Skip to main content

Is the arena impact "not so bad," as Markowitz predicted? Yes, but... it's complicated (and beyond traffic)

I'm leading a walking tour today of Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park/Barclays Center/Prospect Heights (via Municipal Art Society), and have presented several posts in preparation. One thing to remember: the project remains very much in process. Some impacts feared, expected, or welcomed have not emerged because they were calculated on a larger/full buildout.

At the end of 2008, in his traditional end-of-the-year interview with the Brooklyn Paper's Gersh Kuntzman, Borough President Marty Markowitz made an observation about the then-stalled Atlantic Yards project:
“I always say to these folks that are viciously anti—when it’s built I hope that you’ll say to me ‘Marty, you know, it’s not so bad,’” Markowitz spritzed. “I don’t expect you to say you know you were right.  Just say to me, ‘You know what, not so bad.’ That would be to me that would be a tremendous celebration.”
He's surely gotten that wish. After all, in 2013, the New York Times declared arena-related problems "everyday irritants" and in the Daily News published a conclusory op-ed asserting Park Slope was wrong about Barclays Center.

Both were correct that the arena had caused fewer problems than feared, but also missed or downplayed its disruptions--for example, the escaping bass that has prompted the installation of the new green roof, or the regular illegal parking and idling by limos--on its nearest neighbors. And both scanted some of the larger questions about public process and government oversight.

"I can see that it has a positive side"

That's continued. Last July, Carroll Gardens resident Vijay Seshadri, in a Commercial Observer interview headlined Pulitzer Poet Immortalizes Atlantic Avenue, Talks Brooklyn Development, was asked:
As a 28-year resident of the borough, what’s your view of the current and continuing development of Brooklyn (i.e. especially on Atlantic Avenue with Barclays Center and Atlantic Yards)?
His response:
I mourn the disappearance of the culture that was here when I first came to Brooklyn in the mid-eighties, but paradoxically I’m not sentimental about it. New York is always tearing itself down and building itself up again. I was opposed to the development of Atlantic Yards–I even wrote an essay for the volume Brooklyn Was Mine, which was put together as a protest to Atlantic Yards and the Barclays Center. But now that it has happened, I can see that it has a positive side to it, and the negative consequences we were fearing don’t seem to have materialized.
There was something lost, especially for people living near the Yards; and of course working people, middle-class people, are finding it very hard to live in the areas of Brooklyn that were once a refuge for them. That is a big problem for the city...
(Emphasis added)

Which negative consequences?

Seshadri, I suspect, was reflecting concern that the arena and associated buildout would cause massive traffic problems. Indeed, the state's own environmental review suggested significant problems (see Brooklyn Paper coverage) that would be partially mitigated. The Final EIS said:
As the data shown in Table 19-4 and Figures 19-5 through 19-11 indicate, a total of 35 intersections would continue to have unmitigated significant adverse traffic impacts in one or more peak hours in the 2016 Build With Mitigation condition. 
What that meant in practice was unclear, but we do know several things:
  • the 2010 buildout (four towers plus arena) hasn't happened
  • the 2016 buildout (full project) hasn't happened
  • the flagship B1 tower at Atlantic and Flatbush hasn't arrived (and if it does would change our perspective)
  • the arena is smaller than analyzed
  • arena attendance is well under capacity, given no-shows
  • fewer people than expected drive from New Jersey (note Sam Schwartz's relief)
  • far more people than expected walk 
  • the retail turnover has been significant but very much incomplete
In other words, the fears were not unrealistic, though we all should have anticipated how all such plans and analyses were provisional.

While the arena may not impact Seshadri and neighbors in Carroll Gardens, it very much impacts people in the nearest blocks. Some of those impacts might be lessened thanks to residential parking permits, which are stymied in Albany.

Others might be mitigated if traffic and parking violations were stringently enforced. And others might be avoided if the arena didn't book events that, say, require hundreds of buses to double-park on neighborhood streets.

Beyond traffic

The issues are broader. One project neighbor reminded me that "were always multiple strands of opposition to Atlantic Yards: outrage over the use of eminent domain and the corruption of public processes, fear of impending impacts, and criticism of the plans."

Beyond that, he noted, attention has fallen off regarding the continuing pursuit of eminent domain and the impacts on neighbors--not NIMBYism but a good-government issue. In other words, the arena's tainted by the Culture of Cheating.

Beyond that, it's likely opponents had an incentive to stress impacts, and the state's environmental review was written in a cautious, cover-your-butt manner.

We would have been much better off had the review disclosed a range of possibilities, including an adjustment if 1) the arena were smaller and 2) the buildout occurred more incrementally. But the job of the environmental review was to assess potential worst-case scenarios.

What else Markowitz said: arena as catalyst

In that 2008 interview, Markowitz also claimed "an arena and a national team would be an unbelievable incentive, in my opinion, a catalyst for jobs and new companies coming and staying in Brooklyn — my humble opinion!”

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, the arena has further put Brooklyn on the map, but Brooklyn, especially the neighborhoods in the arena's orbit, was doing pretty well--even as other parts were left behind.

New jobs and companies come to Brooklyn because of available and affordable space, whether it be on the Sunset Park waterfront, the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and MetroTech, coupled with an attractive lifestyle for their employees. 

The arena may contribute in a fractional way, but I haven't seen any evidence it's been a catalyst, other than for food and beverage outlets in nearby blocks.

In fact, the evidence of the arena's impact on public finances remains fuzzy. The arena itself isn't making the profit operators predicted. The arena's location has, however, catalyzed the value of the (money-losing, for now) Nets up significantly.

Comments

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.