Skip to main content

In the Boston Review, an Atlantic Yards-centric review of The Battle for Gotham

The Battle for Gotham: New York in the Shadow of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs, by Roberta Brandes Gratz, is the subject of a thoughtful 2900-word review in the Boston Review, Clear and Hold, by Brooklyn resident and Princeton grad student Casey Walker.

Atlantic Yards gets a significant cameo in the book's Conclusion (its tenth chapter), but it is the focus of Walker's review, which states:
Atlantic Yards is a familiar urban story: surrounding neighborhoods are braced for upheaval; architects have come and gone; redesigns have been announced, lambasted, tweaked, disowned; lawsuits multiply like kudzu; millions of dollars are all but blowing through the air; and the likely date of actual completion is anyone’s guess (Forest City Ratner, the developer, contends the Barclays Center will be finished by 2011, but the Web site does not give a timetable for the rest of the project).
Actually, they're saying 2012, now.

Questions that never got answered

Walker, who wisely recognizes the merits of “infill” development in the railyard, sets out the issues that arose:
The question, of course, is what form that development should take. Should new additions be in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods? Should they be done piecemeal or all at once? Do we need several architects or is one sufficient? How much attention should the city and borough pay to the interests of local boards? Should new construction be limited to the rail yards, or should the development be bigger?

To me, these questions always have been theoretical. It was never hard to see who would prevail. Despite the lawsuits, protests, and holdouts spearheaded by the major opposition group—Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn—Forest City was simply too rich and too shrewd, and its political support was too deep. Its large-scale approach to development would not meet any serious challenges. Atlantic Yards will be a Robert Moses throwback: a massive project, done all at once, unsparing of existing structures, with a skyline soaring above the rooftops of the three and four story brownstone buildings that make up much of the surrounding neighborhoods.
If it is done all at once, I and some others will be very surprised, given the gentle deadlines in the Development Agreement.

The unequal playing field

Read on for thoughts of the city as a delicate organism, Walker's acknowledgment that some big projects (like Rockefeller Center) did work, and Gratz's conclusion, via Walker, that "the continuing influence of Robert Moses is a sign that the battle for a Jacobsian city is continuous, and always fought on an unequal playing field."

Comments

  1. What Walker writes is disturbing (but perhaps true)., especially as it is just thrown out there like common knowledge. He writes:

    "To me, these questions always have been theoretical. It was never hard to see who would prevail. Despite the lawsuits, protests, and holdouts spearheaded by the major opposition group—Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn—Forest City was simply too rich and too shrewd, and its political support was too deep. Its large-scale approach to development would not meet any serious challenges. "

    Is he suggesting that Ratner being too shrewd and rich means that courts would never rule against him? Maybe. But what about the law.

    Where he is just wrong is that at least according to Ratner himself, the project was teetering on the brink in 2008. Atlantic Yards, a David v. Goliath fight if ever there was one, DID meet a serious challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Casey Walker wrote:

    The question, of course, is what form that development should take. Should new additions be in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods? Should they be done piecemeal or all at once? Do we need several architects or is one sufficient? How much attention should the city and borough pay to the interests of local boards? Should new construction be limited to the rail yards, or should the development be bigger?

    . . . [Forrest City's] large-scale approach to development would not meet any serious challenges. Atlantic Yards will be a Robert Moses throwback: a massive project, done all at once, unsparing of existing structures, with a skyline soaring above the rooftops of the three and four story brownstone buildings that make up much of the surrounding neighborhoods.


    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    I've only quickly skimmed the Walker essay, but here is what jumps out at me.

    It seems to me that Walker is confusing the issues here (as have many others too). Atlantic Yards is [1] a Robert Moses-type development and [2] a bad development scheme overall not because it is big, etc. (Rockefeller Center, for example, was a big development and was neither of these things.)

    Rather, Atlantic Yards is [1] a Robert Moses-type development and [2] a bad development scheme overall because it is just a poorly thought out scheme in the first place, and because it involves a high level of government assistance, especially with regards to the government's power of eminent domain.

    It also seems to me that the high level of government involvement in the project helps "insulate" it from its problems as a development scheme.

    Benjamin Hemric
    Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:30 a.m.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Daniel Goldstein is right that even Ratner admits the project was in trouble when the economic downturn hit. However, the political (and business) establishment was always behind the project, so it was hard to maintain a political challenge. In other words, the win--should it have come--would have been because lawsuits delayed Atlantic Yards long enough for the downturn, but not in the political arena, or the legal arena. (One major case still lingers.)

    Benjamin Hemric is right in pointing out the difference between Atlantic Yards and Rockefeller Center. AY is a Robert Moses-type development for our current era, one with far more surface process but still no significant accountability. A development project of considerable size--if not AY dimensions--could be built on the railyard and even (parts of) adjacent blocks, but to win approval from many urbanists it would have to have been done differently.

    Not only are the issues government assistance/involvement, eminent domain, and a one-developer scheme. The fundamental question is the balance of power between the developer and the agencies representing the public.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Norman, of course you are correct. It was a politically fixed deal, and that never changed.

    But my comment was more about the judiciary. If it was politically fixed (and no doubt it was), and if Ratner is powerful, has a lot of money and doles out a lot of it, should that—does that—impact the courts.

    My fear is that it does. And it shouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Norman Oder wrote:

    AY is a Robert Moses-type development for our current era, one with far more surface process but still no significant accountability.


    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    While I agree that Atlantic Yards is indeed a Robert Moses-type development for our current era, I don't believe it is because Atlantic Yards has involved no significant accountability. (In other words, I don't believe that one of the factors making it a Robert-Moses-type development is the fact that there's been little true community input, etc.) Rockefeller Center, for example, is not a Robert Moses-type development, and it didn't have any significant community input either. So I don't think the absence of community input is really a legitimate criteria for a project's "Robert Moses-ness."

    Rather I think the real criteria is whether the building of a project involves government power (especially government power used in an abusive way).

    - - - - - - -

    Norman Oder wrote:

    A development project of considerable size -- if not AY dimensions -- could be built on the railyard and even (parts of) adjacent blocks, but to win approval from many urbanists it would have to have been done differently.

    The fundamental question is the balance of power between the developer and the agencies representing the public.


    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    If what is being meant here is that a hallmark of good urbanism is a responsiveness to community input, I don't think this is true -- and again, Rockefeller Center is a counter example.

    Benjamin Hemric
    Wednesday, 7/28/2010, 9:55 p.m.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Um, how different is "(especially government power used in an abusive way)" from "no significant accountability"?

    Rockefeller Center may be a counter-example of good urbanism without community input, but it's a different project at a different time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Norman Oder wrote:

    . . . how different is "(especially government power used in an abusive way)" from "no significant accountability"?

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    I thought that by "no significant accountability" it was meant that Atlantic Yards wasn't subject to meaningful community reviews by the local community board, etc. This is, of course, very different from using government powers for eminent domain abuse, etc.

    - - - - - -

    Norman Oder wrote:

    Rockefeller Center may be a counter-example of good urbanism without community input, but it's a different project at a different time.

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    I think the question to be addressed here is why are the differences that are being mentioned supposedly relevant / significant to the issue at hand? For example, why is community oversight supposedly necessary for good urbanism now when it wasn't then?

    Would community oversight have made Rockefeller Center better urbanistically or worse? Judging from what I've read about the history of Rockefeller Center, it seems to me that community involvement would likely have made Rockefeller Center much less successful urbanistically -- and probably even jeopardized its successful construction in the first place. ("Too many cooks spoil the broth.") Why is this supposedly different today? Why, and how, have the dynamics supposedly changed?

    Also, it seems to me that it's important not to overlook the way heavy government involvement insulates projects such as Atlantic Yards from their mistakes -- and, indeed, is what makes such projects supposedly "feasible" in the first place. Without heavy government involvement there is no Atlantic Yards in its (various) present form(s).

    The same is not true with regard to truly private developments (that aren't insulated from potential problems by heavy government involvement), like Rockefeller Center.

    Benjamin Hemric
    Wed., July 28, 2010, 11:49 p.m.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But official…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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