Skip to main content

Guess what: Atlantic Yards environmental review didn't assess whether arena noise might penetrate the neighborhood or adjoining towers (though some assessment was apparently done for business reasons)

How about that giant neighborhood sub-woofer, the arena that provoked a (proposed) fine for leaking bass?

It sure doesn't look like the environmental review for the Atlantic Yards project ever assessed the potential for arena-related noise--such as bass from the Jay-Z and Sensation concerts--to penetrate residences either within the project site or down the street, much less blocks away.

That's a lapse--apparently a permissible one--in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). And it appears to be a flaw in the arena design--one that Forest City Ratner is apparently trying to remedy, though the developer won't issue a progress report yet.

Either way, the state override of zoning to place a sports facility up against a residential neighborhood surely raises the stakes, as does the plan for residential towers immediately adjacent to the structure. The latter plan, far more than a proposed $3,200 fine, is most likely to provoke adjustments.

You might think the pending, court-ordered Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) would require such an evaluation, but don't bet on it, since the only noise impacts assessed relate to traffic and construction.

City and state guidance apparently requires no evaluation of the potential for noise from a enclosed facility to penetrate neighboring buildings.

Why not? I'd guess because it's just not supposed to happen.

What the FEIS said

Chapter 15, Noise, of the FEIS, cited "noise attenuation values for new buildings... based on exterior noise levels," including "both project-generated traffic and construction." Not arena operations.

The "project buildings would include both double-glazed windows and central air-conditioning," both of which "would provide a minimum of 35 dBA attenuation," thus lowering interior levels below 45 dBA.

Neither double-glazed windows now air conditioning have stopped the bass from reaching arena neighbors.

There's no mention of stationary sources in the chapter, but, then again, the official guidance only addresses stationary sources that are open to the air, as noted below.

The project consultant

There are surely business reasons for the developer to analyze noise and vibration issues, and a consultant called Cerami states that it did so:
Cerami provided acoustical and vibration consulting for the new Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn, NY which includes an 800,000 gsf multi-use arena, a mixed-use tower, three residential towers, and above and below grade parking garages, sited on approximately 7.25 acres.
The arena is set in a busy urban setting near the Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street subway station and the Long Island Rail Road terminal in Brooklyn, one of the most transit-accessible locations in the New York City. Due to the location, vibration isolation was of the utmost importance.
In addition, it was critical that the residential towers be isolated both from train vibration, as well as sound breakout from, and into, the arena. In order to assess the noise levels from arena events, we conducted benchmark testing of a variety of event types from rock concerts to basketball games. Using this, combined with predictive software, we were able to to establish a baseline by which we were able to establish minimal criteria to provide appropriate sound for arena interiors, as well as facade, roof, and construction details to minimize impact to the adjacent spaces.
(Emphasis added)

That work, as of yet, does not appear to be super-successful. Or, perhaps, it's just stale. The Cerami web site states that the client was original architect Frank Gehry rather than Gehry's successors, Ellerbe Becket (now part of AECOM) and SHoP.

What the SEIS should cover

In her July 2011 decision on a challenge to the state's failure to study the potential of a 25-year project buildout, state Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman ordered "preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement assessing the environmental impacts of delay in Phase II construction of the Project; the conduct of further environmental review proceedings pursuant to SEQRA in connection with the SEIS, including a public hearing if required by SEQRA; and further findings on whether to approve the MGPP for Phase II of the Project."

The key issue involves the impacts from delayed construction, not the impacts from an arena that sometimes operates as a neighborhood sub-woofer.

What's required

Such assessment of sound is apparently not required.

According to the CEQR (City Environmental Quality Review) Technical Manual, which "assists city agencies, project sponsors, and the public in conducting environmental reviews," the chapter on Noise (revised as of this June) does mention the possibility of Stationary Noise:
Stationary sources of noise do not move in relation to a noise-sensitive receptor. Typical stationary noise  sources of concern for CEQR include machinery or mechanical equipment associated with industrial and manufacturing operations; or building heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems. In addition, noise produced by crowds of people within a defined location, such as children in playgrounds or spectators attending concerts or sporting events and noise produced by concerts or by announcements using amplification systems, are considered stationary sources.
(Emphasis added)

Yes, noise produced by concerts would count. But lower down, the guidance implies that only outdoor events could cause problems:
While people are not usually thought of as stationary noise sources, children in playgrounds or spectators at outdoor sporting events or concerts may cause annoyance in communities. Instantaneous crowd noise levels at outdoor events may exceed 90 dB(A). In addition, measurements taken at 10 school playground sites in 1987 concluded that maximum Leq(1) levels at school playground boundaries in the New York City area are 75 dB(A). The equations for calculating playground noise may be obtained from DEP. Potential noise impacts due to amplification systems at outdoor concert or performance facilities, ballparks, amusement facilities, etc., may be avoided if the system is properly designed and operated (see Section 333).
Potential solutions

What are the solutions? Section 333 advises proper research:
In all cases, rather than using theoretical modeling techniques, it is preferable to use actual facility data. Therefore, if a facility comparable to the proposed project can be measured, and its levels can be adjusted to account for differences in conditions between its site and the proposed project site, that is generally a preferred modeling approach.
Or add something at the building to muffle the sound, turn down the volume, or even move "the source in question":
The most common mitigation measures available for stationary sources include exterior building attenuation (as discussed for mobile sources in Subsection 511 above), barrier erection (as discussed above), and noise control design on the source in question. Caution should be exercised when erecting barriers in New York City given the limitations mentioned above. In many cases, treating the noise source (i.e., providing baffles, silencers, mufflers, sound insulation, placing it within an enclosed structure,  etc.) may be the least expensive option. Moving the source in question so that receptors would not be significantly affected is also a potential mitigation measure. 
(Emphasis added)

In the 2001 Technical Manual, which was in force during the 2006 environmental review for Atlantic Yards, the chapter on Noise has the same text noted above.

No, "moving the source in question" is not on the table. They're not moving the arena. But perhaps some kind of muffler will be applied.

Forest City Ratner surely has an incentive, not merely to mollify arena neighbors but to ensure that future residents of towers adjacent to the arena--their future tenants--aren't outraged.


  1. There is no need for complicated noise-abatement solutions. The problem can be fixed in five seconds. FCR needs to turn down the volume. If need be, the physical volume controls can have limiters installed. Courts can and do order this kind of remediation. Why is it still too loud? Because FCR DOESN'T CARE, and isn't being forced to remediate. Certainly FCR's lease with the State requires it to be law-abiding.

    George L


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…

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…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.