Skip to main content

In Times's sunny report on selling library (and school) sites, REBNY head gets definitive word on arena impact

It's front-page news in today's New York Times (both local and national editions), Saving Schools and Libraries by Giving Up the Land They Sit On, describing plans to see buildings like the Pacific (pictured) and Brooklyn Heights branches of the Brooklyn Public Library:
Government-financed agencies, seeing a way to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in a weak economy, are looking at the land right under some of their own institutions and offering it to the best bidder, who will build new, modern libraries or schools in the base of new developments. In the process, they will also erase the stout civic buildings now there, in effect leveling public facilities to make sure the agencies are financially secure.
The strategy has been embraced in Brooklyn, where the two libraries need repairs of $9 million to $11 million.
“We would deliver two of these libraries for essentially no cost to the library system,” said Joshua Nachowitz, the Brooklyn Public Library’s vice president for government and community relations. “It’s a win-win.”
But the approach has provoked growing protest in the affected communities. Most pressingly, residents are concerned about how far they will have to go to reach a library, and where their children will go to school, during the years it will take to erect the new towers. But they are also worried about the aesthetic and cultural price of replacing local institutions to which they are deeply attached, neighborhood landmarks if not official ones, and having them swallowed up into stacks of concrete, steel and glass.
What's missing

There are a couple of things missing from that capsule description. First, the sale of the libraries would not leave the Brooklyn Public Library "financially secure," as both its operating and capital budgets face deep deficits. It's by no means clear that the sale of the prime Brooklyn Heights site--perhaps worth $100 million--would be plowed back into the system.

Second, those protesting--see Michael D.D. White's Noticing New York blog and associated petition--have expressed concerns not only about proximity and esthetics, but also whether the library sites would indeed be sold, to quote the Times's breezy shorthand, "to the best bidder."

Moreover, elected officials like Council Members Steve Levin and Letitia James have expressed wariness about the process.

After all, there is a history of not selling sites--such as the Vanderbilt Yard--in an open and fair process.

The Atlantic Yards reference

But the Atlantic Yards saga gets turned into this:
The real estate industry, of course, is delighted with this growing trend. Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, pointed out that the Barclays Center arena — itself the result of an eminent domain effort that prompted bitter accusations that the city was enriching a private developer — had revived a sleepy quarter of Brooklyn and made a place like the nearby Pacific branch library suddenly ripe for a lucrative land deal.
The sleepiness was caused significantly by the developer's decisions to purchase and empty property. And what about those "bitter accusations"? Why not follow up on some calculations, like the uncounted savings on property like Pacific Street?

A "win-win"?

The last word in the article goes to a neutral expert, author of a worthy report (Branches of Opportunity) on libraries that advocates getting the most from library real estate:
But David Giles, research director of the Center for an Urban Future, a nonprofit urban-affairs institute, said there was wisdom to the approach.

“They can rebuild a new branch for the neighborhood and add money for other branches as well,” he said. “That’s clearly part of the calculation there. It’s property values.”
His general point is inarguable. The question is how much the administration, and the process, can be trusted.

Comments

  1. What percent of the City is pavement/streets?

    Perhaps 30%?

    Let the City sell its streets, not its buildings

    George L

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Norman,

      This discussion is weak on urban design, civic art and the making of the public realm. The public realm is the space between the buildings. It is where democratic life has flourished since recorded time began. The Greeks talked about the importance of "the polis," which described both the citizens and the totality of all the buildings that made up the city, as well as the spaces between them. For Plato, the form of the city was first of all a political act, because it was where the good life took place. Polis gave us many words like "political" and "polite." Under the Romans, "civitas" took on similar importance.

      Important to the experience of any good city are civic buildings, like courthouses, schools, train stations, theaters and libraries. Grand Central Station, the old Penn Station and the New York Public Library on 42nd Street are great examples of civic buildings that make urban life better and ennoble public life. Vincent Scully famously said about Penn Station, "You used to enter the city like a god, now you creep in like a rat." The late, great Ada Louise Huxtable had a wonderful column about how the experience of the 42nd Street library made her childhood better and taught her lessons about urban life, democracy, and learning.

      Note that none of that was for or about the 1%. When it came to building schools and libraries, the New York elite imposed a top-down vision on the city, but it was a democratic vision of a city for all. What we have learned during the last few years of Mayor Bloomberg, a man I voted for three times, is that the city is for sale to the highest bidder, and that the profits from those bids go to making the 1% richer.

      I don't think the Mayor is a bad man, but I believe his model for development—big deals for big investors and big profits for the few—is frequently bad for the city. Most of the New York we love was built in smaller pieces, with multiple builders and developers working on separate lots on the same block, in a less expensive process that many could participate in to build wealth. On top of that process, the city built civic buildings, schools and libraries that were "public adornments" at the hearts of neighborhoods all over the city. Physical manifestations of the city's values, they produced generations of well-educated New Yorkers who often went on to do great things.

      Putting these great institutions in the bases of mediocre, glass-skinned buildings that do not tell us where the public institution begins and the private apartments end degrades the institutions and thereby civic life and democracy. And it's worth pointing that although many of the libraries being torn down were designed by McKim, Mead & White, who also designed Penn Station and the New York Municipal Building, the Mayor himself lives in a McKim, Mead & White house, and recently renovated another McKim, Mead & White house for his foundation. Since he is our richest citizen, this is a strong statement about the 1% versus the rest of us, especially when even the apartments above the school are for the 10%. Once McKim, Mead & White was for everyone, but now only the super-rich can afford their buildings.

      When we built all these great civic institutions a hundred years ago, New Yorkers were not richer than they are today. We have phenomenal wealth in the city, equal in every way to the wealth of the Gilded Age, and we could do as much as they did. That makes it all the worse that we choose to cry poverty and sell off our civic institutions.

      John

      Delete
    2. This raises a question: how much, if at all, will the mayoral candidates articulate this approach?

      Delete

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…