Skip to main content

The new New Domino is a bold new plan everyone seems to like, but the devil's in the details

The old vision
The New Domino plan for the Williamsburg waterfront, taken over by DUMBO-famed developers Two Trees Management after CPC Resources faltered, has been transformed with several new benefits and, crucially, made a good bit larger.

As the second-largest development plan in Brooklyn after 22-acre Atlantic Yards, the 11-acre New Domino has even more similarities than it did when announced in 2007: the role of SHoP Architects, brought in to rescue/revive another plan, and the persistent public relations services of BerlinRosen. (At less than half the size of Atlantic Yards, it would take 15 years to build. Note that AY could take 25 years, despite many promises of ten years.)

The new vision, from even higher in the sky;
notice extended height of southernmost tower (r.)
and obscured sibling tower just behind it
What was once proposed as a fairly symmetrical ensemble of boxy residential towers that accentuated the restored 19th century factory (via Rafael Viñoly) would become a more dramatic collection of taller, thinner, more interestingly shaped buildings, including an office tower to accommodate workers in Williamsburg, increased open space, and perhaps the same amount of affordable housing.

The news coverage has been uniformly positive, with reporters even cheerleading.

The Daily News's headline was On the waterfront: Domino Sugar factory to get office makeover and more than 2,000 apartments 660 affordable apartments, parks - and a floating pool in the East River, citing 3,500 jobs in the 600,000 square feet of office space, as well as a commitment to independent retail.

“It meets all the community’s major needs — affordable housing, jobs and open space,”  Community Board 1’s Jason Otano told the paper. “I think it’s a winner. The open space--probably not actual park space--would grow from 3.29 acres to 5.25 acres, thanks in part by taking the space once proposed for a tower.

Presumably an even bigger set of buildings that provided similar results also would be a winner.

Looking more closely

OK, it's an interesting look. But when there's a spot rezoning, you have to keep your eye on the ball.

They're not just bringing jobs, housing, open space, waterfront access, and dramatic architecture. After their predecessors got a spot rezoning--permission to build way bigger than before--Two Trees is asking for even more buildable space. That means another trip through the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), crucially before the Bloomberg administration leaves office

Maybe that's justifiable, especially adding office space to a neighborhood starved for it. But it should be subject to scrutiny, and some math. (Williamsburg's Neighbors Allied for Good Growth opposed the original New Domino plan as too big. And it's still adding lots of density far from the subway.)

Also in question is the affordable housing. Two Trees claims a commitment to the 660 units promised, which would be slightly less than the 30% promised.

But I've seen no coverage yet of whether "affordable" would merely conform to city programs (and thus be unaffordable for many locals) or whether it would aim at a larger percentage of lower-income households, as initially proposed. If so, does that imply a city commitment for more subsidy per unit than for other projects?

And while SHoP's uber-confident partner Vishaan Chakrabarti admits the plan isn't contextual, he asserts, with more legitimacy than tact, "Contextualism is an opiate for the masses."

If so--and the waterfront is surely a place to push the envelope on contextualism--we'll need some street-scale renderings a little more comprehensive (and from the neighborhood to the east) than those distributed in the coordinated media push.

Also, as the Wall Street Journal's Eliot Brown pointed out, Chakrabarti in his earlier days was both more contextual and, at least regarding the areas studied for his 1993 master's thesis, less bottom-line oriented:
Land use planning should emphasize the social needs of the city, including the clear need for affordable housing. Physical intervention should be sensitive to the existing scale of the city, with an emphasis on regulating height, streetwall, and block structure rather than expression and materials. Land consolidation should be illegal after a specific threshold, which could easily be determined through analysis of a city's typical block size.
... Proponents of large-scale urban redevelopment have yet to prove that such projects "trickle down" wealth.
How much bigger? 

The plan involves only building a tower 598 feet, nearly 50% taller than the previous 40-story limit, plus, according to Crain's, two 590-foot towers linked by a bridge. There would be 2,284 apartments, up from 2,220 as passed (not necessarily down from 2,400, as one report says, though 2,400 was once proposed) and 630,000 square feet of office space, up from 100,000.

Below is the comparison chart produced by Two Trees, which says the approved plan *was* 2,400 units, and also adds open space in its calculations:

Given that it was announced at 2.86 million square feet and now would be 3.3 or 3.4 million square feet, my math says that's a gain of 440,000 or 540,000 sf, though the flacks, according to one reporter, say it's just 272,000 zoning sf or 230,000 gross square feet, the size of a medium-sized building. NY1 reported:
"The existing plan has about 3 million square feet of built space, and our plan is very much in the same ballpark," said Jed Walentas of Two Trees Management Company.
How much is that worth? TerraCRG says residentially-zoned Williamsburg development property goes for $160 per buildable square foot, which (using 272,000) adds up to a $43,520,000 value.

But Two Trees' Jed Walentas told the Brooklyn Paper that office space would rent for less than half that of residential space, though ultimately it would, in the Paper's paraphrase, "creat[e] a vibrant atmosphere that’s alive at all times of day, eventually making the project more profitable."

Then again, commercially zoned industrial buildings in Williamsburg went for $135/sf and in East Williamsburg for $252/sf, according to TerraCRG, so any numbers need an adjustment.

Beyond that, presumably the waterfront location and insta-iconic architecture also would add value.

The Domino Effect's take

Wrote Brian Paul 2/16/13 on the blog of The Domino Effect, the documentary about the project:
Is it really possible that a private, for-profit developer like Two Trees could want to re-establish mixed use on the waterfront? After the 2005 rezoning was expressly designed by the Bloomberg administration’s Department of City Planning to cater to developers? After paying $185 million for the Domino Sugar site?
I believe the answer is yes, with an asterisk. First, the asterisk is that Two Trees will likely want to build at least one very, very tall tower of luxury residential. Perhaps as tall as 60 stories. It should be noted that this kind of height would be completely antithetical to the vision of the 197-a community plan, which always called for strictly contextual building heights.
Yet such a tower of mammon could be the key that unlocks the rest of the parcel to much more diverse mixed-use development. I feel the need to note here that this hypothetical tower of mammon would be totally unnecessary if not for CPCR and Isaac Katan’s incompetence and greed in flipping Domino from a $55 million land cost to a $185 million without a dime of improvement to the site. City government should have never agreed to the rezoning of Domino without a viable financial plan for development. As a result, Two Trees is forced to overcome this sunk cost that could have been much lower.
Architecture trumps all?

New York Magazine critic Justin Davidson declared Oooh, Williamsburg: A so-what plan is trumped by daring:
It's hard to argue that [Walentas's] motivator is greed, since the new proposal whittles away some market-rate apartments, keeps all the affordable units, adds less-profitable offices, shuts out megaretailers in favor of small stores, and increases the open public space by almost 60 percent. Maybe Walentas really wants what he says he wants: a round-the-clock New Dumbo... Yes, the new Domino would mean more creeping Manhattanization, but that sure is better than the alternative: the New Jersification of Brooklyn.
It may not be greed: Two Trees is known for long-term thinking, and has some deep pockets. But his motivation surely isn't eleemosynary, either. The devil will be in the details. (Also, I'm not sure that O-shaped buildings signify Manhattan rather than Rem Koolhaas's Beijing.)


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…