in December 2006, so he couldn’t speak about the project before 2007. He did offer this observation: “I do think the developer did a fairly good job, by developer standards, of putting his plans out.”

By contrast, consider Chris Smith’s August 2006 assessment in New York magazine: Ratner’s team has mounted an elaborate road show before community boards and local groups, at which people have been allowed to ask questions and vent, and the developer has made a grand show of listening, then tinkering around the edges. But the fundamentals of the project... has never been up for discussion... What at first seemed to me impressive on a clinical level—a developer’s savvy use of state-of-the-art political tactics—ends up being, on closer inspection, positively chilling.

Schick said that he’d met with a variety of local elected officials, some for the project, some against it, and some on the fence, not about whether it should’ve been approved, but about how mitigations can work. He pointed out that multiple agencies are involved. “Without everyone coming together, we can’t move them forward.”

Goldstein's challenge

In the audience, Daniel Goldstein, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn spokesman, raised his hand and identified himself. The room got quiet. He challenged Schick to elaborate on the claim of 18 victories and pointed out that, despite the 2006 document that “anticipated” a ten-year buildout, the ESDC last year allowed Forest City Ratner a much longer leash.

What can ESDC do to make sure the public gets some of the benefits in a time frame that’s reasonable, he asked, noting that demolitions are already occurring. [Goldstein tells me he thinks he said "purported benefits;" my notes are imprecise and I didn't bring a tape recorder.]

Schick, a lawyer, said he wasn’t going to answer legal questions at the forum, given that Goldstein and DDDB had chosen to litigate. As for the main question, he responded with pablum, saying that officials must recognize that developments do impact communities, which is “why community engagement is so important.”

At the end of the forum, I introduced myself to Schick and said I wanted to follow up on the question. He said to call the agency’s press office.

Yaro gave Schick something of a pass, observing that Atlantic Yards was “signed, sealed, delivered” by the time the Spitzer administration took office.

Of course, several groups, including Yaro’s RPA, in December 2006 asked Spitzer to request that the project be held over to his administration before official approval, but the Governor-elect ignored such entreaties. And the RPA expressed support for the first phase of Atlantic Yards but has not publicly raised questions about the delays in achieving that first phase.

Yaro suggested that the proper framework for such developments was that similar to Battery Park City, in which a public authority maintains ownership, manages and master plan, and offers long-term leases to multiple devleopers. “We ought to maintain public control,” he said, especially when public land and eminent domain are involved.

Role of the press

A resident of Midtown’s East Side implored Bagli to look at the deal behind developer Sheldon Solow's plan to build more than 5 million square feet.

Bagli acknowledged the press had a lot of work to do. “The role of a reporter is to illuminate what’s going on behind the scenes,” Bagli said. “I don’t see my job as being a scribe... Sometimes we’re better at it than other times.”

Could the latter be read as an acknowledgement that the Times has flubbed at least part of the Atlantic Yards story?

The proper balance

Asked about the balance between the private sector and the public sector, Schick said, “The private dollars will come if there’s a plan, with certainty and clarity.”

The government’s job, Bagli added, “is not to roll over.”

Did the government roll over with AY?

Eminent domain and planning

Asked about the controversial plan for Willets Point, Bagli turned his musings back to Atlantic Yards. Some people had lived on the AY footprint for years, but, just as the neighborhood “is coming into its own, they’re told to move. Where’s the equity? I’m not saying it’s wrong or right, but it’s a real issue.”

Yaro cautioned that urban renewal and eminent domain are “blunt instruments.” He pointed out that, in Japan and Korea, the practice of “land readjustment” makes current landowners shareholders in joint ventures. The increase in floor area ratio, he said, makes the current owners “all millionaires.”

Yaro cautioned that, to accommodate new waves of New Yorkers, the city will have to take “some extraordinary effort” to infill and redevelop sites.

While Yaro wasn’t recommending “land readjustment” explicitly, Schick expressed concern: “I’m not sure it’s realistic to say if we invited the displaced to become joint-venture participants our problems would go away.”

“I’ll take you to Japan,” Yaro riposted.

Asked if the area’s infrastructure investments were behind the curve, Schick said that “it all comes back to smart planning. If you’re not planning for the long-term but responding to a developer’s short-term demands, the state is not necessarily going to be making the wisest choices.”

Was Atlantic Yards long-term planning?

"Predatory equity"

In his final statement, Bagli wisely and poignantly pointed to a peculiar inflection point in the real estate market. “We’ve had a wave of gentrification, but I think there’s something profound going on we have to think about,” he said, noting how international investors in private equity firms are buying “meat and potatoes” rent-regulated buildings in working-class neighborhoods like the South Bronx and East New York. (Some call the firms "predatory equity.")

“Something big is going on,” he said. “They believe there’s going to be a complete withering away of rent regulation. Those neighborhoods are going to change. What kind of a city is it we’re going to have in the future, if those private equity firms are right?”

The answer, he suggested, may be “the European model” of cities like Paris, in which the city center is the home of the well-off, with the poor and working-class relegated to unsavory suburbs. It was a sobering thought for an evening that began with a cocktail hour.

Decoding the Daily News's belated story about Brooklyn Tech and AY

Seventeen months ago, after approval of the Atlantic Yards project in December 2006, the Daily News massively overhyped--with the headline "Nets go High Tech: Ratner throws in new home for elite Brooklyn HS in arena deal"--a vague plan by Forest City Ratner to "work with the City, State and the United Federation of Teachers on the creation of a new 21st Century Brooklyn Tech High School, at a yet to be determined location in the borough."

There was no promised new home, and it certainly wasn't guaranteed to be Atlantic Yards. In April 2007, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle shot down any such plans, saying that influential alumni were opposed to the idea of leaving the largest high school in the country--prime potential real estate--and that the Department of Education had no plans to move.

Now they tell us

The Daily News should've responded immediately. Instead, more than a year later, we get a story today, disingenuously headlined Brooklyn Tech building not slated for Atlantic Yards. The article states:
A new building for Brooklyn Technical High School won't be part of the controversial Atlantic Yards project, city officials said.

"There's no such plan," said Mike Weiss, chairman of the Fort Greene school's alumni foundation. "Nobody's working on anything like that."

Developer Bruce Ratner had agreed to work with the city, state and teachers union officials, after the project won key state approval in December 2006, to include a new building for the specialized high school.

That's false. The plan was for a "yet to be determined location."

Where's UFT?

The article quotes Department of Education officials reps as saying the plan never got off the ground, and offered this telling detail:
United Federation of Teachers officials did not return calls seeking comment.

UFT head Randi Weingarten has been a prominent supporter of Atlantic Yards. She should at least explain how this all came about.

Another school at AY, but much smaller

Today's article misleadingly suggests that Forest City Ratner, in its agreement to provide space for a school at Atlantic Yards, might have been able to accommodate Brooklyn Tech:
As part of another agreement, the Memo of Environmental Commitments, Ratner also agreed to provide space for a kindergarten-to-eighth-grade school.

"If Brooklyn Tech is not interested, a space will be provided for a school, regardless," said Forest City Ratner spokesman Joe DePlasco.

The city has until 2010 to ask the developer to set aside space for that school. City officials said it could potentially be part of the capital plan due out in November.

The school at Atlantic Yards would be 100,000 square feet. Brooklyn Tech has 600,000 square feet. DePlasco is up to his old tricks. The Daily News should've included that context.

More evidence about AY as a developer-driven project

More than a year ago, on 2/27/07, I wrote about how, despite claims by Forest City Ratner's lawyers that the developer did not conceive of Atlantic Yards, evidence suggested otherwise.

Let's look at two pieces of additional evidence, which seem to contradict each other. When the project was announced, a 12/11/03 New York Times article, headlined A Grand Plan in Brooklyn For the Nets' Arena Complex, reported:
Mr. [Bruce] Ratner said his effort began after [Borough President] Mr. [Marty] Markowitz called urging him to buy the Nets and move the team to Brooklyn.

The implication is that only upon the sale of the Nets did Ratner begin to consider development at the railyards.

"Next great site in Brooklyn"

But consider some more evidence of a developer-driven project. It's from a 9/9/05 Q2 2005 Forest City Enterprises, Inc. Earnings Conference Call (for sale) that representatives of parent Forest City Enterprises (FCE) had with investment analysts.

Chuck Ratner, CEO of FCE, said:
I will confess that it was less than two or three years ago we were sitting around in New York wondering where the next deals were going to come from. We had finished a whole bunch of office and we completed MetroTech and we didn't have the next great site in Brooklyn. That was one of the reasons we got so aggressive and creative, Bruce and his team did in this Atlantic Yards project. We saw that land sitting there for this last 10 years, realizing it would be a great opportunity if somebody could turn it on. We hope we've found a way to do that.

AY appeal

That sequence may be relevant to the pending appeal of the AY eminent domain case at the Supreme Court. (The court is still awaiting briefs on whether to even accept the case for consideration.)

In a decision issued 2/1/08, a federal appeals court waved away the plaintiffs' argument that, unlike in the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision (which upheld eminent domain for economic development rather than addressing the broader justifications cited in the AY case), Atlantic Yards was proposed by the developer rather than the result of a response to an RFP.

The court stated: However, here, New York long ago decided by statute not to restrict the ESDC’s [Empire State Development Corporation] mandate to those “projects in which it is the prime mover.”

That's true, as I pointed out, but the court didn't address Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s observation in his nonbinding Kelo concurrence that the case was legitimized by “the 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.”

Both those conditions were absent in the Atlantic Yards sequence. Whether the Supreme Court considers them significant we should know within a few months.

Launch of Nets' suite sales met with partial shrug

While the New Jersey Nets and Forest City Ratner put a lot of effort (Tiffany key chain!) into launching the sale of suites in the yet-unbuilt (heck, ground has not been broken) Barclays Center last Thursday, the media responded with what must be considered a partial shrug. The Barclays Center web site (right) touts articles from the Bergen Record, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New York Times, but that Times article--as I failed to point out in commentary last week--appeared only online.

The media roundup includes several blog posts and coverage on WNYC radio, but the tabloids--which previewed the announcement in March--didn't cover the event. I think that's a recognition that the story, for now, didn't deserve more attention.

Of course, the entire announcement should've been treated with more skepticism--I read the locution about opening "in calendar year 2010" as allowing for a lot of wiggle room. (There were some skeptics on the NetsDaily blog.)

And, if Atlantic Yards stalls further, we'll see if NoLandGrab's Eric McClure was right in his Shakespearian observation of the Nets' CEO:
NLG: Alas, poor [Brett] Yormark. He and his Nets and Forest City Ratner cronies doth protest too much, we thinks, when it comes to the unrelenting efforts to dispel the inconvenient Nets-to-Newark rumors.

ESDC in disarray, says NYT; AY "not a done deal," says Barron

In a news analysis today, headlined State Development Agency Buffeted by Slowing Economy and Internal Rifts, the New York Times reports that the agency in charge of Atlantic Yards is in trouble. The article, however, doesn't give us any new clues about the state's posture toward the project.

The article states:
For more than a year, the state’s main economic development agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, has been in disarray, plagued by turf battles, poor management and the political collapse of Gov. Eliot Spitzer, business leaders and state officials say.

...Now with the economy slowing, credit markets tightening and tax revenues shrinking, the agency must make some hard decisions about its priorities. But at this important juncture, it remains rudderless.

...Moreover, the governor has sent conflicting messages, preaching fiscal austerity while suggesting that the state can move forward on a host of costly projects, including the Second Avenue subway, the extension of the No. 7 line, the $14 billion redevelopment of the West Side railyards, the $14 billion Penn Station project and the $4 billion Atlantic Yards basketball arena and residential complex in Brooklyn.

A senior adviser to [Gov. David] Paterson rejected the idea that the administration had sent mixed messages, saying the governor would not commit to projects that the state cannot afford.

What does that mean for Atlantic Yards? It's unclear. Paterson has expressed his support for the project, which likely requires less state funding than some of the other projects, and he left it out of a major speech on development last month.

The Assembly on Friday will hold a major hearing on the progress of several development projects on Manhattan's West Side. Perhaps some clues about AY will emerge then.

Barron on AY

The annual convention of FUREE (Families United for Racial and Economic Equality), held Saturday at P.S. 67 in Fort Greene, concerned such issues as gentrification in Downtown Brooklyn/Fort Greene and regulations regarding child care providers, but Atlantic Yards was on the mind of one invited guest.

City Council Member Charles Barron, a candidate for Brooklyn Borough President and a champion of the poor, got his own slot on the dais, preceding a panel featuring four elected officials who represent the immediate neighborhood. The one-time Black Panther began with a call and response, first “Black Power,” then “Latino Power.”

Then he declared, “Atlantic Yards is not a done deal.” The statement generated a moderate amount of applause, even though AY was not on the agenda. “We’ve got a whole new [city] administration coming in 2009." Some 150-200 people were in the audience at the time.

Barron prefaced his AY comment by allowing that City Council Member Letitia James might have said it first. She hadn’t spoken yet, and during her time at the microphone, she didn’t mention AY, though she did acknowledge a couple of members of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn in the audience.

"More with less"

Barron suggested there were better uses for city money than “$100 million to [Atlantic Yards developer Bruce] Ratner” or “$100 million to the Yankees.” (Actually, both figures would be greater, with $205 million in direct city spending for AY.)

Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Barron said, “says we have to do 'more with less.' Tell [Yankees owner George] Steinbrenner to do more with less. Tell Ratner to do more with less.”

Bloomberg's quote came in a May 6 press release regarding salary increases for employees at human service providers.

(I'll have a longer report on the FUREE convention published later in the week in the Brooklyn Downtown Star and on this blog.)

AY's "modern blueprint" and today's reality

Remember this article?

The article did acknowledge opposing views:

But it came to a conclusion:


The full article. My critique (and another).

Yes, Forest City Ratner was successful in gaining approval for the project. However, the expected results, and benefits, seem to be out of the control of those who approved it. And we know a little more about how to "nourish" and "harvest" community backing.

It doesn't look like as much of a modern blueprint now, especially since Forest City Ratner, post-approval, wants supporters to "reach out" to public officials.

Suites go on sale, timing unquestioned, ticket prices rise, parking prized

A revamped Barclays Center web site with renderings of luxury suites for the Barclays Center emerged yesterday in tandem with the first effort to sell such suites.

The news coverage could've used more skepticism. The New York Times, unwilling to grapple with the developer's dubious claims about timing, suggested, Construction on the arena is expected to start later this year, assuming that financing being arranged by Goldman Sachs has been completed.

However, that financing depends on the resolution of three pending lawsuits (and possibly more), as even the Times has acknowledged. After all, Forest City Ratner official Andrew Silberfein submitted an affidavit in the case challenging the AY environmental review saying that "there is a serious question as to whether, given the current state of the debt market, the underwriters will be able to proceed with the financing for the arena while the appeal is pending before this Court."

Interestingly, a lawyer for groups challenging the environmental review noted that a threat was not dispositive, and that the bond market should "price the risk accordingly." Still, I'd bet there's no construction until the lawsuits are cleared, and it's likely such suits will linger well into next year.

(Above, a rendering of the showroom at the New York Times building)

"Precipice of failure"?

The sale of suites is part of a strategy to raise funds for the project and also shift public opinion. Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, in a press release, contended that the project is "on the precipice of failure." Yes, the credit market is in crisis and lawsuits remain pending. Yes, construction costs are rising. Yes, the arena would be the most expensive in the country by far.

But that still doesn't mean the developer, assuming the lawsuits are ultimately cleared, couldn't "securitize" the naming rights and sponsorship income to back arena bonds. And the lack of $1.4 billion in affordable housing financing, needed to build AY as approved, wouldn't cripple the project, given that Forest City Ratner now has 12 years after the close of litigation and the delivery of property via eminent domain to build just 1.5 million square feet--less than 1000 apartments, assuming 650,000 square feet of office space. It's quite possible some affordable housing financing would be made available over that lengthy time period.

And while political opinion has shifted somewhat--critical supporters like Council Members Bill de Blasio and David Yassky have become more critical--it's not yet a major shift, given that Gov. David Paterson says he supports the project.

Ticket prices going up

The FAQ included a question about ticket prices:
Q. Will the ticket prices remain the same in Brooklyn?
A. While prices have yet to be determined, they will remain comparable and competitive within the marketplace.

Remember, thanks significantly to high-priced suites, the “blended average ticket price” for Nets games would go up dramatically, 73% for regular-season games and 64% for playoff games, I reported last July.

The leap: from $74.98 to $129.72 for regular and preseason games, and from $90.71 to $149.18 for playoff games. The projections surfaced in a document provided by developer Forest City Ratner and unearthed by the lawsuit filed by Assemblyman Jim Brennan and State Senator Velmanette Montgomery. It assumed a move in 2009; prices inevitably would go up.

The price of most tickets likely wouldn't rise as sharply as the "blended average"--which would be distorted by the increase in suites from 29 to 130--but we should get a better sense of what "comparable and competitive" means.

Parking

Another element of the FAQ addressed parking:
Q. Where will I park as a Suiteholder at the Barclays Center?
A. You will have a reserved spot within a one to two block radius from the premium entrance. Important to note that our parent company controls parking both on the Arena site and surrounding areas that will enable us to deliver the most convenient parking access possible to our suite customers.

Remember, one of the rationales for this arena is that it would be at a major transit hub. But the rich aren't expected to take public transit, apparently.

"Street to seat brand domination" absent from AY renderings

The Sports Business Journal article published Monday on six founding partners for the planned Barclays Center arena said the Nets promise “street to seat brand domination.”
“We’ll have very little static signage,” [Nets CEO Brett] Yormark said. “From the street or subway to the marquee and inside the bowl, only one brand will be visible at a time. The marketers we are talking to want fewer relationships that are more dominant. [Building architect] Frank Gehry did not want to overcommercialize this building, but he wanted to provide ownership for those brands that want to get involved.”

Also, there will be a “construction activation platform” with signage, countdown clocks and other media in which partners will be identified.

However, the new renderings (above) produced by Gehry show no commercial signage (nor "construction activitation platform"), even though signs could be 150 feet high and 75 feet wide. Also, Gehry once wanted to make sure that arena signage had a social function, used for art and community purposes, but that has fallen by the wayside. And the developer has pledged that signage would be relegated to games, a promise that deserves further scrutiny.

(Above, a rendering released yesterday with the relaunch of the Barclays Center web site suggested some signage. It also is marked "EmblemHealth Entrance" after an existing and promised sponsor.)

More from the state's reports

Renderings in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement didn't show much signage, but at least they showed more than the developer has produced. (There's no signage in either the 2006 Image Gallery or the 2008 Image Gallery on the official Atlantic Yards web site.) The graphic at right by BrooklynSpeaks is adapted from two separate renderings in the Atlantic Yards Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). As with the graphic below from the FEIS, it's tough to get a sense of the scale from ground level, but we can assume that the signage would be a lot more noticeable to someone walking or driving by.

The disconnect between planned signage and proferred renderings is another example of what New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff called a "distorted picture of reality" that "stifles what is supposed to be an open, democratic process."

What Gehry wanted

If Gehry "did not want to overcommercialize" the arena" but "wanted to provide ownership" for involved brands, what does that mean?

On the 4/10/06 Charlie Rose show on PBS, Gehry described the arena exterior during an interview conducted by Ouroussoff:
So it's not there sometimes and it's there sometimes. There's a little bit of it, and there's more of it. And it can be used for community issues, as well as advertising. It has a social function, if it's played right, it can be used for art... How do you make that--everybody's getting it, whether they like it or not, it's all over us.

A 5/13/06 Daily News article stated:
Don't expect flashy neon signs at the proposed Nets arena in Brooklyn.
Instead, developer Bruce Ratner plans to project images directly onto the glass building during games - but turn them off at other times to help it blend in with the surrounding area.

That's not ruled out by the currently announced plans, nor does it rule out a "construction activation platform." After all, there are billboards and signs along Flatbush and Atlantic avenues. But we should get a chance to see what an honest rendering of the current plans, not the distorted reality we get from Gehry's latest images.

Indeed, the first distortion is in presenting the arena block intact, even though the developer plans to open only one tower along with the arena. The new rendering at right shows a Dean Street entrance between two buildings. It's distorted reality.

Barclays Center to open December 31, 2010?

Nets CEO Brett Yormark said in Sports Business Journal this week that the Barclays Center would open in time for the 2010-11 basketball season, meaning October. But today's Forest City Ratner press release about the sale of luxury suites suggests that Yormark and the developer are further hedging their bets.

The statement:
“The opening of the Barclays Center Showroom is another significant step towards bringing a world-class arena and major sports team to Brooklyn,” said Brett Yormark, president and CEO of Nets Sports and Entertainment. “The Showroom will be a snapshot for what suite and premium season ticket holders can expect to experience at the Barclays Center when it opens in calendar year 2010."
(Emphasis added)

So if Forest City Ratner wants to conform to the letter--if not the spirit--of its pledge, it will have to open the building once in 2010. I'm predicting New Year's Eve.

(WNYC reported that The Nets are guaranteeing that the arena will open in the fall of 2010. I couldn't find any guarantee on the project web site.)

A tight timetable

A 2010 opening is unlikely, and representatives of the Nets and the developer have consistently changed their stories. (Note the weasel word "anticipate" in describing the expected opening date.)

As I've pointed out, it's supposed to take three years to reconstruct the Carlton Avenue and Sixth Avenue bridges, which means a likely best-case scenario is January 2011, assuming lawsuits are dismissed.

The Carlton Avenue bridge closed January 23 and is supposed to take two years to reconstruct. The Sixth Avenue bridge is supposed to take a year. They can't be closed simultaneously.

Could the arena open with the latter, adjacent to the arena block, still under reconstruction? Empire State Development Corporation spokesman A.J. Carter told me last November, "Forest City Ratner tells us that while the arena might be able to open without the bridge in operation, the goal is to have the bridge open in coordination with the arena's opening."

But the arena could surely open once, on a day with less traffic.

More pledges

The Barclays Center, according to the official web site, is Planned to open in downtown Brooklyn for the 2010 calendar year.

Alternatively, the site says, The Nets plan to tip-off their 2010 calendar year in their new home in Brooklyn – the Barclays Center.

It also states, The Nets anticipate that the Barclays Center will be completed in 2010.

Brodsky calls for "time out" on West Side projects; hearing next Friday

A powerful Assemblyman is calling for a "time out" on a major development, but it's not Atlantic Yards, focus of a recent "time out" rally. And that Assemblyman, Richard Brodsky, while calling for a timetable and cost-benefit analysis for megaprojects in the state, said that the focus of an Assembly committee's first hearing next week will be limited to projects on Manhattan's West Side.

The New York Times, in an article Wednesday headlined City Revisits Old Bidders After Railyards Deal Fails, reported:
Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky and other critics, however, say that the authority should wait for the economy to improve, while working with a master plan to coordinate all the activity on the West Side. “These deals are breaking down because the governance system for authorities doesn’t work and because the public subsidies are out of control,” said Mr. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester. “We need a time out before this disaster repeats itself everywhere else.”

Discussion at MAS

The issue of what to do with the West Side--and, by extension, other megaprojects--came up at a panel discussion on the fate of Moynihan Station held Tuesday at the Municipal Art Society (MAS).

"The era of the grand Power Point presentation and numbers that appear to show the impossible is possible--I think that era is over," said moderator Charles Bagli, who covers real estate and development for the New York Times.

He was talking about the West Side, but the comments could be applied to Forest City Ratner's May 2005 Power Point presentation to the New York City Council and to the developer's overblown claim of 10,000 office jobs.

Bagli also essentially reprised his comment on the 3/27/08 Leonard Lopate Show, "I think both the city and the state are going to have to sort of open up a M*A*S*H tent and start doing triage."

In this case, he pointed to not only Moynihan Station, but the fate of the Javits Convention Center, the extension of the #7 subway, and "whatever's going to happen at the [West Side] railyards."

Competition and the role of developers

Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, pointed out that, beyond projects competing on the West Side, Lower Manhattan needs significant support, there's a $17 billion Metropolitan Transportation Authority deficit, and a "five borough strategy" needs to be pursued.

Daniel Biederman, president, 34th Street Partnership, suggested that only developers had the savvy and incentive to get projects like Moynihan Station moving, given that elected officials have a time horizon that spans four years at best. MAS President Kent Barwick disagreed. Much of the city's infrastructure, he said, has been built during economic downturns. "We have fallen into this trap, that we are going to get something for nothing."

"They're skillful developers," Barwick allowed of Steven Roth of Vornado Realty Trust and Stephen M. Ross of the Related Companies, the two developers Biederman hailed, "but their time span and focus of attention cannot be 75 or 100 or 150 years. Infrastructure has to be built without a return."

Brodsky on authorities & "distorting" subsidies

Brodsky, who has long criticized unelected authorities like the Empire State Development Corporation, pointed again to a problem in the city and state, that projects are "controlled by authorities, run by hired guns who are accountable to nobody."

"Developers have learned the fight is about the subsidies," he said. "That distorting element is so powerful we don't know how much to give, what is proper." That, he said, makes it hard to assess "what exactly is the public good."

Though generally a critic of authorities, Brodsky has proposed that a new state authority buy the railyards from the MTA, develop a master plan, and seek multiple developers for individual parcels.

The Newark option

Bagli asked Brodsky about the fate of the city's convention center. "It's going to end up in Newark, that's my guess," Brodsky said, allowing that the Sunnyside Yards in Queens remains an "attractive option."

"I'm not convinced we can't get 85% of the benefit" of a convention center in Newark, he added. It was an interesting acknowledgement of the continued importance of seeing New York as a metropolitan region.

Hearing on May 23

Brodsky last month announced a bill that would require the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to report within 45 days on the status of several megaprojects, including Atlantic Yards and said the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, which he chairs, would hold a public hearing on the issue.

On Tuesday he said that the first hearing, on May 23, would cover only projects on Manhattan's West Side. It will be held at 10 a.m. at 250 Broadway, the location for many such hearings. A hearing notice should be posted shortly.

"I'm getting my arms around what I can get my arms around," he told me, suggesting that inclusion of projects like Willets Point and Atlantic Yards would make the hearing too unwieldy.

Will there be a follow-up hearing on other projects? He said he wasn't sure.

So, who's #77 on the Observer's 100 most powerful people in NY real estate list?

According to the New York Observer's quite arbitrary list of the 100 Most Powerful People in New York Real Estate, Bruce Ratner is #8, Frank Gehry is #51, and I am number #77.

While the listing is flattering, I can't say they have me convinced. For example, Charles Bagli, the veteran real estate/development reporter for the New York Times--and formerly at the Observer--does not appear on the list and he's way more powerful than I am. (Despite my criticisms of his AY coverage, he's a very able reporter.) And I am not more powerful than Nicolai Ouroussoff, the Times's architecture critic, at #85, nor Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, chair of the Assembly's Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, at #89; he has the power to grill public officials. And where's Julia Vitullo-Martin of the Manhattan Institute, a savvy and provocative commentator?

Among those deserving but absent from the list are two not so well-known but very important officials responsible for affordable housing financing, Marc Jahr, president of the New York City Housing Development Corporation and Priscilla Almodovar, president and CEO of the New York State Housing Finance Agency and affiliated agencies. Also absent but deserving is Bertha Lewis, executive director of New York ACORN, the activist group that, among other things, signed the AY affordable housing agreement. (There were only two African-Americans on the list of 100; Lewis would've been a third.)

Jahr and Almodovar especially fit into the Observer's "finance-centric criterion":
Power in New York City real estate means money—its acquisition, spending and creation—especially now, as the market enters a tremulous sunset after several bright, shiny years.

Then again, if the ranking will help me get some phone calls and e-mails returned, maybe I shouldn't complain. And I am probably the only person on the list who's moonlighting.

Others on the list

Mayor Mike Bloomberg is #2, Amanda Burden, chairperson of the City Planning Commission, is #5, and Governor David Paterson #13. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is #22, while Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), is #31. Gary Barnett of Extell Development, the only other bidder for the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard (18 months after Forest City Ratner was anointed), is #32.

Shaun Donovan, Commissioner of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, is #40. Tino Hernandez, Chairman of the New York City Housing Authority, is #41. Robert B. Tierney, Chairman of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, is #44.

Avi Schick, Acting President and CEO of the Empire State Development Corporation, is #61. Ed Ott, Executive Director of the New York City Central Labor Council, is #70. Bill Goss, Real Estate Editor of The New York Times, is #75.

Lobbyist Richard Lipsky is #80. (See Lipsky's comment on my "vendetta" and my response.) Marvin Markus, Chairman of the Rent Guidelines Board, is #86. Andrew Berman, Executive Director, Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, is #88. Lockhart Steele, Publisher of Curbed Network, is #91. Joseph Sitt, Principal, Thor Equities, is #93. Joe Chan, President of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, is #94. City Council Member David Yassky is #99.

The Observer on Ratner

8

Bruce Ratner

Chairman of Forest City Ratner Companies

The leader of what is perhaps New York’s most high-profile development, the controversy magnet Atlantic Yards, Bruce Ratner is one of the most active developers in the city, often pursuing large, publicly administered projects. He’s recently taken a liking to famous architects, ensuring that his developments leave a notable impression on the skyline.

The Observer on Gehry

51

Frank Gehry

Owner of Gehry Partners LLP

If Bruce Ratner is right, and his 16-skyscraper-and-arena Atlantic Yards project comes to fruition, Mr. Gehry, its designer, will alter Brooklyn’s aesthetic as we know it. If, however, it continues to stumble … Well, just ask the Municipal Arts Society, which recently put out some ugly renderings to that effect.

The Observer on AYR

77

Norman Oder

Journalist/Blogger, Atlantic Yards Report

The Park Slope-based Norman Oder runs a one-man, one-topic journalistic operation that brings a constant stream of mostly critical articles on Atlantic Yards. His presence appears to have propelled attention and criticism of the project now 17 months since approval.

An open letter to NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt about the paper's curious AY silence

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

If you read other newspapers in New York, you would’ve noticed that there was a lot of Atlantic Yards-related news last week. If you followed the story online, you would’ve learned even more.

That’s why any consumer of media in New York should be disappointed by the New York Times’s failure to publish a word about Atlantic Yards in the past week. Not only is it a major story for the city and region, the Times, given the parent New York Times Company’s business relationship with developer Forest City Ratner, developing the new Times Tower, has a special obligation to be exacting in its coverage.

(Here's my report on the Times's poor coverage, as of 9/1/05, and here's a summary of some lapses last year. I can point to much more, such as overplaying a token scaleback, failing to show the scale of the plan, and extensive rowback.)

March liftoff

Let me recap. On March 21, the Times, in a front-page story—and the lead in the local edition—reported on a stall in the project, with Phase 2 delayed indefinitely. There had been a widespread sense that the project was delayed, after a legal filing in January, but the Times’s article put the issue on the map. (The Times failed to point out that the $950 million arena price tag was a 50% leap.) A few days later, Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff, who’d previously written columns about the project ranging from enthusiastic to partly-supportive, wrote a strongly-worded essay urging architect Frank Gehry to walk away.

A month later, Ouroussoff published an essay in the Sunday Arts & Leisure section pointing out how architectural renderings can lie. His example was the Hudson Yards project; in my critique, I pointed out how his criticisms could be applied equally to Atlantic Yards renderings and this week followed up by noting how the arena in the rendering at top couldn't gain its full metal skin until the towers around it are completed.

I broke news about how Chuck Ratner, an executive with Forest City Enterprises, told investment analysts, with satisfaction, that the developer had managed to get another $105 million in city funding to support the project, but “we still need more.” (Maybe that’s why Forest City Ratner in January broke a pattern and gave $58,420 to the New York State Democratic Assembly Campain Committee's Housekeeping account, a story the dailies have missed.)

New funding agreements

More information has emerged, however, since the Times’s March 21 news story. For example, on my blog March 24, I broke the news that the State Funding Agreement gave developer Forest City Ratner 6+ years to build the arena and 12+ years to build Phase 1, with no timetable for Phase 2, even though the Empire State Development Corporation, in approving the project, said it was “anticipated” to take a decade. On April 30, I broke the news that the City Funding Agreement allows the developer to build only 1.5 million square feet—not 2.7 million square feet, in the approval documents—to avoid a penalty. The agreement revealed that the funds used for seemingly-generous buyouts (right) by the developer come from the public.

The Newark Star-Ledger reported and editorialized on new moves to keep the Nets in New Jersey and move them to the recently-opened Prudential Center in Newark Subsequently, a lawyer for tenants in the project footprint filed a lawsuit saying the revised timetable violates the Eminent Domain Procedure Law—and the Times covered this relatively minor story.

A rally and more

Then came the flurry of news. First, on Saturday, May 3, opponents and critics held a planned rally calling for Gov. David Paterson to declared a “Time Out” on the plan. The same day, Forest City Ratner and allies organized (but did not announce) a counter-protest, bringing at least 50% more people to shout “Build It Now.”

The next morning, May 4, the Daily News published an exclusive op-ed by Forest City Ratner CEO Bruce Ratner, declaring that the project was moving full speed ahead, more or less, though an anchor tenant for the office tower was still being sought. As I wrote, the single strongest reason for skepticism is Ratner's statement that "We anticipate finishing all of Atlantic Yards by 2018." After all, executive Chuck Ratner of parent Forest City Enterprises told investment analysts last year, "As you know, in our business, these things take a very long time, most often, frankly, longer than we anticipate."

New renderings

The next morning, May 5, the Daily News got an exclusive, publishing new renderings of the arena block (top)—well at least a new arena, one new residential tower, and the office tower, no longer called “Miss Brooklyn.” The developer claimed that the tower had been renamed B1; actually, it’s always been B1 in the scheme of the project. The New York Post published its own exclusive, renderings of the project’s empty lots, produced by the Municipal Art Society.

That day, the developer issued a press release and new renderings to all. (I pointed out how one building, at Site 5, seemed to be missing.) The Municipal Art Society also distributed its renderings and established a new web site, Atlantic Lots.

The Times's failure to report any of this is inconsistent with its previous coverage. The Times published three previous stories based on Atlantic Yards renderings. The 12/11/03 article came after a press conference. The 7/5/05 article was an exclusive. The 5/11/06 article also came after a press conference.

Just because the Daily News got the exclusive this time doesn't mean the Times should ignore it. As your predecessor, Byron Calame, wrote in a 3/11/07 column, "The reality is that when significant news breaks — even in the form of an exclusive in a competing publication — The Times must be committed to getting on the story. Anything less seriously damages the paper’s value to readers."

What's missing

Even if the Times missed the breaking news, it could've advanced the story, or at least covered the meta-story. WNYC broke news by reporting that the arena’s green roof, a selling point for the design, had been jettisoned, and reporter Matthew Schuerman—who had covered the Atlantic Yards story while at the New York Observer—even ventured an analysis, suggesting that the timing was geared to the May 15 effort to sell luxury suites. (That luxury suite showroom, by the way, will be in the Times Tower.)

The New York Sun, generally shorthanded, also missed the story, but in its sports pages wrote thoughtfully about the challenges in moving the Nets to Newark. On Friday, the Sun’s architecture critic published his own critique. The Times’s Ouroussoff hasn’t weighed in.

Disserving the readers

Let's give the Times the benefit of the doubt for a moment. Sure, its Brooklyn desk is small and its main real estate and development reporter has a lot to handle. Yes, other newspapers got exclusives. However, the Times today assigned four reporters to a story about a television anchorwoman inadvertently cursing. Meanwhile, the Times’s readers are disserved when not told informed about a major project involving significant public resources and attempts to sway public opinion.

I wonder if the Times's Sports desk will cover Thursday's effort to sell luxury suites and, if so, will point out how such suites might pay for arena construction and how the timetable has been delayed. The Sports desk has been unskeptical about the developer's timetable claims; even now, after Forest City Ratner has finally claimed 2010 as a target to open the arena, there's strong evidence that's unlikely.

What do you think, Mr. Hoyt?

In Yonkers, the feds investigate aspects of Ratner's Ridge Hill deal

What critics consider a sweetheart deal regarding Atlantic Yards hasn't provoked investigation into any wrongdoing. It was presented as a fait accompli fast tracked by the Empire State Development Corporation, rather than debated in public by local officials. In Yonkers, however, the curious twists and turns of Forest City Ratner's $630 million, 1000-apartment, 81-acre Ridge Hill project (above) have generated a federal investigation.

A New York Times article May 5, headlined U.S. Investigates Yonkers Development After Official’s Surprising ‘Yes’ Vote, described how Yonkers City Council Member Sandy Annabi once pronounced that developer Forest City Ratner was “probably richer than God” and was “robbing the city blind,” and served as the lead plaintiff in a 2005 lawsuit objecting to the city's approval process--but then did an about-face in 2006, providing "the crucial fifth vote" on the project.

Now, reported the Times, federal prosecutors are investigating the development deal and leaning toward indicting Ms. Annabi, a 37-year-old Democrat, on corruption charges or other misconduct, according to a person involved in the investigation.

The feds are investigating not just Ridge Hill but other city decisions and deals, and perhaps others in Westchester County, including Zehy Jereis, the former Republican Party chairman in Yonkers and former FCR lobbyist Albert J. Pirro Jr., estranged husband of the county's former district attorney and a lawyer who saw his license suspended after committing tax fraud. (It's been reinstated.)

Annabi's lawyer said she's clean. A spokesman for Forest City Ratner said they're cooperating. Pirro told WNBC:
"I have absolutely no reason to believe that I am a target of any investigation since I had absolutely nothing to do with the vote," he said. "I had not worked on the aspect of the project that had to do with the Yonkers City Council vote after Dec. 31, 2005."

Benefits and process

The Times reports:
Promoters say it will create 4,000 permanent jobs and generate some $20 million a year in property, sales and income tax revenues for Yonkers. But from the start, some questioned the way the project was fast-tracked.

The same questions have been raised about AY.

Vote justification

The Times reported:
In a news release at the time of her vote switch, Ms. Annabi cited 11th-hour negotiations with Ratner over property taxes, in which she said she was able to wring out millions of additional dollars. Later, it became clear that some of the promised riches had little chance of being paid because of fine print in contracts that Ms. Annabi said she never saw.

Well, many of the riches projected by Atlantic Yards backers were vastly overstated, given flaws in the cost-benefit analysis, increased public costs, and delays in the project.

Payoffs possible?

The Times hinted that there might be payoffs:
People involved in the inquiry said that the authorities had expressed curiosity about how she could afford multiple mortgages and drive a white Mercedes convertible on her hospital salary and the $41,000 she earns as a council member. One person interviewed, who insisted on anonymity to avoid angering prosecutors, said that the first question the assistant United States attorney, Perry Carbone, asked him last month was, “Where does Sandy Annabi live?”

Annabi faces possible indictment on mortgage fraud charges, the Journal News reported May 8.

Ratner tactics

The Journal News on May 6, in an article headlined Forest City Ratner lobbying campaign for Ridge Hill detailed, reported some additional details:
The outcome of that night's vote in 2006 on Ridge Hill seemed a foregone conclusion: The zone change required for the disputed $630 million complex already had the support of a fifth member of the City Council needed for its approval.

That made the call from then-Republican Party Chairman Zehy Jereis, offering a meeting with the developer on the afternoon of July 11, so unusual, Councilman John Murtagh, one of two holdouts, recalled yesterday.

One month earlier, Sandy Annabi, an opponent of the plan, had announced she would support the development when Forest City Ratner agreed to make an additional $10 million in payments to Yonkers over three years.

"They spent the better part of an hour - primarily Zehy - trying to convince me that I should vote in favor of the project because Sandy was going to vote for it. (They said) 'It's going to pass anyhow,' so I should get on board," Murtagh recalled of the previously unreported meeting, which also included Forest City Executive Vice President Bruce Bender. "I thought it was strange."

Strange on multiple fronts, said Murtagh, R-5th District: The developer did not propose anything new to make the plan more palatable; Murtagh previously had sued to overturn an earlier approval of the project; and his vote was no longer needed.

FCR, the newspaper reported, would not talk about or confirm the meeting. So much for, as DDDB likes to point out, the developer's not-so-reliable pledge of sharing information with the public and governmental bodies.

Murtagh also told the newspaper he'd been to three Ridge Hill-related meetings with Pirro in 2005 and in 2006. (Remember, Pirro said he was not involved after 2005--or maybe that careful statement allows for such meetings.) At the second and third meetings were other Forest City Ratner representatives. The article stated:
Typically the meetings amounted to Pirro asking the council members about their concerns and what would be needed for them to support the project, he said.

"The one thing I can tell you is I didn't see anything that they discussed that was going to change my vote," Murtagh said, "but I can tell you I didn't see anything untoward."

A lobbyist involved?

The Journal News reported May 10 that prosecutors have issued a grand jury subpoena to Assemblyman Michael Spano:
After he left the Assembly in 2004, Spano worked for the Patricia Lynch Associates lobbying firm, which has Forest City Ratner as a client. He said he was asked in 2005, because of his knowledge of Yonkers, to speak to city officials to gauge their views and objections to the project. He said he spoke to council members Annabi, Dee Barbato and John Murtagh.

His dealings were "strictly informational," he said. He did not lobby them, he said, but just relayed the information to his firm.

"No one at any time did anything inappropriate that I am aware of," Spano said.

When we look at Forest City Ratner's record as number eight in state lobbying in 2007, Ridge Hill has to be part of the equation.

Nets partnership announcements, suites showroom are four months late

Shortly before luxury suites go on sale Thursday, Nets Sports & Entertainment President Brett Yormark (right) has some good news, according to Sports Business Journal:
the team has signed six new founding partners that join previously announced Jones Soda, representing more than $100 million in sponsorship commitments in the new building.

Along with the previously-announced Jones Soda, the others are current Nets sponsors: Anheuser-Busch, Cushman & Wakefield, MGM Grand/Foxwoods, ADT, Emblem Health and Izod, which has naming rights at the Nets’ current arena at the Meadowlands.

Scheduled for January

Last October, Yormark told investors that this was all coming in January. He said the team aims for “14 totally integrated partners, Barclays of which will be the lead.” He added, “And I think in January, we'll be able to announce half of those partnerships that we've been able to come to an agreement on.”

He said the Barclays Center Showroom in the Times Tower should open “some time in January.”

Groundbreaking this year?

Given Yormark's fuzziness on the timetable, we should take with a grain of salt his prediction in Sports Business Journal that the arena groundbreaking would come in the fourth quarter of this year and the arena would open in time for the 2010-11 season.

After all, last September on WFAN he was predicting groundbreaking in a month or two: "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."

"Construction activation platform"

Meanwhile, we apparently get a new term to add to the Atlantic Yards Lexicon: "construction activation platform."

The newspaper reports:
Incremental to the founding partnership fees, many of the new sponsors will support what the Nets are calling a “construction activation platform” with signage, countdown clocks and other media in which partners will be identified.

“We’ll be marketing the heck out of the building even before it is being built,” Yormark said.

Indeed, that's the subject of the article.

AYR briefly on BCAT tonight

I will make a very brief appearance on BCAT's Brooklyn Review show tonight, in the second segment mentioned below. Here's the segment, mostly about the Third & Bond blog on Brownstoner

(That's me interviewed by Brooklyn Review producer Megan Donis, at the 6th Avenue Bridge. In the segment, Donis makes the point I made to her, that the Third & Bond project is far less controversial than AY because it doesn't require any special approvals.)

The blurb:

Brooklyn Review (Brooklyn's Only News Magazine)
Premiere: Monday, May 12 at at 9pm (Time Warner 56/Cablevision 69)
Encore Presentations: Thursday, May 15 at 1pm & 9pm; Friday, May 16 at 3pm & 11pm

On this episode, Brooklyn Review’s team of reporters explores tension between the African American and Jewish communities in Crown Heights; looks at the role real estate and watchdog blogs are playing in Brooklyn development; visits a Bensonhurst high school where students are examining the ethics of war through live interviews with survivors; checks out the Sakura Matsuri cherry blossom festival at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden; and samples the borough’s tastiest foods at the Chamber of Commerce’s annual Brooklyn Eats event.

Also: A Walk Around the Blog segment with Kinetic Carnival introduces us to a Coney Island community garden threatened by big development.

Why luxury suite sales this week are needed to market arena bonds

A counter-protest in response to the "Time Out" rally. An Bruce Ratner op-ed in the New York Daily News. The release of new renderings of the Atlantic Yards arena, office tower, and first residential building.

Let me try to put Forest City Ratner's recent efforts in some perspective. The office tower rendering is aimed to help attract an anchor tenant and get the building started. The rendering of a residential rental tower, with half the units subsidized, is aimed to maintain public support for the project.

But, more than anything else, the developer's efforts are about getting the arena built. That means the public must be convinced it's viable and, crucially, buyers of luxury suites must be recruited. The guarantee of certain suite revenues, I believe, will back bonds for the now-$950 million arena.

(Rendering from New York Post.)

On WNYC

Matthew Schuerman of WNYC, in a report on Tuesday, not only broke news of the arena's missing green roof, but also started making the point about marketing:

The reason behind releasing these images now wasn't so much to grab headlines, although they have, so far. but in order to prep the public and the press for marketing purposes. Forest City Ratner is going to begin marketing its luxury boxes at its arena later this month and wants to attract a company to rent office space in this new building.

Suites on sale

Luxury suites go on sale this Thursday, May 15. Crain's reported that 20% of the 130 suites have been sold to “friends and family,” according to Nets Sports Entertainment CEO Brett Yormark, but the Nets are trying very hard to get others on board.

The Nets actually sent 185 of the city's top CEOs a Tiffany key chain with a key, and one of those keys is to a free suite. And Jay-Z and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz will be there.

Next: arena bonds?

It's a good bet that a quota of suite sales, along with the value of the Barclays Center naming rights agreement and of other, as yet unnamed, partnerships, are part of the package that Forest City Ratner must put together to sell arena bonds. So far, Forest City Ratner has acknowledged that the naming rights agreement "lends itself pretty nicely" to securitization, but hasn't spoken about securitizing suite revenue.

But suite revenue has been part of other arena deals.Consider the 1999 sale of $315 million asset-backed securitization financing for the STAPLES Center in Los Angeles, at that point, the largest-ever financing for a professional sports arena.

The developers announced:
The future revenue streams used for the securitization come from contractually obligated fees from the arena's naming rights, a portion of the luxury suite and premier seat licenses, the concession leases, the ten Founding Partner corporate sponsorships and an exclusive ticket sales agreement with Ticketmaster-California Inc.

Multiple that by three and you've got Brooklyn and a much higher-stakes effort. The road is a bit rockier in Brooklyn, given the presence of some pesky lawsuits and skeptical public officials, not to mention some plausible portraits of an arena that surely won't get its full--or perhaps any--shiny titanium skin until the towers around it are complete.

Will the Tiffany key chain recipients be daunted?

What would an interim arena without titanium look like?

The newly titanium-clad (apparently) Atlantic Yards arena gained critical notice on Friday from New York Sun architecture critic James Gardner, who likened it to other work from Frank Gehry, without pointing out that its first iteration would inevitably look very different:
As for the Barclays Center, it would appear from the renderings to fall somewhere between the performance center in Chicago’s new Millennium Park and the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. The Brooklyn arena promises to be clad in the gleaming titanium that Mr. Gehry has so famously deployed at the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao.... It is less striking and original in design, and therefore less satisfying, than the renderings of B1. The aesthetic of exploding chaos, which is so closely associated with Mr. Gehry’s worldview, surely has its adherents. In practice, however, it tends to fall perilously short of what it promises on paper...

But the real question is: if the arena is the developer's main goal, with only one tower planned to open at the same time (though that depends on financing for affordable housing), could the arena look anything like the rendering?

No.

An arena clad in concrete?

That's why the renderings (right) by the Municipal Art Society (MAS), published in the New York Post and on the Atlantic Lots site, offer some important clues: the arena would just as likely be clad in concrete until it's finished. How could the titanium "sails" be put on only part of the building? And where would the Urban Room be?

We can't be sure. But we can be sure that the new renderings, as New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff recently wrote in another context, produce a "distorted picture of reality."

That's why it's important for Forest City Ratner to produce more accurate renderings, including descriptions of the publicly accessible open space that (its spokesman told the Post) would occupy what the MAS portrays as vacant lots.

What about Design Guidelines?

There's a significant difference between the new arena design (top) and the previous design, with a continuous glass facade (right). I speculated that the change might be attributable to security concerns, given the arena's distance from the street.

Given the extensive Design Guidelines adopted by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) in approving the plan, a reader wondered whether the new arena design would conform to such guidelines, as the General Project Plan (p. 7) seems to require: The buildings and open space will be designed in accordance with the Design Guidelines.

The Design Guidelines (p. 24) require a strip of glass at least 125 feet wide: The street walls of the Arena along Flatbush Avenue and Atlantic Avenue shall include glass elements, including a continuous glazed area with a minimum width of 125 feet and a minimum surface area of 7500 square feet, such glazed area to commence at the height of the Arena concourse level.

I asked ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston if the arena, with a truncated amount of glass, would conform to the Design Guidelines. He said it did.

Because my initial email did not cite the precise dimensions of 125 feet and 7500 square feet, I asked for confirmation. I didn't get a response.

What vision to trust?

If a typical car length is 14 feet, then 125 feet would be about nine car lengths. Does the strip of glass in the rendering at the top encompass nine car lengths? I can't tell.

It is interesting, however, that the Design Guidelines do permit something very much like the current design, rather than impose the transparency that might have previously been assumed.

And it is notable that the current renderings don't tell us whether the arena would meet the current guidelines, nor when exactly in the development process the current renderings might be realized. So we could have some vacant lots instead.

Are AY foes 'real land-grabbers'? The Courier-Life gets "brutally weird"

So, Forest City Ratner helps orchestrate a counter-protest last Saturday and the Courier-Life chain--or, to be specific, reporter Stephen Witt--finds a novel and bizarre angle: it’s all the fault of the people who bought condos in repurposed industrial buildings.

It's "brutally weird."

(For the record, the Courier-Life chain gives its staffers a long leash. The same issue this week contains a completely promotional article in the arts section, headlined "Rocking and rolling against Ratner's Atlantic Yards plan," about a fundraising concert sponsored by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn.)

40,000 jobs in the footprint?

The article on the rally (not online), headlined "Yards foes called ‘real land-grabbers,’" begins:
Anthony Taylor sat on a metal folding chair in the St. Bartholomew's Church cafeteria, 1227 Pacific Street, and recalled the days when several buildings in the Atlantic Yards footprint held jobs, "We lost 40,000 jobs back there. We lost the Daily News building. We lost the bakery, the Chunky factory, the soap factory, the box company. Then these people came from Long Island and now it's all condos. These gentrifiers don't want to replace the jobs they took," said Taylor, president of the Pacific Street Block Association.

Let's first clarify the numbers.

The Daily News printing plant, now the Newswalk condos (cut out of the footprint), had "200-plus pressmen," according to a 4/16/90 issue of New York Newsday. There were also hundreds of drivers, but the Daily News, according to a 10/26/90 New York Newsday article, had 3500 employees total in and around the city, including in its newsroom.

The Pechter Field bakery, operating in the building known as the Ward Bakery, closed in 1995; an 8/20/95 New York Times article reported that 400 were left jobless.

Cities need industrial jobs; one of the provisions of the UNITY plan is to retain mixed-use zoning in the project footprint. But no one was going to put new printing equipment in the Daily News building, since the newspaper was moving to more modern facilities. It took buyer Shaya Boymelgreen "a year and a half just to demo and to take out all the printing machines," he told an interviewer in 2006.

The real land grabbers?

The next paragraph in the Courier-Life article amps up the claim:
"They are the real land grabbers, because they took the property first and turned back what was jobs into condos," chimed in Charlene Nimmons, sitting nearby and a signatory to the Atlantic Yards community benefits agreement (CBA) with developer Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC).

Nimmons is not a neutral observer and, in this case, not a coherent one.

It's not unusual to repurpose former industrial properties as housing. Forest City Enterprises, the parent company of Forest City Ratner, does it all the time; it's called historic preservation and saving embodied energy.

In the Brooklyn, the "they" who "took" property includes Boymelgreen, an ally of Forest City Ratner in a lease dispute with Henry Weinstein, who owns a building in the footprint. Should counter-protestors have be protesting Ratner and Boymelgreen?

How many people?

Note that Witt's article quoted the attendance at the counter-protest at 800, the number announced by Forest City Ratner (whose role in organizing the protest went unmentioned), while it alleged that 200 people attended the main rally, half the number announced by organizers.

My rough estimates were 500 and 300, though those are, I repeat, rough estimates. In Our Time Press (not online), Mary Alice Miller estimated the crowd at the main rally as 400-500 and wrote, "This eyewitness saw, at most 150 union members in the "Built it Now" counter-rally. (She may have been looking later in the afternoon.) Her lengthy account quoted mainly the speakers at the main rally.

Note that Our Time Press, a Bed-Stuy-based newspaper (formerly twice a month, now weekly) aimed at the black community, has published a variety of voices on Atlantic Yards. Miller's piece, as well as co-founder Bernice Elizabeth Green's endorsement in 2006 of Owens for Congress, looked critically at the project. Regular "Commerce and Community" columns by Errol Louis, on the other hand, have cheered Atlantic Yards and harshly criticized opponents.

The fantasyland legacy of the Pataki administration

From an article, headlined Chris Ward Gets the Call, from this week's New York Observer about the new executive director of the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey:
Now Mr. Ward finds himself back in the driver’s seat on the large public projects, where he will likely spend time juggling the financial needs of projects and grappling with the obstacles that will inevitably appear at ground zero, the agency’s most expensive and high-profile initiative.

There, Mr. Ward’s entrance could lead to a revision of budgets and dates as he reviews the billions of dollars in construction that are planned and under way.

“It’s clear that the Spitzer administration inherited very unrealistic dates and budgets from the Pataki administration,” a state official said. “Chris Ward will clearly be looking very closely at all those deadlines, all those budgets.”
(Emphasis added)

Atlantic Yards is not a project of the Port Authority but rather of the Empire State Development Corporation. But it's clear that the dates and budget were very unrealistic.

Hudson Yards plan snagged by lowered revenues; new plan might involve multiple developers

When it comes to megadevelopments, it may be better for developers to lock in the deal, then declare (and even negotiate) a flexible timetable, as with Atlantic Yards.

The negotiations over the Hudson Yards project are a notable counterexample. In an article yesteday headlined Deal to Build at Railyards on West Side Collapses, the New York Times reported:
Six weeks after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority selected Tishman Speyer Properties to build a vast complex of office towers, apartment buildings and parks over the railyards on the West Side of Manhattan, the deal has fallen apart.

Gary Dellaverson, the authority’s chief financial officer, said the negotiations foundered Thursday afternoon after Tishman Speyer insisted on changing the terms of the $1 billion development, which both parties had agreed to on March 26.

The change would have substantially slowed the flow of millions of dollars in annual rent and fees to the authority and introduced a note of uncertainty about the pace of construction at the 26-acre site, which straddles 11th Avenue between 30th and 33rd Streets, he said.

Since Atlantic Yards is delayed, with the expected flow of new city, state, and MTA revenues thus delayed, there's a not dissimilar situation in Brooklyn. However, there are limits to the parallel; the revenues in Brooklyn would be from new taxes, not rent and fees.

Reopen negotiations?

The Times reported:
Mr. Dellaverson said he had agreed to a request from Tishman Speyer, which controls Rockefeller Center and has projects in India, China and Brazil, for a meeting on Monday, which seemed to leave open at least a faint possibility that the deal could be put back together. But he also said that the authority was considering whether to reopen negotiations with one or more of the four other developers who had bid nearly $1 billion each for the development rights.

But if the authority reopened negotiations with another bidder, it would almost certainly mean that it would get less money for the rights to the property, real estate executives said.

That at least recognizes that other bidders began from the same starting place; with Atlantic Yards, Forest City Ratner was the frontrunner, having been anointed by city and state officials 18 months before an RFP was issued.

Financing uncertain

The Times noted:
But critics of the deal said that it should never have been made, especially since the financing for a key element for West Side development, the extension of the No. 7 subway line, had not been resolved. At the same time, plans for the expansion of the nearby Javits Convention Center had collapsed. And given the sour real estate market, critics said the developer was getting an inexpensive development option.

The same might be said of Atlantic Yards, given that financing for affordable housing was and remains in doubt.

Note that Tishman Speyer also gave up designs by architect Helmut Jahn, another example of how flexible such projects can be. Also note how Bruce Ratner has been lowering our architectural expectations.

Mayor pushes project

The discussion continues. In an article today headlined West Side Railyards Project Gets New Push From Mayor, the Times reported that Mayor Mike Bloomberg would try to push the parties together to get the project done, and that the city would commit funds to help finish the No. 7 subway.

A new authority

The article ended with an intriguing tidbit:
In a related development, Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky proposed that a new state authority be created to buy the railyards from the transportation authority for $1 billion and take charge of development in the area. It would come up with a master plan and find builders for individual parcels over time.

While the creation of new authorities can bring problems, if there's little oversight, the idea of a master plan, with multiple developers for multiple parcels, sounds like a way to get moving while avoiding the snags inherent in a one-developer deal.

It sounds, in fact, like proposals for the UNITY plan for the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard and like what City Comptroller Bill Thompson suggested might be the future of Atlantic Yards.

On the AY web site, the timetable gets an update

Two weeks ago, I pointed out that the at the Atlantic Yards web site was suggesting a completely unrealistic timetable.

Now the FAQ page has been updated to conform to Bruce Ratner's latest timetable.


I think the new timetable is unrealistic, especially since Chuck Ratner, CEO of parent Forest City Enterprises, told investment analysts last year, speaking about three other projects, "As you know, in our business, these things take a very long time, most often, frankly, longer than we anticipate."

Site 5 "central" to AY goal, but delay was expected, says ESDC

The new renderings produced by Frank Gehry do not include Site 5, the tower on the wedge of land between Pacific Street and Atlantic, Flatbush, and Fourth avenues, currently home to P.C. Richard and Modell's. Previous renderings (right) did include Site 5.

The General Project Plan approved by the Empire State Development Corporation in December 2006 suggested that Site 5 was a priority:
The development of both Site 5 and Building 1, with high density buildings, is central to the goal of the Project to transform this very public and prominent area by creating architecturally significant buildings that would ring, and be connected to, the transit hub, and by developing uses that would activate and create a vibrant streetscape experience for the public.

Status of Site 5

Based on the renderings, my surmise is that either the building has been dropped, or its construction has been postponed. I asked ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston for information.

He responded, "Site 5 was never contemplated to be one of the first buildings and will be done in a future phase."

He's right that that buildings on the arena block, rather than across Flatbush Avenue, were the first buildings expected in Phase 1--though Site 5 has long been part of Phase 1. Still, the absence of a Gehry rendering, much less a mention by developer Forest City Ratner of Site 5 in Monday's press release, is reason to wonder about the timetable, as was its omission at an Investor Day discussion last October. (FCR told Crain's the building would be developed separately.)

(Graphic from Empire State Development Corporation, adapted by DDDB.)

Maybe the developer will be listening to Chris Ward, the incoming Port Authority head, who told New York magazine that Bruce Ratner should consider recruiting architects other Frank Gehry. (Or did he mean other developers?)

When will Olin's new open space designs be released? (Soon)

First Frank Gehry's new designs, then more from Laurie Olin? That sounds like developer Forest City Ratner's new Atlantic Yards strategy.

Remember, in May 2006, architect Gehry and landscape architect Olin appeared together at a press conference announcing new designs for the Atlantic Yards project. A photo of the two men with Jim Stuckey, then Forest City Ratner's point man on the project, showed them somewhat beleaguered.

(Photo from 5/12/06 New York Times article headlined Developer Defends Atlantic Yards Plan for Brooklyn.)

New strategy

Gehry and Olin appear to be under wraps, with Gehry making pronouncements ("slimmer, more elegant and more festive") via press release. On Monday, Gehry's new designs were given to the Daily News as an exclusive, then released by the developer.

As I pointed out Tuesday, Olin's somewhat stale designs, curiously enough, remain in the Atlantic Yards Image Gallery.



However, as Gehry's new graphics suggest, the Urban Room would be quite different. Thus Olin's designs surely will be updated--but when?

New designs coming

Maybe Olin's a slower worker than Gehry. It's possible that Forest City Ratner wants another media bounce before May 15, when Barclays Center luxury suites go on sale.

After all, the magazine Landscape Architecture, published by the American Society of Landscape Architects, predicts coverage of Atlantic Yards in the June issue (below). Then again, it predicts coverage of Atlantic Yards in the September issue, as well.

Will we get any perspectives like those (above) produced Monday by the Municipal Art Society? Stay tuned.

FCR, at least, says there's $205 million from NYC for AY

Remember that Crain's New York Business article this week quoting anonymous sources (presumably city officials) who said that critics mischaracterized the $105 million in infrastructure funding added to the city's initial $100 million subsidy:
Though listed under Atlantic Yards in the city budget, the work is not part of the development.

Well, Forest City Ratner's recently updated official Atlantic Yards FAQ doesn't make such fine distinctions, adding the city's $205 million to the state's $100 million subsidy.


Previous version

Even though the extra $105 million was added in early 2007, the FAQ was only recently updated. Here's the previous version:

Missing green roof joins list of promises broken; will it impact EIS lawsuit?

In the list of Atlantic Yards promises broken, the newly-revealed loss of a green roof (3+ acres) on the arena follows 1) the decision to make promised publicly-accessible open space on the arena private and 2) the decision to move the project's flagship tower (then called "Miss Brooklyn"), promised to not block views of the Williamsburgh Savings Bank's clock tower, so it would block such views, even with a reduction in height.

The difference might be that the green roof was relied on significantly in the Empire State Development Corporation's environmental review because it would help with stormwater management and thus help prevent against CSOs (combined sewer overflows).

Does its loss invalidate the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which has been challenged in state court? Unclear. The case was dismissed and is now on appeal, with arguments to be heard in September.

In plain sight

For years, models of the project showed a green roof on top of the arena. Two years ago, when architect Frank Gehry and landscape architect debuted new designs, the green roof was prominent. (Photo at top of an Atlantic Yards model published 5/12/06 by the New York Times.)

However, the new designs (right), which emerged Monday, suggest the arena is covered in shiny metal. Matthew Schuerman of WNYC (formerly of the New York Observer) followed up, in a piece headlined Atlantic Yards Loses Green Roof for Arena, 2016 Completion Date.

He explained that, while the roof, "one of the big signature elements... one of the selling ponts," was supposed to also retain rainwater, "they can't figure out how to do that technically.... They say still will be able to retain rainwater by moving those holding tanks below ground." Whether the impact would be the same, however, is unclear.

"They said, in a way, that the soil doesn't really absorb that much water in the first place," Schuerman suggested, "but I'm sure there will be some sort of minor environmental impacts, less clean air, for example, because there are not quite as many trees." Again, that's worth a more official look.

Indeed, the green roof was a big selling point, as it appeared prominently in a May 2006 brochure. Graphic from DDDB.

Green roof history

I reported in July 2006, when the Draft EIS was released, the features included:
• Use of high albedo materials for roofs and sidewalks, where possible, and incorporation of a green roof on the arena.

Response to Comments

The green roof was discussed extensively in the Final EIS, in both particular chapters and the Response to Comments chapter.

From the Response to Comments chapter of the FEIS:

Comment 11-62: There are additional “Sustainable Design Features” available to completely eliminate project CSO impacts that should be incorporated as project elements... These include:... 3) green roofs throughout the project...

Response 11-62: The proposed project has been designed to incorporate many of the design features in the comment. For example, the eight acres of open space would incorporate permeable pavers, porous pavement, and other measures to minimize stormwater runoff and to retain and reuse water on-site. In addition, green roofs are proposed on the arena and would be considered with respect to other buildings...

Comment 11-63: The following deficiencies exist in the technical analysis:... (3) modeling is imprecise... (6) the DEIS fails to provide adequate details of the arena roof... (8) ESDC thwarted public participation by failing to include the HydroQual report in the DEIS.

Response 11-63: The analyses in this DEIS and this FEIS were comprehensive and were also performed in accordance with the standard engineering practices and procedures... (3) the analysis is based on project designs and assumptions used by DEP in their sewer system modeling... (6) additional details on the proposed green roof are provided in the FEIS... (8) the HydroQual report was referenced in the EIS and was readily available during the DEIS public comment period. The updated HydroQual report is an appendix to this FEIS...

Green roof details

Comment 11-72: The DEIS fails to provide adequate details of the arena roof. Green roofs can be built with varying levels of effective storm water detention, depending on their design. An effective green roof maximizes the percentage of vegetated roof area and the detention capacity of the roof. For example, an increase in the growing medium depth from four to six inches results in a 46 percent increase in the roof’s retention capacity. More detail is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the proposed arena green roof, including: the percentage that will actually be “green” roof, taking into account mechanical equipment, pathways, roof access and other factors; the depth and type of soil proposed; the proposed plants and the associated irrigation demand; and, any other details influencing the effectiveness of the green roof.

Response 11-72: The proposed green roof atop the Arena, with an area of 3.03 acres, would have the following
[see graphic at right; click to enlarge]

The total arena roof area (including buildings 1 through 4) would be 6.4 acres. The four zones identified above that characterize the arena green roof system account for a total of 3.03 acres of the arena roof area. Zones 1, 2 and 3 would not require irrigation once the plants have been established. The plantings within Zone 4 would require irrigation. The green roofs are represented in the InfoWorks model, and the evapotranspiration characteristics are modeled using the Horton’s infiltration equation. The rainfall in excess of the infiltration capacity is converted to overland runoff that reaches the roof drains. Also, the infiltration rate is dependent on antecedent soil moisture and the rainfall intensity and volume.

Other chapters in the FEIS

From the FEIS chapter on Infrastructure:
Includes detention tanks in Arena block and LIRR, seasonal retention in Arena block, and Arena green roof.

From the chapter on Landscape Design: The proposed publicly accessible open space and the arena’s green roof would absorb some of the rainwater runoff that would otherwise flow directly into the City’s water drainage system.

From the chapter on Open Space:
In addition, approximately one acre of private open space intended for use by the project site tenants would be built on a portion of the roof of the proposed arena.... This green space would be designed with detention and retention basins to limit the amount of runoff that flows directly into the City’s water drainage system (see Chapter 11, “Infrastructure,” for discussion of green design features).

From the Appendix

Here are some excerpts from the report submitted by FCR's consultants, Hydroqual:

The Atlantic Yards plan employs a variety of technologies and stormwater management strategies to meet the FCR goal of not affecting water quality in the Gowanus Canal or East River as compared to the project no-build condition in the planning years 2010 and 2016. These include:
• On-site detention and retention tanks for stormwater with multi-level discharge points to optimize storage
...
• Use of green roof on the arena to intercept portions of runoff from reaching the sewer system during rain events.

FCR retained several consultants to address different aspects of the design related to wastewater and stormwater:
• Judith Nitsch Engineering (JNE) provided engineering and architectural services regarding site design and stormwater management strategies for the project site.... In addition to detention/retention of stormwater, the use of green roofs on the arena as an additional stormwater management feature was evaluated by JNE using computational methods that are applicable at the site level.

Olin's role

From a July 2007 Pennsylvania Gazette feature article, headlined Mr. Olin's Neighborhood, on landscape architect Laurie Olin:
And Olin’s proposal for the Atlantic Yards project makes those endeavors seem almost simple by comparison. On a site that includes an eight-acre rail yard, hosts 10 subway lines, and boasts the most intense automobile traffic in Brooklyn, Olin plans to crown the new basketball arena with a green roof and to capture almost all of the parcel’s storm water runoff—which currently exacerbates flooding on the nearby Gowanus Canal—for reuse in irrigation, cleaning, and gray-water plumbing.

Another win for Ratner; state appellate court denies appeal on relocation case

In November, as I reported, a state appellate court unanimously upheld the relocation plan for 13 residential tenants due to be displaced by the Atlantic Yards development. The attorney for the tenants wanted to appeal that case to the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, but that appeal, which is at the discretion of the appellate court that upheld the relocation plan, has been denied.

The case, known as Matter of Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corporation (the latter now doing business as the Empire State Development Corporation, or ESDC), was the second brought by attorney George Locker on behalf of 13 tenants (12 in rent-stabilized units) at 624 Pacific Street and 473 Dean Street. He has since filed a third case challenging the timetable for the project.

Locker had contended that it was impossible for his clients to find similar rent-stabilized apartments. The court's ruling in November didn't quite address that, but relied on the fact that the law requires only a "feasible" method for relocation:
The petitioners do not challenge the finding, reflected in the FEIS, that only 146 residents would be displaced by the project, and that this number of residents constitutes less than one-tenth of one percent of the residents within a three-quarter-mile radius of the project. In these circumstances, the petitioners’ argument that the respondent was required to conduct an additional study of the availability of housing in the area is without merit, and the plan for services to the displaced residents that the respondent has adopted, including professional relocation consulting, real estate brokerage and moving services, the payment of moving expenses, and an additional monetary payment for other ancillary expenses, provides a sufficient foundation for the respondent’s finding that a feasible method for relocation exists.

Locker had said that this case was the only one formally blocking the ESDC from moving to condemn properties. Still, it’s likely the agency wouldn’t proceed against plaintiffs in the eminent domain case until the latter case--currently on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court--is resolved.

Is a law firm moving to Ratner's MetroTech? Not quite

A report in the Brooklyn Paper today, headlined Manhattan firm to Brooklyn, indicates that the international law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges is moving to Forest City Ratner's MetroTech:
Forest City Ratner Vice President Mary Anne Gilmartin made the announcement at the Brooklyn Real Estate Roundtable on Tuesday that the 500-lawyer white shoe firm would soon relocate to Metrotech.

“It’s a paragon shift from back-office to more-discerning tenants,” she said.

[Note: the word "paradigm" sounds more likely, but I wasn't there.]

Really? A press release from the law firm states:
[The firm] will expand from its New York City headquarters by opening a new office in Downtown Brooklyn's MetroTech Center... The office will house several of the firm's staff groups, including employees in Information Systems, Finance and Operations.

(See updated and corrected Brooklyn Paper article and my comment on their web site.)

How many square feet?

The press release states that the firm will lease 35,000 square feet of space. That's only ten percent of the amount of space the firm has in Manhattan.

As Real Estate Weekly reported in 1996, the firm renewed its lease for 350,000 square feet of office space, occupying approximately 11 floors in the General Motors building located at 767 Fifth Avenue. The new, 21-year lease term will commence in 1998...

Atlantic Lots and today's media roundup

The Municipal Art Society's (MAS) exclusive release of its Atlantic Lots renderings to the New York Post yesterday was followed up by a new Atlantic Lots web site and slideshow (screenshots below, based on aerial photos by Jonathan Barkey) showing how the current footprint might turn into long-term parking lots.

Curiously enough, that received little media follow-up, just as developer Forest City Ratner's press release and image gallery, released following an exclusive to the New York Daily News, also received little follow-up.

To its credit, the Daily News, as I noted, did report criticism of the new design for the flagship tower.

Where's the Times?

The New York Times ignored the AY story completely. Baffling.

The New York Post, having had its MAS exclusive, ignored the new Ratner renderings. WNYC ran a story that mentioned the new timetable, the new renderings, and the MAS renderings.

The MAS renderings were mentioned in a story in Metro, which quoted not the usual suspects Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) or City Council Member Letitia James but Julia Vitullo-Martin of the Manhattan Institute, who warned "The problem smacks of traditional 1950s, 1960s urban renewal,” and Brad Lander of the Pratt Center for Community Development, who cited the problem of parking lots.

Both appeared on a panel last Wednesday at the New School, where they criticized current AY plans. Interestingly enough, City Comptroller William Thompson's quote at the panel, “I’m not sure what that project is any longer,” hasn't received greater circulation beyond this blog.

The Sun on the Newark option

The New York Sun, far more shorthanded, also ignored the statements from the developer and from MAS but ran a thoughtful analysis in its sports pages by Evan Weiner, who explained how a move of the Nets to Newark was "a good backup plan" complicated by revenue-sharing issues.

Nevertheless, Weiner concluded:
Ratner would be getting all of the revenues generated in a Brooklyn arena and might eventually want to pursue an NHL presence in the building as well. But the Brooklyn building is still years away from opening, and Ratner will still be losing money at the Meadowlands, which means the possibility of moving to Newark is definitely real. The longer the Brooklyn building is delayed, the possibility of the Nets staying west of the Hudson increases. But to get to Newark from East Rutherford is going to require a lot of creative accounting to make the business of the New Jersey Nets work.

DDDB's criticism

Maybe it's media fatigue. Nonetheless, DDDB issued a press release, quoting board member and community planner Ron Shiffman,
"The new design from Frank Gehry is no better than the last--in reality it has gone from the absurd to the ridiculous aesthetically and programmatically."

DDDB's Goldstein said of Bruce Ratner, "So when he says he ‘anticipates’ it will be completed in 2018, it's simply not credible."

I'll repeat what I wrote on Sunday, in response to Ratner's Daily News column, which, by the way, was quickly circulated in an e-newsletter (bottom) by the developer, which also touted the counter-protest on Saturday without mentioning how the developer orchestrated it.

Ratner wrote:
We anticipate finishing all of Atlantic Yards by 2018.

Note the use of the weasel word "anticipate," rather than something more firm. Remember, Chuck Ratner told investment analysts last year, "As you know, in our business, these things take a very long time, most often, frankly, longer than we anticipate."

Decoding the FCR press release on Site 5, the arena, and "Building 1"

The Forest City Ratner press release that followed yesterday's Daily News exclusive confirms some things only hinted at in the coverage.

Notably, the building at Site 5 seems to have vanished, the arena would be surrounded with more metal than glass, and the billing of Building 1 (formerly called Miss Brooklyn) as slimmer still doesn't obscure the fact that it would be nearly twice as bulky as the Williasmburgh Savings Bank, one foot taller at 512 feet.

And Frank Gehry, under the control of the developer's p.r. department, gushes about the potential for the flagship tower, though he avoids calling it, as he did two years ago, "my ego trip."

Also, despite developer Bruce Ratner's statement in a press release that "we mark a significant chapter in Atlantic Yards’ progress," the new image gallery released yesterday is significantly less ambitious than the one released nearly two years ago, in May 2006, given that it includes only three buildings, omits Site 5, and omits any designs for Phase 2.

The failure to produce any more images casts further doubt on the developer's plans for the project at large.

The vanishing Site 5

As suggested by the graphics released to the Daily News yesterday, which I contrasted with past graphics (see above and right), the tower at Site 5, between Pacific Street and Flatbush, Atlantic, and Fourth avenues, has vanished. It's the only part of the footprint west of Flatbush.

There were hints it was coming. Last October, Joanne Minieri, FCR President and Chief Operating Officer, told investors, “Atlantic Yards Development Company, LLC is the entity in which Forest City owns 58.2%. That entity will be the owner of the master plan for the real estate development of over 21 acres in downtown Brooklyn with 6.5 million square feet of residential and commercial development rights.”

I wrote that it’s possible that another entity, in which Forest City is a partner, owns the development planned for Site 5, now the home of P.C. Richard/Modell’s, which was subject to a second Memorandum of Understanding (because there were two investment groups). Indeed, Gilmartin described the project outside the arena as “15 buildings,” which again seemed to be excluding Site 5.

After I reported on that speech in February, a company spokesman told Crain's New York Business that Site 5, would be developed separately.

How separately? The answer seems to be very, since Gehry's designs don't address the site, though previously they did so. The Site 5 tower was also ignored in the AY financial projections prepared by the developer.

Elegant, slimming, festive?

Despite the loss of the Miss Brooklyn moniker, the flagship tower was nonetheless described in feminine terms. Ratner cited “Frank Gehry’s elegant design." Gehry gushed, "The design for Miss Brooklyn, which we now call Building One, has become very special for me. In response to the new program, it has evolved and has become slimmer, more elegant and more festive."

The Daily News reported:
The 34-story structure - once expected to rise higher than the Williamsburgh Savings Bank - will now be dwarfed by it.

It would be one foot shorter, as DDDB reminds us, and it would be nearly twice as bulky, 650,000 square feet vs. 362,269 square feet.

Gehry added, "I am very eager to continue working on this project with my partner Bruce Ratner.”

Gehry's gush, just after Bruce Ratner declared in a NY 1 interview, speaking generally, "The architecture is important, but it's not that important," seems directed first at naysayers like New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff, who in March urged Gehry to walk away from a project that might be significantly altered.

In the second place, it seems directed at potential anchor tenants.

The B1 placeholder

Gehry said, of the flagship tower, "We now call it Building One." Actually, it was always Building One; see for example comments in September 2006 from the Department of City Planning and check the official site plan.

Could Pratt Professor Brent Porter's contention, in the Brooklyn Paper last month, that "Gehry’s frontal design is, to put it discreetly, simply naughty," have had any impact on the dropping of "Miss Brooklyn"? What about Gehry's declaration that the building is "my ego trip"?

It's more likely that B1 is just a placeholder, ready to be jettisoned if and when an anchor tenant is recruited. In fact, the building would be Class A office space, competing with Manhattan rather than Brooklyn.

A "targeted marketing campaign... reaffirm[s] that the office building will not be built on speculation," the press release said. That's another way of saying "we're behind."

The press release quoted leasing agent Cushman & Wakefield as calling it "an exceptionally powerful and distinguished piece of architecture." See alternate comments on Curbed, as well as from Brooklynites quoted in today's Daily News, some of whom called it a "disaster."

Heavy metal

The press release states:
The Barclays Center, the future home of the NBA Nets franchise, has also received an updated design. Frank Gehry’s swooping blue metallic exterior surrounds the Center and is in keeping with his world-renown distinctive style.

There was no mention of warnings that glass walls close to the street raise security concerns similar to those that closed streets outside Newark's Prudential Center.

But the press release did announce that luxury suites would go on sale at the Barclays Center Showroom located in The New York Times building on the evening of May 15.

No condos at first

While Phase 1 is expected to include hundreds of condos, the first residential tower would have 350 units of rental housing, as reported in yesterday's Daily News. The press release added that 50% of the units would be affordable.

Ratner stated:
Each day, working with our public sector partners, we are advancing Atlantic Yards with an emphasis on all the important public benefits—especially the affordable housing—which we are all committed to making a reality for Brooklyn.”

Note the importance of the "affordable housing" mantra, as well as the reference to "public sector partners"--does that refer to the need to get to the head of the line for scarce affordable housing bonds?

The press release states:
Becoming the new standard in mixed-income living in New York City, B2’s residential amenities include a 24-hour doorman, fitness center, secure bike racks and resident lounge.

Regarding 80 DeKalb Avenue, which would have 20% affordable housing, an FCR executive said, "It will have doorman/concierge services, a 150-car garage, a lifestyle center that includes a gym, a library and a lounge and retail at the ground floor level." It will be interesting to see how they compare.

Trustworthy construction schedule?

The press release states:
Forest City affirmed its construction schedule for both phases of the development, stating its goal was to break ground on the Barclays Center in 2008 and B2 in 2009. Both of these buildings are expected to open at the same time. The next residential tower, B3, is expected to break ground in 2010 and, B4, the final residential tower within phase one is expected to break ground in 2011. A minimum of 30% of the estimated 1,500 units on the arena block will be dedicated to low- and middle-income New Yorkers. Phase two is anticipated to be completed by 2018.

“We have established an aggressive but manageable construction schedule and we are confident we will get it done,” continued Mr. Ratner. “Atlantic Yards will revitalize an area of Brooklyn which has sat fallow for over 50 years...

Fallow? There's always been a working railyard. The Ward Bakery, known as Pechter's, operated through the 1990s, and [updated] a storage company used part of the building after that. Old buildings were turned into condos. Other buildings were waiting for rezonings or for the market to continue its work.

Fair warning

The press release closes with some required (and useful) boilerplate:
Statements made in this news release that state the Company’s or management's intentions, hopes, beliefs, expectations or predictions of the future are forward-looking statements. The Company's actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements due to various risks, uncertainties and other factors.

In other words, if the project's not finished by 2018, don't be surprised.

AY Image Gallery 2006 vs. Image Gallery 2008

Is the Atlantic Yards project really progressing? The current Image Gallery has the exact same renderings by landscape architect Laurie Olin that were unveiled in May 2006 (bottom). Also, it's a smaller gallery because it lacks any images of Site 5, Phase 2, or neighborhood perspectives, flawed as they may be.

Click on graphics to enlarge.



May 2006 Image Gallery

Crain's defends the funding agreements, takes aim at "opponents"

A brief article in Crain's New York Business this week, headlined "Fine distinctions on Atlantic Yards," takes dubious aim at criticisms of state and city funding agreements raised first by AYR and later amplified by groups like Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn.

The article begins:
Atlantic Yards opponents omit key details when criticizing the project’s city subsidies, supporters say.

Well, maybe if state and city agencies had released the funding agreements with some explanation, we'd have a more enlightening discussion. Instead, the state agreement was released quietly by the Empire State Development Corporation and the city agreement was made available only after a Freedom of Information Law request, and the New York City Economic Development Corporation was hardly expansive in answering questions.

Not for condemnation, OK

The article continues:
Developer Forest City Ratner Cos. can use the city’s $100 million to buy but not condemn land, and only in tandem with its own investment.

As I reported, the $100 million was for land already purchased, not condemned. Obviously it would have to be in tandem with its own investment; while the $100 million would go for a good portion of the property already purchased for the arena block, the money doesn't cover the whole tab.

Repayment?

The article continues:
Officials say Forest City must repay the money if it doesn’t finish the first phase on time, and would still be obligated to create 1,800 apartments, 35% of them affordable.

What does "repay the money" mean? The State Funding Agreement refers to "a portion, to be established in the Project Documentation, of State Funding Payments previously paid to developer by ESDC with interest and (ii) pay Liquidated Damages as set forth in the City Funding Agreement."

In other words, we don't know how much of the state's $100 million would be paid back. And the Liquidated Damages would be just a portion of the city's $100 million.

Forest City's obligations

As I reported, the State Funding Agreement makes reference to a "City Purpose Covenant" that would govern not just Forest City Ratner but any future owners of the premises.

In other words, the detail wasn't omitted, and Crain's got it wrong, since Forest City might not be the developer.

I reported that the agreement offers the possibility of a significantly smaller project, setting out a hierarchy of uses for the "Premises." If the General Project Plan is abandoned, the site would be used for not less than 1845 units of housing, of which 35 percent shall be Affordable Housing... and not less than 1.98 acres of environmentally sustainable publicly accessible open space.

Mischaracterizing subsidies

The article closes:
Critics also mischaracterize $105 million in city infrastructure work as a subsidy. Though listed under Atlantic Yards in the city budget, the work is not part of the development.

That's an interesting accounting distinction. Keep in mind that the state payments are for infrastructure, and the city's original $100 million subsidy was to be used for the same purpose as the state subsidy, along with the possibility of land purchases.

I reported that city officials had described the additional spending as money that would have to be spent anyway, but also reported skepticism from Doug Turetsky of the Independent Budget Office.

I also reported that Chuck Ratner, an executive with parent Forest City Enterprises, claimed, "[J]ust in these past six or eight months, we got the various governmental agencies, state, city, borough, in New York, to increase their commitments to Atlantic Yards by 105 million dollars on top of the 200 [million] they committed. We still need more."

So, whom can you trust, the "opponents" or the developer? In this case, they're both on the same page.

In Post, visions of blight at arena block, rest of AY footprint

It's a tabloid war today, apparently; just as the New York Daily News publishes new renderings of two Atlantic Yards buildings, the New York Post publishes renderings, provided by the Municipal Art Society, of a blighted arena block with empty lots surrounding the arena and the first building planned.

Given the lack of precise dimensions, I'm not clear on the accuracy of the renderings. However, if the arena's supposed to be 20 feet from Atlantic and Flatbush avenues, the image at right strikes me as somewhat exaggerated. The main point, though, is that there would be many empty lots, and no plans have been announced for them.

(Note: rendering updated to feature Building 2, the first building Forest City Ratner plans, rather than Building 4. First versions of renderings at bottom.)

Atlantic Lots?

The article (p. 15) is headlined, in low-key Post style, THE FUTURE'S 'BLIGHT': NIGHTMARE VISION OF B'KLYN ARENA. It leads off:
Forget Atlantic Yards - try "Atlantic Lots."

Renderings commissioned by the Municipal Art Society and obtained by The Post reveal for the first time how Bruce Ratner's controversial project in Brooklyn could look - and remain for many years - should the developer continue facing massive delays.

And this vision of the state-approved project isn't attractive - unless parking spaces turn you on.

...Instead of Gehry's bold new Brooklyn skyline, the independent renderings portray a vision of urban blight: only the planned arena near Atlantic and Flatbush avenues and a lone adjacent residential/office tower remain, surrounded by a series of large "temporary" surface parking and other empty space.

The Municipal Art Society says it commissioned a prominent architecture team - that wished to remain anonymous - to dramatize the impact of the project on surrounding neighborhoods and to get the state to rethink its approval of Atlantic Yards.

(The photographs upon which the renderings are based were taken by Jonathan Barkey.)

MAS President Kent Barwick, who said "Atlantic Yards is looking more like Atlantic Lots," wants the state to rethink its approval of the project. What exactly that means is unclear--project opponents have fought Ratner fiercely, while MAS has tried a "mend it, don't end it" approach.

Ratner's response

The Post got a response from the developer:
"If MAS thinks that this resembles our project in any way, they are not only greatly mistaken they're doing themselves and the public a great disservice," said Ratner spokesman Loren Riegelhaupt. "Frankly, this is so far from anything even remotely resembling what we are building that it's not worth commenting on further."

Today the developer released new renderings of the arena block, indicating that the first tower, Building 2, would be built at the corner of Flatbush and Dean Streets, at the southwest of the arena block. Those renderings, of course, depict the arena block as whole and complete, though the towers would be built in stages.

First tower where?

The initial MAS renderings--quickly updated and thus corrected--speculated that the first tower would instead be built at the northeast corner of the arena block, at Atlantic and Sixth avenues. That was a reasonable speculation--it's the farthest away from from low-rise Prospect Heights on the arena block--but it apparently was incorrect, since the developer today announced the first tower would be Building 2, at Flatbush Avenue and Dean Street. (That tower would be smaller than the one at Atlantic Avenue and thus would be easier to finance.)

The MAS renderings, as the Post reports, suggest land surrounding the arena as paved with asphalt, but Riegelhaupt suggested that it would more likely be "tree-lined open public space." Come to think of it, that recalls the park space suggested in the revised UNITY plan.

Note that the announcement of such "tree-lined open public space" was made only in response to an inquiry by the Post; the developer had not previously described just what might appear in the empty lots around the arena block.

Ratner's timetable

The Post notes that Ratner Sunday announced that the project would be finished by 2018. However, the Post adds some skepticism (albeit without credit to AYR):

But he failed to mention a little-known state funding agreement that gives him a generous amount of time to complete Atlantic Yards.

Under the agreement, Ratner has up to six years to build the arena, up to 12 years to complete five towers slated for phase one and no timeline to complete the remaining 11 towers in phase two.

"New York's experience with other large-scale projects suggests it could be much longer and that Brooklyn will be burdened with temporary lots for 15 to 20 years," Barwick said.

Arena redesign

The Post article states:
The arena's original vision – with its expanses-of-glass façade – has been modified in the MAS renderings so parts of the façade slated to eventually connect to towers substitute glass for a less attractive, temporary concrete finish.

Today's new renderings suggest not concrete but metal substituting for glass, which I speculate may be a response to security concerns.

(At right, the arena block in the MAS renderings. The Urban Room seems very different.)

Interim surface parking

The MAS more preciselydepicts Block 1129, current home of the Ward Bakery and other buildings in the southeast segment of the project footprint, as the home of interim surface parking. It's between Dean and Pacific streets and Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues.

(The rendering has been updated.)

The Post reports:
The MAS says the decision to show the land east of the arena and lone tower with temporary surface parking lots is based on the project plan on file with the state. In it, the company Forest City Ratner indicates it will clear all of this land needed to build 11 towers and use it for parking until construction begins.

To be clear, interim surface parking was never planned on the arena block. It was, however, planned on the 100-foot wide rectangle of land east of Sixth Avenue, between Pacific and Dean streets, currently occupied by five low-rise houses. That plot of land is also needed by the developer for staging to build the arena.

Remember, a 12/10/03 Forest City Ratner press release announcing the Atlantic Yards project claimed:
The complex has been planned to look whole and complete during each phase of construction.

(At right, Jonathan Barkey's original aerial photo including the current southeastern block of the project footprint, showing several lots already cleared by demolition.)

Original renderings below

Below and right, these were the renderings by the Municipal Art Society with Building 4, rather than Building 2.

New renderings show Miss Brooklyn cut (duh), renamed, "more festive," but questions unanswered

A Daily News exclusive today shows new renderings of the flagship Atlantic Yards tower but hints at many questions unanswered, notably the apparent dumping of a Phase 1 tower at Site 5 (see building at far left below), the continuing role of architect Frank Gehry, the plans for the proposed Urban Room, and new designs--apparently with less glass, a potential security issue--for the planned arena.

The 373-word article, headlined (online) Atlantic Yards' Miss Brooklyn is slashed more than 100 feet in massive redo, suggests that the news is that the tower would be cut to 511 feet and feature commercial office space only, but neither is a surprise.

(It appears on page 2 of the newspaper, with the headline "She loses her crown." Image below.)

After all, the agreement to keep the tower shorter than the 512-foot Williamsburgh Savings Bank tower was announced as a "concession" on 12/20/06, to coincide with the approval of the project by the Public Authorities Control Board. And I reported in February on developer Forest City Ratner's apparent plans to make Miss Brooklyn an office tower only.

But the Daily News, a day after publishing developer Bruce Ratner's exclusive op-ed and a nonskeptical Cliff's Notes article accompanying it, is not asking the hard questions. Nor does it point out that the project now appears to have 15 towers, not 16, as hinted in Bruce Ratner's op-ed yesterday.

The new renderings, of course, picture Phase 1 complete, rather than in stages, leaving possible vacant lots around the arena block, as the New York Post depicts today.

Remember, a 12/10/03 Forest City Ratner press release announcing the Atlantic Yards project claimed:
The complex has been planned to look whole and complete during each phase of construction.

(Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn reminds us how New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff recently slammed the "distorted reality" of project renderings. Given recent tougher coverage in the Times on the AY stall and criticism from Ouroussoff, today's Daily News coverage further confirms that the tabloid is now the developer's go-to news outlet.)

Gehry's enthusiasm

The article quotes Gehry dutifully expressing enthusiasm after working on a redesign for more than 16 months:
"My enthusiasm for Atlantic Yards has grown and grown until arriving at our current design, which works better with the surrounding area than it ever had before," said Gehry of new designs obtained exclusively by the Daily News.

"Miss Brooklyn, now called Building One, has been slimmed down and has become more festive, resulting in a very unique office building," he said.

Once "sleek," it now resembles "a spiraling Lego structure, edges askew," according to the Daily News.

(The old design as at right.)

More office space

The Daily News reports that the building would include 650,000 square feet of office space, which is more than the 528,000 square feet described last October. Given that the building was once supposed to also include a hotel with 164,652 square feet, it's a good bet that the revised plans trade hotel space for office space.

Planned condos "will be shifted to a different building or be built as rental units instead," according to a Ratner official.

(New renderings)

First residential building

The article states:
Meanwhile, "B2," which will be completed first, is a red-and-pink-hued, 340-foot building featuring 350 market-rate and affordable apartments, which Gehry said "speaks to the residential fabric of the neighborhood."

As the top two renderings suggest, the design seems little changed.

If 30% of the apartments are to be affordable, that means 105 affordable apartments, with 42 of them low-income.

While the article doesn't specify the location, Building 2 is at the northeast corner of Dean Street and Flatbush Avenue, according to the official Site Plan. According to the General Project Plan appoved by the Empire State Development Corporation, its maximum height was to be 322 feet. (That refers to the last occupiable floor, so the 340-foot figure may refer to rooftop mechanicals.)

Building 2 is supposed to open at the same time as the arena; the developer says 2010, but that seems highly speculative. Nor was the developer asked if the project would contain 16 towers, as approved, or 15, as hinted by yesterday's Daily News article.

Missing buildings

Notably, the revised renderings show only three buildings: the arena, Building 1, and Building 2. Previous renderings showed Gehry's designs for the entire arena block.

Does this mean Gehry's working on only three buildings and may bow out after that? Or is it that designs for other buildings may change as time passes?

Note that Forest City Ratner has taken down the Image Gallery from the Atlantic Yards web site that showed renderings of the buildings as well as landscape designs.

Also missing is any rendering of a building at Site 5, on the block bounded by Pacific Street and Atlantic, Flatbush, and Fourth avenues, now home to Modell's and P.C. Richard. That building, which was reduced to 250 feet after a "recommendation" from the New York City Planning Commission.

Arena and Urban Room

There's no explanation in today's article about how arena-goers would enter the arena without the planned Urban Room civic space--will there be a temporary "Urban Shed" ushering them from a new subway entrance?

The renderings do show an Urban Room--albeit without the massive signage planned (right)--attached to Building 1, assuming it gets built.

The arena appears to have new metal flaps reminiscent of some other Gehry buildings, which would lessen the amount of glass. That may be a response to security concerns raised in the wake of the closure of streets outside Newark's new Prudential Center.

Forest City Ratner officials were cagey about the exact distance between the arena and the street; they finally acknowledged to the New York Times that the arena would be, in fact, only 20 feet from the street.

(Photo of an Atlantic Yards model published 5/12/06 by the New York Times.)

Opponents get their say

In another article published today, headlined Opponents say Ratner's time line for Atlantic Yards is pie in the sky, the Daily News does allow opponents to express skepticism.

The article states:
"His project is in serious jeopardy no matter how he spins it," Daniel Goldstein of the anti-Brooklyn Yards group Develop, Don't Destroy Brooklyn said of Ratner's Op-Ed piece in yesterday's Daily News.

In it, Ratner claims his entire NBA basketball arena and skyscraper project will be finished by 2018. Goldstein said a lack of committed financing - including housing bonds - and ballooning construction costs could drag the project into a 20-year ordeal.

"When he says he plans to complete his project in 2018, it's simply not credible," Goldstein said. "It means nothing."

While the article doesn't make this point, I think the single strongest reason for skepticism is Ratner's statement that "We anticipate finishing all of Atlantic Yards by 2018."

After all, as I pointed out, executive Chuck Ratner of parent Forest City Enterprises told investment analysts last year, "As you know, in our business, these things take a very long time, most often, frankly, longer than we anticipate."

The article also quotes Council Member Letitia James, who says, "It's the same plan without definitive financing."

Last word to BUILD's Caldwell

The last word goes to a signatory of the Community Benefits Agreement which, it goes unmentioned, is funded by Ratner:
James Caldwell, president of the nonprofit Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development, said he continues to back Ratner and the development plan.

"I feel better, especially with the way the economy is right now, that everything is going ahead as planned."

Caldwell, it should remember, in 2005 called Ratner “like an angel sent from God.”

Caption error

One caption in today's Daily News makes the common error of suggesting that the arena could be built only over the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard:
The Long Island Railroad yard at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Ave., where Bruce Ratner intends to build the Barclay Center, future home to the New Jersey Nets and the centerpiece of the Atlantic Yards project.

BUILD and the unions bond, at least with t-shirts

The construction trade unions supporting Atlantic Yards tend to be, demographically speaking, white guys, often from the suburbs or well beyond Central Brooklyn. The signatories of the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement and their supporters are mostly black folk from Central Brooklyn.

During the counter-protest on Saturday, however, members of both groups were wearing new orange t-shirts, courtesy of (I'd guess) Forest City Ratner, that read, on the front, "Community and Unions Working Hand in Hand."

On the back it read "Build Safe Brooklyn," an allusion to the group Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development (BUILD) and the role of construction unions in avoiding the shortcuts suffered at some nonunion workplaces.

(Note that the members of the Brooklyn Carpenters Union Local 926 below don't necessarily conform to the stereotype.)

(Photos by Adrian Kinloch)

Flier

A related flier distributed at the event, headlined "Build Safe Brooklyn," was subtitled "Communities & Unions Working Together."

Support the Atlantic Yards Project, it read. "Tell your local politicians NOT to use this Project as a tool for their ELECTION! This project is $ Real Money $ for a sagging economy."

"Jump start Brooklyn's Economy by supporting this JOBSITE. Call these politicians and tell them, 'Support US or we WON'T support you.'"

The three politicians targeted: City Council Members David Yassky (running for Comptroller), Bill de Blasio (running for Brooklyn Borough President), and Letitia James (up for reelection). James was referred to as "Tisha."

It's another sign that Atlantic Yards is perceived to be very much in play politically. If Borough President Marty Markowitz runs for mayor, what will he say about AY?

Has Bruce Ratner adjusted the official location of AY?

From yesterday's Daily News op-ed:


From the official Atlantic Yards web site:


Why it makes a difference: Prospect Heights is not Downtown Brooklyn, as the New York Times finally acknowledged. Also see the coverage in Editor & Publisher.

In Daily News Ratner asserts AY by 2018, ignores countervailing evidence

Without explaining where the financing would come from, including scarce affordable housing subsidies, Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner today declares that the project would be complete in 2018, promising a 10-year timetable little different from that announced when the project was approved in 2006, albeit after a pause for delay.

Ratner, in a Daily News op-ed headlined Atlantic Yards dead? Dream on, does not mention the recently-revealed news that the State Funding Agreement gives him 6+ years to build the arena and 12+ years to build the five towers of Phase 1, both after the close of litigation and the delivery of property by eminent domain. Nor did he mention that the City Funding Agreement allows him to build a much smaller Phase 1 than that anticipated in the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) General Project Plan.

Indeed, Ratner identifies Phase 1 as an office tower and three residential towers, leading to the conclusion that four rather than five towers would be built--despite a later assertion that "all" of Atlantic Yards would be built. So the project appears to be downsized a bit.

And, while asserting that the arena would open in 2010--a claim that even sports reporters have begun to discount--he doesn't address the fact that the three-year timetable to reconstruct the Carlton Avenue bridge and the Sixth Avenue bridge began this January. (Here's the construction schedule.) That means that, while it's possible that work could be sped up or that the arena could open with an adjacent bridge closed, it's not a good bet.

(Poster from rally yesterday.)

Nor does he address the acknowledgements by project supporters that the buildout could last decades. Just this week, Joe Chan of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership told the Observer, "The Atlantic Yards was always a project that was conceived as taking a few economic cycles to fully realize itself."

Nor does he address the recent claim, by Chuck Ratner, an executive of parent Forest City Enterprises, that "we still need more" subsidies.

Coordinated effort

The announcement puts yesterday's counter-protest in greater perspective, as part of a coordinated effort to show support for the project.

The headline on the op-ed was a direct rebuke to the Brooklyn Paper's overblown Atlantic Yards Dead headline, published after Ratner, in a front-page 3/21/08 New York Times article, acknowledged that the project stalled and indicated that the arena was moving ahead, but said the economy “may hold up the office building... And the bond market may slow the pace of the residential buildings."

Daily News new favorite?

Today's op-ed was accompanied by a brief news story in the Daily News (p. 8), attributed to two reporters, headlined (online) Ratner vows to break ground on Atlantic Yards. The article, which included excerpts from the op-ed, contained no countervailing evidence nor any questions for Ratner.

Perhaps such a no-actual-reporting article was negotiated as part of the placement of an exclusive op-ed. Either way, it suggests that the Daily News, rather than the New York Times, has become Ratner's new outlet of choice.

Remember, Ratner chose the 7/5/05 Times for an exclusive look at new designs for the project, and the Times, on 9/5/06, was leaked and then overplayed the favorable-to-Ratner news that the project would be reduced 6% to 8%. Now, however, architectural critic Nicolai Ouroussoff, at least, has turned against the project, urging architect Frank Gehry to walk away.

Where's Frank?

Ratner does mention Gehry in today's op-ed, but only in the context of Miss Brooklyn, "Frank Gehry's signature commercial tower." Could that mean that Gehry may be working only on the arena and a small portion of the project, as Ratner has tried to lower our architectural expectations?

How much does it cost?

Also note that Ratner describes AY as a "multi-billion dollar" development, no longer attaching a $4 billion price tag. Given that the cost of the arena has already ballooned by 50%, adding more than $300 million to the tab, that might have been prudent. However, elected officials surely would like some more precision.

The op-ed

The op-ed begins:
In recent weeks, some have rushed to write the obituary of Atlantic Yards, the multi-billion dollar, 22-acre development my company is building near downtown Brooklyn.

But rumors of Atlantic Yards' demise, stirred by opponents, have been greatly exaggerated. The project is moving forward in its entirety, and in the coming years it will bring jobs, housing and an improved quality of life to Brooklyn.

We're still building all 6,400 units of housing - including 2,250 affordable units. We're still building the iconic Miss Brooklyn tower and the state-of-the-art Barclays Center, the future home of the Nets.

In fact, today, for the first time, I am offering an updated construction timetable for the project.

"Rigorous" review?

Ratner continues:
Yes, it's true that construction hasn't happened as fast as we would have liked. Why is this? First, a rigorous public review, conducted in conjunction with the city, state, MTA, local community boards, elected officials and local leaders, took a long time. But this process helped refine the project and ensure a better plan for Brooklyn.

Ratner's statement ignores the fact the project, shepherded by the ESDC, bypassed formal local input, and even project supporters like former Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Dan Doctoroff think, in retrospect, that it should've gone through the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP.

Court cases

Ratner continues:
We also had to overcome the hurdles presented in numerous court challenges. The opponents pledged early on to try to stop us cold in court, and they have thrown many obstacles our way. Fortunately, after 18 court decisions in our favor, they're now down to their last appeals.

Forest City Ratner has never defined what "18 court decisions means," since it certainly must include decisions on motions or parts of cases. If so, then the tally would have to include decisions--albeit non-dispositive ones--won by the developer's antagonist. (DDDB's response.)

Also, given the filing Wednesday of a new lawsuit, "their last appeals" is no longer accurate.

Financing available

Ratner continues:
Finally, the delays have pushed us into a time when the economy has slowed, and both financing and tenant commitments are more challenging to obtain. But contrary to rumors, large deals are still getting done, and in the past year alone we have closed on the two largest construction financings in our company's history, totaling over $1.3 billion. Atlantic Yards will be no different.

A key (but relatively small) component of that financing was tax-exempt Liberty Bonds, aimed to revive Lower Manhattan. Such bonds are obviously not available for this project.

Forest City Ratner has shown it can compete for scarce affordable housing financing, as shown in the development of 80 DeKalb Avenue. That doesn't mean, however, that it can get AY funded, and it's time for city officials to clarify what funding is, in fact, available.

Public sector partners

Ratner continues:
The stakes are high. As other major developments around the city face challenges, Atlantic Yards has become even more important to our economy than when we first announced it. That's why we have tried so hard to work through each obstacle we've confronted. If more unforeseen hurdles appear, we will tackle them with the same resolve. Working with our public sector partners, I am confident we will continue to overcome all obstacles to complete this project.

Does "working with our public sector partners" simply mean defense against lawsuits or does it mean a request for additional subsidies?

Timetable

Ratner continues:
So, what's next?

Our first goal is to break ground on the Barclays Center later this year. Shortly after that, we will break ground on the first residential building, which includes a significant amount of affordable housing.

We plan to complete and open both of these buildings at the same time. Then we plan to break ground on the next residential tower in 2010, and then on the final residential tower of the project's first phase in 2011.

In these three residential buildings, no less than 30% of the approximately 1,500 units will be dedicated to low- and middle-income New Yorkers. We will then start the second phase of development, nearly a dozen additional residential buildings - including the balance of the 2,250 units of affordable housing.

Three residential buildings and an office tower in Phase 1? That suggests one building has been eliminated. Also, note that Phase 1 was supposed to have 2110 residential units, not 1500.

"We anticipate"

He continues:
We anticipate finishing all of Atlantic Yards by 2018.

Note the use of the weasel word "anticipate," rather than something more firm. Remember, Chuck Ratner told investment analysts last year, "As you know, in our business, these things take a very long time, most often, frankly, longer than we anticipate."

Miss Brooklyn

He continues:
As for Miss Brooklyn, Frank Gehry's signature commercial tower, a targeted marketing campaign to identify an anchor tenant is currently underway. When that tenant is confirmed, we will finalize plans and start building.

He doesn't respond to criticism that the developer is, according to the Times, essentially cold-calling potential tenants.

In closing

Ratner closes:
For many of you this may not be news - because we've been hard at work on the site for over a year. You've seen us at work and are perhaps already feeling the economic impact. We've awarded $42 million in contracts, 45% of which have gone to minority- and women-owned businesses. Working with our Community Benefits Agreement partners, we've started multiple work-force development initiatives to ensure the local community is a direct beneficiary of the project. This is what we promised and what we are delivering.

Of course, more than $42 million has already been delivered in public subsidies.

The final paragraphs:
The cynics can doubt. The critics can nay-say. Conspiracy theorists can spin wild tales. But Atlantic Yards is too important to the ongoing vitality of Brooklyn and New York for us to come up short.

We will build Atlantic Yards - and deliver on all of our commitments to Brooklyn.

If Ratner's so confident, he should hold a news conference and answer some of the hard questions.

Not a done deal: “Time Out” rally met with “Build It Now” counter-protest

“I now believe that you were so right,” proclaimed State Senator Velmanette Montgomery from the podium at the “Time Out” rally held Saturday afternoon on Pacific Street near Carlton Avenue by three groups critical of or opposed to Atlantic Yards. “It’s not a done deal.”

The rally, with City Council Member Letitia James speaking at right, aimed to get Gov. David Paterson “to suspend demolitions, displacement of residents and businesses, infrastructure disruptions and further subsidies to the project so that changes to the project can be assessed and a new plan prepared with community involvement.”

(Mouse over photos to see credits for Adrian Kinloch and Jonathan Barkey; I took the others.)

Confirming that was the first-ever example of a counter-protest, a well-engineered effort by Forest City Ratner--with several operatives on hand--to assemble a boisterous crowd of union workers and Community Benefits Agreement signatories, groups that have received the developer's support. No pro-project elected officials were visible.

Walking from the Atlantic Terminal Mall to Pacific Street outside the Ward Bakery (right), they chanted “Build it now,” a sentiment that could have been directed equally at Bruce Ratner, the banks, and the New York City Housing Development Corporation. (The counter-protest was previewed in an article in the Courier-Life chain, which came out Friday, but not by a press release, perhaps to preserve an element of surprise.)

Just as Forest City Ratner recently urged readers of its e-newsletter to contact their elected officials, the counter-rally suggested that the project remains politically very much in play, even if Paterson--the target of posters urging “Stand Pat Against the Rat”--recently expressed support for the project.

The counter-protestors gathered first at a plaza outside FCR’s Atlantic Terminal Mall, then proceeded to a holding area at the other end of Pacific Street, near Vanderbilt Avenue. I’d roughly estimate that the counter-protest was more than 50% larger, perhaps 500 (Forest City Ratner claimed 800) to perhaps 300 (DDDB claimed 400), though, as was pointed out multiple times, many of the former were paid. (Or, more precisely, protest work is part of union duty.)

Whose message?

This was the first time that the moderate BrooklynSpeaks, which calls for major changes in Atlantic Yards but does not oppose it fundamentally, joined forces with Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), which has organized and funded lawsuits challenging the project. I had questioned what happened after the group's spoke with one voice. Actually, beyond the fundamental call for "time out," the alliance may not be firm.

Most of the crowd seemed to support DDDB’s uncompromising position against the project as it stands. James, the project’s leading political opponent, opened on a roll: “Those not paid to be here, make some noise,” soon following up with, “If you want to develop and not destroy this community, make some noise.” The noise was loud.

“We’ve got to make some noise because David Paterson is blind but he’s not deaf,” James said, quickly adding--to stave off qualms about her mentioning his disability-- “And he’s a good friend.”

“So, Forest City Ratner, the gig is up,” James proclaimed rather conclusorily. “It’s time to go back to New Jersey.” The developer, in fact, has not been operating in New Jersey, but the Newark Star-Ledger recently reported on discussions--denied by Forest City Ratner--about a local consortium buying the team to play in Newark’s new Prudential Center.

“The market has softened, the lawsuits are pending,” James said, adding obliquely, “And more to be filed.” (I haven’t heard of any.)

Jeffries more careful

The other key elected official to speak was Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries (right), who’s taken a cautiously supportive (but sometimes shifting) stance on the project. “We’re here not because we’re anti-progress,” he declared. “We’re pro-democracy.”

He suggested that former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, known for his self-description as “the steamroller,” was “prepared to steamroll this community.” As for Paterson, “despite his physical condition, he is a man of tremendous vision, a man who understands the importance of real community input.”

He said Paterson should be given a chance “to put affordable housing first and foremost,” to reject the (ongoing) demolition of the Ward Bakery, and “to say no to eminent domain. Let’s give Governor Paterson a chance to do the right thing.”

I caught up with him afterward to point out that Paterson had just said the arena is going forward, downplaying the issue of eminent domain.

“Governor Paterson understands that getting things done requires working relationships,” Jeffries said. “I’m hopeful he will be willing to listen to local representatives before he moves forward unilaterally.”

Brooklyn speaks

City Council Member David Yassky was introduced by MC Chris Owens (right), his former antagonist in the bitterly-fought 11th District Congressional campaign in 2006 as one who “has seen the light and is on our side.” Yassky spoke briefly. “There is one plain truth: the community has never had its say,” he said. It’s time for the community to be heard.”

“Let’s go back to the table,” he said, prompting an audience member to shout back, “We were never at the table.”

The rally opened a little woodenly as Deb Howard of the Pratt Area Community Council, a member of both BrooklynSpeaks and the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, the third co-sponsor, read a statement that, without the commercial and residential component around the arena, the project “won’t be able to meaningfully fulfill the promises” made.

A couple of people heckled in disagreement that the project ever could fulfill the promises and when she read the Empire State Development Corporation’s boilerplate about transforming a “blighted area.” (“It was not blighted,” said one.) A rumble from the counter-protestors was clearly audible.

Owens then energized the crowd by leading a cheer, drowning out the counter-protestors. The crowd became forceful, but it was not nearly as large as the one that gathered in July 2006 at Grand Army Plaza.

Counter-protest

The energy from counter-protestors had already been building. They gathered starting at 1 pm, an hour before the “Time Out” rally, at the plaza outside Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Terminal Mall, steamfitters and carpenters and theatrical workers among those on the union side.

CBA signatory BUILD (Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development), which receives funding from the developer, gathered a group, as did ACORN, which signed the affordable housing agreement that remains in question. Delia Hunley-Adossa (with megaphone), chair of the CBA coalition and head of the Brooklyn Endeavor Experience, which has a Potemkin role in monitoring AY environmental assurances, was present, as was (I was told) Bertha Lewis of ACORN.

However, it wasn’t easy to talk to the protestors or take photographs. When I arrived at the plaza, photographer Adrian Kinloch, his camera visible, was finding himself stalemated by cops, who said that “the person in charge” did not permit photos.

I said I was there only to take notes and talk to people, but was quickly told I had to leave. Though I asked for more of an explanation, Sgt. Jones of the 77th Precinct (right) said he didn’t have time to provide one, and forcefully but not roughly gripped my arm and walked me across the street. Kinloch got a picture.

I went upstairs into the Atlantic Center mall, and took some photos from there, then looped back through the Atlantic Terminal mall, did some window shopping, then walked through the crowd, able to overhear Brigitte Labonte, a Forest City Ratner employee (and a mystery byline in the second issue of the Brooklyn Standard), giving directions to the various participants.

Not everyone was fully with the program. A contingent of Eastern Europeans from (I suppose) southern Brooklyn carried not terribly grammatical signs, such as “Bring Nets.” I asked one woman where she was from. “Ukraine,” she replied enthusiastically.

Meeting BUILD

Walking along Atlantic Avenue to Vanderbilt, I encountered BUILD’s Louis, keeping a tally of the group’s participants. If the cry was, “Build it now,” I asked her why the protesters weren’t marching outside the banks that have refused to give credit to developers like Forest City Ratner.

“The biggest issue is the lawsuits,” she said, contending that the clearing of lawsuits would allow the project to proceed and provide the opportunies and jobs the group seeks. While the lawsuits are a partial deterrent, their removal wouldn’t necessarily mean the project would go forward.

Pictured at right is Louis (right) with BUILD President James Caldwell, who was quoted in the Courier-Life:
“There’s many people in our community that are for it [Atlantic Yards] but they are sometimes too busy making ends meet to show their support,” said Caldwell, adding that many of the protestors have better lifestyles and take opposing Atlantic Yards as a cause celebre.

A tense twist

Perhaps halfway into the rally, a segment of the counter-protestors performed a flanking movement, gathering along Pacific Street on the west side of Carlton Avenue and changing. A phalanx of cops, wearing BNTF (Brooklyn North Task Force) patches and plastic handcuffs dangling from belt loops, gathered to form a barrier against any untoward contact between two sides.

The flanking movement, which ultimately dissolved, did successfully prevent some latecomers from getting to the main rally via Pacific Street and Sixth Avenue. (Though I didn't confirm it, I don't believe the counter-protestors had a permit for such a gathering.)

Along with the leaders of CBA signatory groups, several Forest City Ratner officials were on hand to help orchestrate the counter-protest. In the photo at right, FCR’s LaBonte is in the ballcap. Behind her is Thomas (Ziggy) Sicignano, a prominent youth basketball organizer who has received funding from the developer (and has a colorful past involving a felony plea bargain as part of a strip club trial). The man in the white shirt also (apparently) works for Forest City Ratner; he [corrected] shooed photographers to leave the Atlantic Terminal mall gathering place. To the right of him is Scott Cantone, a Forest City VP.

[Correction Monday 9:45 a.m.: I originally wrote that the man in the white shirt "directed police;" that was my interpretation from my conversation with photographer Kinloch, who had first encountered the man and was told not to take pictures. I did not see that encounter. Kinloch, when I saw him, was surrounded by police.]

Also present was FCR spokesman Loren Riegelhaupt (right), who issued a press release fairly quickly after the events.

Other speakers

The crowd at the rally was mostly white, though most live closer to the project site than the counter-protestors, a more diverse bunch ethnically. One speaker was Beverley Corbin of United Neighbors of Brooklyn, a recently-formed group that aims to bridge gaps between groups like DDDB and residents of housing projects.

Corbin (right), a veteran of FUREE, which has fought the city’s downtown development plans, said that it would cost $611 million to repair certain housing projects, and the money shouldn’t be spent on Atlantic Yards.

Also speaking was Ron Shiffman, founder of the Pratt Center for Community Development and a DDDB board member. “If you want affordable housing, let’s make it part of public policy,” he declared, suggesting that existing buildings in the AY footprint would be a place to start.

Also supporting the rally was City Council Member Tony Avella, a maverick candidate for mayor. Present but not speaking were three candidates for Bill de Blasio’s City Council seat, Josh Skaller, Craig Hammerman, and Brad Lander, as well as Joanne Simon, a candidate for Yassky’s seat.

Other electeds

Assemblyman Joan Millman was slated to attend, but didn’t make it, possibly because of logistics. Two other elected officials couldn’t make it but issued statements that indicated they supported some version of Atlantic Yards.

(Photo of Dean Street resident Jonathan Willner.)

“The Empire State Development Corporation is failing in its obligation to assure that affordable housing is built simultaneously with other elements of the project. A stand-alone arena is not acceptable,” said Assemblyman Jim Brennan in a statement. “The excessive size of the project may be adding to delays by creating more financial risks, as well as adverse environmental consequences. ESDC needs to look at a downsizing and a reconfiguration of the entire project to assure that it can proceed.”

De Blasio issued a statement stating that, “With thousands of units of affordable housing and jobs hanging in the balance, the number of unanswered questions and the level of uncertainty surrounding this project is unacceptable. Forest City Ratner must immediately provide the community with a timeline for construction, including all units of affordable housing, and release any revisions that have been made to the General Project Plan to date. We cannot tolerate further demolitions and certainly will not consider additional public investment in this project until these very reasonable requests are met.”

Was he referring to the fulfillment of already pledged monies, scarce affordable housing financing or the additional subsidies that Forest City Ratner already seeks?

State Senator Eric Adams, who has in the past expressed concerns about Atlantic Yards, was not a supporter of the rally.

FCR’s statement

Forest City Ratner issued a statement quoting spokesman Bruce Bender:
Mr. Bender reiterated the company's support for the project and the plan to open the arena and the first residential building at the same time.

"We anticipate a formal groundbreaking for the arena later this year," he further explained, "followed by the first residential building by next summer. We are going to build all of Atlantic Yards and all of its affordable housing; anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or misguided."

Remember, when the project was announced, the developer said, “The complex has been planned to look whole and complete during each phase of construction.”

What next?

Montgomery (right), the first speaker at the rally, declared, “I’m looking forward to time and the financial crisis to be on our side. Several of us have met with David Paterson’s people to ask them to review this project,” given that much of what was promised doesn’t appear to be fulfilled.”

“We were never at the table,” she said, calling for the consideration of a “new proposal that has been carefully and expertly worked out,” and a process governed by local laws.

As they say, time will tell.

At today's rally, one voice, and then?

It was news that, for the first time, three organizations with differing critical views of the Atlantic Yards project decided to join forces in calling for a "time out" regarding the project.

Since the rally was announced, even more reasons for concern have surfaced, notably the revelation that the City Funding Agreement defines "Substantial Completion" of Phase 1 as 1.5 million square feet, some 44% less than initially projected. And Comptroller Bill Thompson, a project supporter, acknowledged Wednesday, "I'm not sure what that project is any more."

It'll be interesting to see how much the messages remain aligned, and to what extent the several elected officials speaking today share the views of the more moderate BrooklynSpeaks, the hard-line Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), and the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN), which includes a mix of groups and is officially neutral, but which is probably closer to DDDB, given that it's a fellow petitioner in the suit challenging the environmental review.

BrooklynSpeaks

An email yesterday from Kent Barwick of the Municipal Art Society, which spearheads BrooklynSpeaks, seems to accept Forest City Ratner's curious map but emphasizes a new governance structure and an improved plan shaped by public input:
The site - blighted by a railyard - needs to be developed. But the plan that was rushed to approval in December 2006 was deeply flawed, because of its overwhelming density, outmoded superblock design and 7 acres of “temporary” parking that would blight Brooklyn for decades. Worst of all, the public was totally excluded from the decision-making process for this site.

Now the project has become even more troubling. The developer, Forest City Ratner, recently acknowledged that the buildings that were to surround the proposed Arena at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues have been indefinitely postponed. The arena will be surrounded instead by vacant space or more temporary parking, creating a blighted dead zone where vitality was promised.

If this project follows the pattern of other large-scale projects, this is likely to be the first of many redesigns. But Atlantic Yards is the only large-scale project in the city that has no mechanism for community input.

It is now more critical than ever that an accountable structure be established to foster dialogue surrounding the project and involve New Yorkers in its decision-making.To find out more about how this can be achieved, click here.

DDDB's take

On the other hand, DDDB offers no such willingness to revamp the project:
DDDB has always maintained that Atlantic Yards is not a feasible project. Recent developments in the financial markets and statements by the developer have made that certain, and call the entire project and its purported public benefits into question. The only thing currently with a timeline is the arena and its luxury skyboxes and acres of demolished vacant lots. Meanwhile our neighborhoods are being blighted by unnecessary demolitions for a project that is now a big unknown.

DDDB’s position remains the same as it has from the beginning—the project is bad for many reasons from process to finance to design, and we oppose it. The project should be scrapped; it’s time for a new plan to develop the rail yards in a democratic, fair and responsible way with genuine community participation..

Web cam records demolition at the Ward Bakery

Photographer Adrian Kinloch, aka Brit in Brooklyn, and other members of the Atlantic Yards Camera Club have set up a web cam that records the demolition of the Ward Bakery and nearby property from the south (Dean Street) side.

A screenshot is at right, but the real thing is at his web site.

On eminent domain, Paterson channels.... Gargano?

The New York Observer reports Gov. David Paterson's comments to WFAN about Atlantic Yards:
“The Brooklyn arena is going forward,” he said. “If there is continuing delay or legal action against the use of eminent domain, which is when the government condemns property and then exercises it, which I didn’t think there was very much at the Atlantic Yards ... I still think the Nets will wind up in Brooklyn,” he said.

While it is developer Forest City Ratner's intention to move forward with the arena, it can't do so until it has financing, and that likely has to wait until lawsuits are cleared. And eminent domain has been threatened but not exercised.

So Paterson's past-tense statement, "which I didn’t think there was very much at the Atlantic Yards," sounds curiously like former Empire State Development Corporation Chairman Charles Gargano's odd statement to Metro nearly two years ago: "we didn’t really have to use eminent domain because there were friendly condemnations done."

[Update: A reader says Paterson is technically correct, that the state began the eminent domain process when the project was approved in 2006. However, the process is hardly complete, and property title has not changed, given that court cases have slowed the project. So it's not quite accurate to "there was [not] very much." More accurate would be that "there hasn't been very much," or other phrasing that implied the process is not complete.]

It's true that Forest City Ratner owns or controls some 85% of the land it needs. Whether the remaining quantity of land is "very much" or not is a matter of debate, though the rights of a minority are not diminished by how many share their stance.

But at least we know where Paterson, who in 2005 notably opposed eminent domain but remained quiet since, stands. And, of course, he made the common error of calling Atlantic Yards a place.

Thompson says other developers might join AY; “I’m not sure what that project is any longer”

Atlantic Yards was the most contentious element of a panel discussion Wednesday at the New School’s Center for New York City Affairs titled Maintaining Momentum: Can New York’s Ambitious Development Agenda Survive an Economic Downturn?

Moderator Greg David, editor of Crain’s New York Business, and City Comptroller (and mayoral candidate) William Thompson urged that the project proceed, while Julia Vitullo-Martin of the Manhattan Institute (who called the project "corporate socialism") and Brad Lander of the Pratt Center for Community Development endorsed a rethink, albeit for somewhat different reasons.

Still, Thompson acknowledged, “I’m not sure what that project is any longer” and even dangled the hint that it might be revived by bringing in additional developers, as the city comes to the belated realization that single-developer projects pose certain dangers. He also agreed that most projects should go through ULURP, the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, rather than state review.

In other words, Thompson gave AY critics and opponents an opportunity for a “told-you-so,” to quote the New York Times’s recent coverage, just as David pressed his own “told-you-so,” nearly taunting Lander for opposing a project [corrected] that has steadily survived court challenges.

The panel received coverage only in Metro, which briefly described the discussion about Moynihan Station.

City perspective

The event began with Robert Lieber, deputy mayor for Economic Development, who gave a standard-issue explanation of the city’s rebirth over 30 years and post-9/11 recover. He noted that, by 1975, the city’s 1961 zoning resolution was already “functionally obsolete” and that the Bloomberg administration had rezoned more than one-sixth of the city’s area since 2002, a larger swath than all the rezonings under the prior six administrations combined.

“We want to use the rezonings and investments in public infrastructure to make the areas attractive to private development,” he said, a noncontroversial explanation that omits how the city proceeded with Atlantic Yards. After all, the investments in public infrastructure did not precede the selection of the developer--and the developer still seeks more subsidies.

“The hallmark, I think, of this administration, is that we run the city like a business, and think about long-term, to the extent that you can, and you try and plan accordingly,” he said. “When times were good...we didn’t spend everything that we had,” which means there’s money put aside to fund projects even through down cycles in the economy.

“In fact, when you look at the budgeting process and the projections for the different projects that are under way, we try and model economic downturns, and the cyclical nature of the markets for the life cycle of these long-term projects.” The projects under discussion, he said, would not take two or three years, “they could be two or three decades.”

He went on to list them, outside the Midtown Manhattan core, and AY was conspicuous in its absence. He cited rezonings for “areas like Hudson Yards, Jamaica, Long Island City, and Downtown Brooklyn.” He pointed to the city’s wish to build around areas with transit infrastructure--”one of the best examples is Hudson Yards,” which would extend Midtown Manhattan to the west.

He said he didn’t want to be pollyannish, acknowledging that some projects have hit snags. He cited the Javits Convention Center expansion and the complicated, mutating plans to build Moynihan Station. The timetable for Hudson Yards factored in the economic downturn, assuming relatively little commercial development until the Number 7 subway line is extended.

He said the city was also looking at underutilized parcels for development. Just last week, he noted, the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) began for two projects, Willets Point, “if you want to define blight,” and Hunters Point South.

He said that PlaNYC 2030, the mayor’s sustainability agenda, aims to help the city grow. The city has been making investments to diversify its economy beyond wall Street, in industries ranging from film to biosciences.

He acknowledged that the administration was “not necessarily going to complete every project” but wanted to created conditions to foster growth over the following decades and to “get these projects to a critical enough phase so they are self-sustaining.”

Full speed ahead?

Leading off the discussion, David asked the panelists whether they’d pursue the “all aboard, full speed, no matter what’s happening in the economy” mantra of the Bloomberg administration.

Much of the current situation does not depend on the mayor, pointed out Gregory Heym, executive vice president and chief economist at Terra Holdings. “We saw that with Atlantic Yards; it’s a funding issue.” (Later, he called Atlantic Yards “probably the poster child” for a project that couldn’t get financing.)

Vitullo-Martin said that the advantage of the downturn “does give us an opportunity to pause and think about what we’re doing.” She noted that Bloomberg plans a new book, titled “Do the Hard Things First,” and suggested “that would be Willets Point.”

Instead, she said, the administration should consider the easiest things first, concentrating on the Penn Station area and going slow on some of the big projects.

“I personally would like to see them try to truly rethink the huge Atlantic Yards development, which I think has always been too big, too subsidized, too ugly, too aggressive,” she said. “Here’s the time for us to really think about this: Do we want to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into that project?”

(The current direct subsidies total $305 million, not including housing subsidies and numerous tax breaks and other special benefits.)

Lander prefaced his remarks by pointing out that the free-market-oriented Vitullo-Martin and he are often posed as antagonists on panels, but usually agree more than disagree and, in this case, “certainly do that there is value in using this as a moment to pause, that there are some projects that it’s really worth moving forward on and there are some where [it’s worth], as people are saying in my neighborhood, ‘taking a time out’. Certainly Brooklyn Atlantic Yards tops that list.”

“I have a lot of questions about the administration’s Willets Point development and approach,” he added, suggesting it ignored well-entrenched companies beyond the “chop shops” Lieber disparaged as blight, “just as its wrong to dismiss the million-dollar co-ops and Freddy’s Bar in my neighborhood as blight.”

(Note that the state hasn’t called the latter blighted but has suggested that only this project can remove the blight nearby. Also note that Lander is running for Bill de Blasio’s City Council seat, which includes parts of Park Slope, reasonably near the AY footprint, which is represented by Council Member Letitia James. He has been steadily critical of Atlantic Yards, but far closer to the BrooklynSpeaks “mend-it-don’t-end-it” agenda than Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn’s staunch opposition.)

Lander said some things should move forward, noting that the plan on the West Side of Manhattan had been revised, called the plan for Public Place in Gowanus “brilliant,” and praised some PlaNYC initiatives.

Thompson’s AY defense

Thompson said, “I guess I’m going to come from the center.” He agreed that Moynihan Station should move forward. He expressed objections to Lieber’s characterization of Willets Point.

“The one thing that I think this slowdown... does,” he said. “It challenges the way we look at projects and look at megaprojects... We need to start to look at them in stages. And if a project makes sense in 2007, it probably makes sense five years and ten years later.”

That raises the question--what if the project, as with AY, was sold on the basis of delivering certain benefits in a decade, rather than interim surface parking?

“And how we start to plan a new rollout of those, in up and down cycles. So I wouldn’t say that it is full speed ahead.,” he said. “But we need to continue to plan for the future. And the megaprojects--a lot of the larger projects that make sense now, they will make sense in ten years. We need to begin that rollout, that staging, in up and down cycles... Government’s contribution, in so many ways, to these projects, is infrastructure,” he said, citing both infrastructure improvement and mass transit. ”We need to continue that through up and down cycles.”

Community frustration

One flaw in Bloomberg’s approach, Lander suggested, is that it provokes reaction in neighborhoods, when they don’t see the quality of life around them being improved, or the local infrastructure being strengthened. “I do think there is some value in slowing down and getting some of those things right.”

“I think if you poll New Yorkers about their feelings about growth and development in their neighborhoods,” Lander suggested, “they’re overwhelmingly frustrated.”

David was skeptical: “Do you think that will be the same, a year and a half from now, after we lose 150,000 jobs? Don’t you think that will change the way people feel about it? The fact that... unemployment in the construction trade could soar to 20 or 30 percent?”

Lander backed up only slightly. “I say all of that as someone who believes we want to see growth, and we want to see development, and we want to encourage projects... but at the same same time, no, I think we have not done a particularly good job of” engaging communities. Yes, he said, some of that may change when more people are out of work, but likely not significantly outside of the construction trades and the real estate sector.

He suggested that the city take some money it’s not putting into the mega-projects and make counter-cyclical investments.

“We’ll come back to that,” David said.

Vitullo-Martin suggested the administration might look at some smaller projects, like the redevelopment of Sherman Creek in Upper Manhattan.

Thompson said, “The reality is, speaking to large developers, they’ve been honest, the money just isn’t there right now, ‘We don’t have access to credit to move forward.’... It isn’t a question of, are these projects going to move forward? A lot of them aren’t right now. That’s the simple reality. How we use that time, how we reassess things, and look to move forward--we’re going to have time anyway. A lot of these projects aren’t going to move. And that is the simple reality of the lack of access to credit. And it’s not just for the small developers, it is for the large ones.”

Heym suggested that it’s much harder for developers to get equity investments. “They may have to give up 25 percent of their profits for ten percent equity,” he suggested. (And that may be a reason to sit on a project rather than move forward.)

Building downturn

There were different interpretations of the decline in building permits recently reported by Crain’s. Heym suggested that many developers in Brooklyn rushed to get their permits to take advantage of the 421-a tax break, which expires as of July (but at one point was expected to expire at the end of 2007).

Given the current economic situation, he suggested, “the timing of [the phase-out] is inopportune.”

“I wanted the rules changed five years ago,” said Lander citing “several billions” in revenue that the city lost by providing incentives for market-rate development in already thriving neighborhoods. Now, he suggested, the “incremental value of 421-a” was less important to developers than the state of the market, interest rates, and the cost of construction.

“Refighting old battles”

David challenged Lander and Vitullo-Martin on AY: “I get the feeling that you’re refighting old battles, that you’re using the economic downturn to refight issues that have already been decided.” He brought up the example of a New York Times article that gave voice recently to everyone who had opposed the Hudson Yards project.

“Actually, I think that’s sort of a strange question,” Vitullo-Martin said. “It’s certainly true that we’ve been arguing about these issues for... a number of years, but, on the big projects, the truth is, they’re not decided yet.”

She suggested the administration rethink some infrastructure issues during the pause. While she supported 90 percent of the rezonings, the Brooklyn waterfront rezoning in Greenpoint and Williamsburg “should have light rail” to move people who are otherwise distant from subways.

Lander suggested the city could use its resources to invest in bus rapid transit, or BRT. He suggested that a great countercyclical investment could be “significant residential retrofit” to make buildings sustainable. “We will save money and energy over the long term, but it’s not easy to align the people who need to take action and the people who need to make investments, and the state.”

“On Atlantic Yards,” he continued, “it’s not refighting, it’s continuing to fight an old battle. A lot of us didn’t like that plan when they proposed it, didn’t like it when the Empire State Development Corporation and the Public Authorities Control Board voted--”

David interrupted skeptically: “You’re going to hold out until the U.S. Supreme Court rejects the case.”

“Well,” Lander began.

“Lost in every court decision, over and over and over again,” David declared, in a mocking, told-you-so way.

After David over-talked Lander one more time, it was Thompson’s turn.

Additional developers?

He said the market was affecting projects. “The greatest example is Atlantic Yards. You are going to see a rethinking of that in one form or another, only because that project--a project that I supported--I’m not sure what that project is any longer. That is a problem. It has morphed and changed, gone through ups and downs. Right now, the financing side of that--they’re not going to be able to move forward right now. I still think that--it was a good idea two years ago, it will be a good idea in five years and in ten years.”

Of course, he was ignoring the fact that the good idea was premised on a certain timetable and a certain amount of public funding.

“It may be a slightly different project," he continued, "and we may need to bring additional developers--and that’s one of the things I think you’ll see also, it’s no longer relying on one developer on megaprojects, you will look at multiple developers in different stages, so it all doesn’t fall on one person’s shoulders.”

(The alternative UNITY plan is premised on dividing the railyards into parcels for multiple developers.)

David asked “the fundamental, immediate question”: would Thompson proceed with the arena, as Bruce Ratner intends?

Yes, Thompson said.

(Keep in mind that, in 2001, his campaign received $22,500 from five people associated with developer Bruce Ratner. Still, as readers point out, there are other reasons for him to support the project, just as there are other reasons to be critical of Thompson.)

Listen to the community?

During the Q&A, after Lander endorsed the notion of community-driven plans, such as that in the South Bronx to replace the Sheridan Expressway.

David countered that the community’s response to Columbia University’s expansion effort “would have crippled” the plan, and asked if that was not more typical.

Lander acknowledged that “it would still be a fight,” but noted that Manhattan Community Board 9 would have given Columbia 60 percent of what it wanted, and that a better process would make things go a little easier.

Vitullo-Martin said the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning “slipped through” before activists organized and got affordable housing as part of the Brooklyn waterfront rezoning. “I think right now we have a pretty good system of community participation,” she added. “I think community boards often improve projects.”

City vs. state review

From the audience, a member of Manhattan Community Board 4, on the West Side, suggested that some projects, like Moynihan Station, involve so many agencies outside the city that “we don’t have a leadership position.”

David tossed the question to Thompson, suggesting that one opponent in the mayoral election, Rep. Anthony Weiner, “is going to make this a major issue.”

Thompson argued for home rule. “The truth is, in the long run, if it had gone through the city process, you might have had a [West Side] stadium....I think, in a lot of ways, the city has to take leadership on these issues. You don’t want to always give these to other entities just for the sake of moving them a little quicker, or not going through a review process and including people from the city, and city entities. I’d like to see these projects go through city processes, go through a process that involves community boards, that involves other development entities in the city of New York. I just think it makes sense. Most of your major projects in the last few years have gone out of the city review process to other entities. I think it makes sense to have most of them go through the city process.”

“Mr. Lander,” David said “We’ll take that as a given. Actually Dan Doctoroff now says that not putting Atlantic Yards through ULURP was his biggest mistake. But having said that--we could’ve put Atlantic Yards through ULURP, we could’ve put the stadium to a City Council vote--is there really going to be any change in the great scheme of things, where the state is a controlling factor on many of our redevelopment projects, where the only entity with money for Moynihan Station is the Port Authority...?”

Lander responded, “I think it is worth distinguishing those projects that are genuinely multi-jurisdictional, and need the funding--the Port Authority plays an important role, and we need it. Atlantic Yards is not a bi-state project. It should’ve gone through ULURP.”

At least one of the configurations of Moynihan Station, Lander said, needed state leadership. “We don’t want to go back to a Bob Moses having control,” he said.

David said the “state has enormously more flexible authority,” hence the decision to turn to the state after September 11.

“Corporate socialism”

Vitullo-Martin brought up AY again: “One of the reasons I dislike the Ratner development... Comptroller Thompson said we’re not even sure what it is anymore. What we do know is humongous public subsidies are going into that development, so it’s sort of a form of corporate socialism, in my opinion. And I’d like to see in New York more distinction between clear market development and highly subsidized development. We’re going in the direction of highly subsidized market development, which I think is unfortunate.”

David challenged her: “You’ve been a big critic of Atlantic Yards here. But if we’re going to get 600,000 more people or 800,000 more people... why shouldn’t we be building on great transit hubs to accommodate them?”

“We should,” Vitullo-Martin agreed. “Absolutely.”

“So, fundamentally, we should be building on Atlantic Yards,” David said, conflating a marketing term with a place.

“Absolutely,” Vitullo-Martin agreed.

(The argument is not over dense development, but how dense.)

“And your objection therefore is?” he continued.

“It’s to this project, this amount of subsidies, and this amount of vagueness about what we’re actually getting now,” she said, pausing.

Lander joined in: “This particularly urban design, which cuts communities off from each other.” It would be the densest census tract in the country, by a factor of two. (Well, it wouldn’t be its own census tract, but the New York Observer gave the numbers.)

The private market

“I also think,” Vitullo-Martin said, “that this particular neighborhood was one in which the private market had already started to invest. That’s clear--those marvelous buildings that had been empty had been converted... The developer, after all, could’ve taken his own property and redeveloped his own property instead of using eminent domain to take other people’s property. And yes, I’d like to see the project, but... actually I’d prefer that it was market development there, because I think the neighborhood would’ve taken it... And I don’t think we have to put our precious subsidy dollars” into this project.

Vitullo-Martin’s free-market bent would run into political difficulty in Brooklyn, where there’s consensus that there should be affordable housing no matter what project is built at the railyards; affordable housing advocates like City Council Member Bill de Blasio argue that it’s more costly to build at certain sites, but the income mix is important.

Thompson took up that issue. “As one who lived in that neighborhood, I think if you look at some of the development... I think that the inclusion and initial design that brought about a large number of affordable units was important.” While market forces do drive development, he said, the decking of the yards “would never have happened,” he contended, ignoring the possibility of a simple rezoning or RFP.

“The scale of it--it was the largest thing that Brooklyn had ever seen,” he said. “Perhaps there were questions about scale, but the project itself and the use of subsidies made sense.”

The project's configuration was essentially a privately-negotiated affordable housing bonus. A smaller scale would mean fewer affordable apartments.

David asked panelists how the city should prioritize subsidies.

Thompson repeated, “What was good two years ago, three years ago... you’re looking at projects like Atlantic Yards. I thought the inclusion of subsidies to be able to drive affordability on part of the housing.... made sense. I thought the inclusion of senior housing made sense.”

(The $305 million in direct subsidies do not go to affordable housing, and the senior housing would be a subset of the affordable housing, not an addition.)

“I wouldn’t just want to see it as market-rate, because that starts to push others out of that neighborhood. It’s always been a very mixed neighborhood.... I thought that was one of the great lures and great attractions of Atlantic Yards.”

And if the housing takes 30 years rather than a decade? Note that there's evidence that Atlantic Yards would contribute to gentrification rather than alleviate it.

Bloomy right?

“Isn’t the Bloomberg administration right?” David asked in conclusion. Even if the economy turns down, “we should get as much decided for the future as possible,” so when the economy improves, we’ll be ready to take advantage of it. He pointed out that, in past economic downturns, jobs had left the city, and there wasn’t enough space when they returned.

(Atlantic Yards, however, is not so much about jobs, since the initial plan for four office towers around the arena was scrapped.)

Heym, Thompson and fellow panelist Rafael Salaberrios, president of the Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation, gave unequivocal yeses. Vitullo-Martin offered, “Yes, but we need that light rail.”

Lander said, “Better to get it right than to do it quickly,” noting that infrastructure issues are now on the table and pointing out that, with Hudson Yards, “they got it right the second time.”

Not everyone on the West Side agrees, but in Brooklyn, a review of Atlantic Yards might at least get the issues out in the open.

What’s next?

I caught up with Thompson afterward. Given that the project was approved under the assumption that the benefits would arrive in ten years, rather than two or three decades, I asked whether he thought it deserved a new review, as some in Brooklyn contend.

“The first thing, we’d like to define it and fully understand it,” he replied. “What is the project going to be over the next two, three, five, ten years? I think that’s the course that we’d like to do. People would like to go back and re-trigger things and look at it again--I don’t know that we should do that.”

So what’s the process to define it, I asked.

“Government has an obligation,” he said, “to fully make sure” what the short- and long-term goals of the project are and make them public.

That, I pointed out, might be complicated by the news I’d reported that morning that the developer had the city’s permission to build a much smaller Phase 1 than previously anticipated, and over 12 years.

Yesterday, Bruce Ratner said in a statement denying rumors about talks with New Jersey investors, "We are focused on breaking ground on the Barclays Center in Brooklyn later this year and building all of Atlantic Yards, nothing else."

Expect him to be asked to define what "all of Atlantic Yards" actually means.