Skip to main content

Revealed: Atlantic Yards modular construction means 22% drop in costs/wages, 10% cut in jobs, 24% loss in tax revenues

When Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner unveiled plans to build the 16 towers in the Atlantic Yards project via innovative, cost-saving modular construction, CEO Bruce Ratner told the Times in November 2011 that modular would “probably” require the same number of workers.

Spokesman Joe DePlasco told WNYC that a previously announced figure of 17,000 construction jobs announced was still expected.

A year later, in a public presentation in Brooklyn, Forest City executive Melissa Burch surprised some audience members by echoing a PowerPoint presentation that stated “Modular construction will require approximately the same number of man-hours as conventional construction.”

If so, Forest City would be saving not because fewer workers would be hired, but only because cross-trained union workers inside the modular factory, located in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, would be paid less than workers on site.

New numbers

But those predictions were unreliable and, perhaps, mendacious.

According to a new analysis conducted for a court-ordered environmental review, the investment for the eleven towers in the project's Phase 2 would represent a 22% cut in costs from conventional construction, a 22% cut in wages, and a 10.2% cut in job-years. 

It also would mean a 24% reduction in revenues for New York City, MTA, and New York State (in 2013 dollars), from personal income taxes, corporate and business taxes, sales tax on indirect activities, and related taxes on direct and generated economic activity.

And the numbers are conservative, since they don't apply to the whole project.

Because the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was required only to analyze the impacts of a potential delayed buildout in the project's second phase, the chapter on Modular Construction in the Draft SEIS assesses only the Phase 2 towers, not the additional five towers in Phase 1, which also are likely to be built via modular construction. 

That means that the switch to modular for the full project (outside the arena), which Forest City Ratner announced well after Atlantic Yards went through its second round of approvals, was never fully assessed, nor will it be.

B2, the 363-unit first tower, is being built hugging the arena at the intersection of Flatbush Avenue and Dean Street, and is expected to open by the end of the year.

Extrapolating from the findings in the Draft SEIS, the use of modular construction for the entire 16-tower project presumably would further lower overall costs, wages, job-years, and tax revenues.

Ultimately, the new information serves to confirm that Forest City's public statements about Atlantic Yards jobs, as with those regarding compensation for the part-time arena workers and claims of "2000 jobs" at the arena, require vetting by outside parties.

In this case, the vetting comes from AKRF, the consultant hired by Empire State Development, the state agency overseeing/shepherding Atlantic Yards. (Forest City pays ESD for the environmental review.)

Presumably, had Forest City paid for the Independent Compliance Monitor required by the Community Benefits Agreement, we would have had more accurate statistics on modular even earlier.

The benefits of modular

To union leaders, modular may be a reasonable trade-off. Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, has said that, while workers in the factory would earn some 25% less than the average union construction worker, it would mean steady hours--and the opportunity to work in controlled conditions all-year round.

And, should Forest City Ratner prove the concept, it will designate the factory, which is a joint venture with Skanska, to produce modules for other development projects around the city, thus potentially involving more jobs.

(Trade organizations representing plumbing contractors and mechanical contractors unsuccessfully sued to block the Department of Buildings' approval of modular, saying it improperly cut out skilled trades.)

"Modular has the potential to introduce one of the first, major manufacturing expansions in New York City since manufacturing began its decline over a generation ago," Forest City said last December.

According to the Draft SEIS, conducted for Empire State Development by consultant AKRF, modular construction offers advantages beyond cost, including fewer overall and on-site truck deliveries, less on-site equipment and construction activities, less construction waste, and more efficient and faster construction.

Compared with conventional construction, there should be about one-third to three-quarter fewer daily on-site workers and about half as many daily truck trips.

The Draft SEIS, however, fudged the impact of overnight truck deliveries, suggesting they "would be comparable in magnitude and duration to that which would result from operation of any heavy truck on the roadway adjacent to the receptor," as if that's typical.

Faster construction?

Given the year-round manufacturing process that can overlap with on-site foundation and other work, modular construction could take one-third less time compared to conventional construction methods, though the document acknowledges that may not hold true for the first tower. 

Indeed, B2, if it opens as scheduled in December, will have required 24 months, though previous estimates were 18 months.

Modular may speed up the delivery of housing, including the affordable housing that made Atlantic Yards so politically attractive, especially if Forest City forms a joint venture with the Chinese government-owned Greenland Group, for the remaining project. 

Greenland would gain a 70% share in Atlantic Yards beyond the arena and B2, and has said it aims to speed construction far faster than the 2035 project deadline, which Forest City successfully requested after promising a ten-year buildout. (The illegal extension of the deadline led to the court-ordered SEIS.) The joint venture awaits governmental approvals.

From the Modular Construction chapter of Draft SEIS

(All emphases added)
Construction benefits are generally a function of expenditures by the developer during the construction period. In order to provide an estimate of the possible effects on benefits which might result from modular construction methods, the construction costs associated with the development were projected by the project sponsors. Based on the preliminary estimates, the investment for construction of Phase II of the Project using modular construction methods is estimated to equal about $1.90 billion ($1,895.66 million) in 2013 dollars. This would represent about a 22 percent reduction from costs using conventional construction methods. The amount includes the construction of the same development as was analyzed for conventional construction methods. The above figure includes site preparation and hard costs (actual construction), and design, legal, and related costs. The total estimated amount of $1.90 billion reflects the cost of physical improvements to the site, and therefore excludes other values (such as financing, insurance, the value of the development rights and the land, marketing, etc.) not
directly a part of the expenditures for construction. The total cost—including financing, the value of the land, real estate payments, management, initial marketing expenditures, and similar expenditures—would be substantially more. The construction costs enumerated above serve as the primary input to the RIMS II model, i.e., economic impacts such as number of construction jobs are derived from the total construction cost using the RIMS II model.
The $1.90 billion represents the direct expenditures during the construction period using modular construction methods. As a result of the direct expenditures, the direct employment for constructing the entire Phase II development program using modular construction methods is estimated at about 8,214 person-years of employment, a reduction of about 934 person-years from construction using conventional construction methods.
In addition to direct employment, total employment resulting from construction expenditures would include jobs in business establishments providing goods and services to the contractors and resulting in indirect employment. Based on the model’s economic multipliers for New York City industrial sectors, the construction of the entire development program using modular construction methods would generate an additional 4,275 person-years of employment within New York City, bringing the total direct and generated jobs from the construction of the program to 12,489 person-years (see Table 3M-1), a reduction of about 1,420 person-years from construction using conventional construction methods. In the larger New York State economy, the model estimates that the projected development using modular construction methods would generate 6,840 person-years of indirect employment, bringing the total direct and generated jobs from construction of the projected development to 15,054 person-years of employment, a reduction of about 1,711 person-years from construction using conventional construction methods.
The direct wages and salaries during the Phase II construction period using modular construction methods are estimated at $574.26 million, in 2013 dollars (see Table 3M-1). This would represent about a 22 percent reduction from construction using conventional construction methods. Total direct and generated wages and salaries resulting in New York City from construction of the entire Phase II development program using modular construction methods are estimated at $820 million. In the broader New York State economy, total direct and generated wages and salaries from construction of the entire Phase II development program are estimated at about $975 million. These estimates would again represent about a 22 percent reduction from construction using conventional construction methods.
Fiscal Impacts
The construction activity would also generate tax revenues for New York City, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and New York State. As indicated above, the total cost for constructing the entire Phase II development program using modular construction methods (excluding financing and similar costs) is estimated at approximately $1.90 billion. Based on the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’ RIMS II model for New York City and State, the total economic activity, including indirect expenditures (those generated by the direct expenditures), that would result from construction of the entire projected development program for Phase II is estimated at $3.65 billion ($3,654 million) in New York State, of which $2.80 billion ($2,797 million) would occur in New York City (see Table 3M-1). These figures would represent about a $1.02 billion and $783 million reduction, respectively, from those that would be estimated for Phase II using conventional construction methods.
In total, the construction of the entire projected Phase II development is estimated to generate approximately $131.68 million in tax revenues for New York City, MTA, and New York State, in 2013 dollars (see Table 3M-1). This is approximately 76 percent of those estimated using conventional construction techniques. Of these tax revenues, the largest portion would come from personal income taxes, corporate and business taxes, sales tax on indirect activities, and related taxes on direct and generated economic activity. New York State would receive about $83.80 million, the MTA would receive about $5.51 million, and New York City would receive about $42.37 million of these tax revenues from construction of the Phase II development using modular construction methods.
In addition, as was the case with conventional construction methods, New York City would receive revenue from the mortgage recording fees and real property transfer tax from the condominium units, which would be additional. 
Calculations re Phase 2

Total employment NYC direct
so a 934 loss = 10.2%

Total employment NYC direct and indirect
a 1420 loss = 10.2%

Total employment NYC/NYS direct and indirect
15054 + 1711=16,675
a 1711 loss = 10.3%

Total economic activity NYS
$3.65M + $1.02B (conventional add) = $4.67B
a $1.02B drop = 21.8%

Total economic activity NYS
$2,797,000 + $783,000 (conventional add) = $3,580,000
a $783,000 drop = 21.9%


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


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.