Skip to main content

FAQ: What we know/don't know about proposed "Brooklyn Behemoth" office tower

This is being periodically updated. Originally published 2/17/16.

For now, I'm calling it "Brooklyn Behemoth," "Behemoth Brooklyn," the news about which was released yesterday by Greenland Forest City Partner to the friendly publication Crain's New York Business. Here's a preliminary FAQ and a very unofficial rendering.

The rendering has been created by taking the bulk of 511-foot, 824,629-square foot B4, inflating it by about 30%, and plopping it on top of the 250-foot, 439,050-square foot Site 5, to approximate 1.5 million square feet. So the building would likely be at least 900 feet tall. (This is adapted from an image in the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement.)
Unofficial rendering of potential bulk
How big would it be?

More than 1.55 million square feet, combining the bulk of the B1 tower planned for the triangle currently including the arena plaza, plus the 439,050 square feet for the Site 5 development. It's supposed to be an office tower, but presumably would contain a significant amount of retail and--unmentioned, but a good bet--some condos.

We have no information on the height.

Isn't that big?
The proposal would essentially pile the bulk of B1 onto Site 5

Preposterously so. The New York City Planning Commission recommended a reduction in scale of that Site 5 (named for its location in the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area) from 350 feet in height (originally 400 feet) and 572,000 square feet. I calculated the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which is a common measure of the multiple of full lot coverage, at nearly 31. That's preposterous.

Proposed 1,066-foot supertall; SHoP
For context, note that Behemoth Brooklyn would be 4.26 times bulkier than the Williamsburg Savings Bank, which is 362,269 square feet.

It's nearly three times the bulk of a proposed 1,066-foot tower in Downtown Brooklyn. See rendering at right.

How can they get away with it?

Well, you can't simply move bulk wherever you want it. This would significantly increase the impact on this rather sensitive site--affecting traffic on adjacent Fourth and Atlantic avenues, and life on residential Pacific Street.

It will require a new environmental review process, and new vote by the Empire State Development Corporation to amend the General Project Plan, which has Design Guidelines that control what can be built. (The state agency, which controls the site, has already overridden city zoning, so that doesn't apply.)

Presumably the City Planning Commission will offer an advisory letter and perhaps Community Board 2 will hold an informational hearing. My bet is that this preposterous proposal will lead to a "compromise" in which the developers accept somewhat less bulk and/or try to move it somewhere else, such as to the Atlantic Center mall (which would require a city process).

Why didn't the developer release plans in 2009, when it last revised the project?

Surely they were thinking about it. But they didn't want to shock people and slow down the approval process. When renderings of B1 were released in 2006, that shocked people.

When did the news leak out?

Last October and November, hints emerged, and Forest City lied when a real estate publication accurately (we now know) reported their plans. I believe that Mikhail Prokhorov's deal to buy Forest City's 55% of the Barclays Center operating company was premised on the seller's pledge not to build the B1 tower and disrupt arena operations.

Why shouldn't the developer take the hit for building an arena that would be difficult to build around? Why shouldn't they simply build what was approved?

Good question. Forest City shrunk the arena and decided to decouple the towers around it, which were supposed to be built around it. That was their business decision, and their problem.

Why are there no details about height and bulk, or no renderings?

They don't want to shock people. And journalists have not pointed that out. But it surely will be much taller than the 511-foot Miss Brooklyn, which was originally 620 feet. The 1.7 million square foot One Vanderbilt next to Grand Central would be 1,500 feet, as noted by NY YIMBY (h/t DNAinfo).

Would the building be only office space?

Surely not. They've described it as having high-end retail, like the Time Warner Center. And Forest City CEO MaryAnne Gilmartin last October told the New York Times that a hotel likely would be included.

Gilmartin also said last year, intriguingly, "In the world of vertical living and livable cities, it is now an acceptable proposition to look at an office building that has a core that performs both as an office building and a condominium tower at top. I think these kinds of creative solutions are going to have to be brought into the equation for the math to work.”

What would be the impact on open space planned at adjacent Times Plaza?

Site for new tower is in background
Pretty significant, I suggest.

Why haven't journalists jumped on this story?

Partly, I suspect, because the developer managed the news, placing the story with Crain's. Partly because there's so little institutional memory, and journalists have moved on. Partly because some editors think the Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park story is ovah. It's not.

Who supports this?

"The office tower already has the support of Tucker Reed, president of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership [DBP], a major local business group," Crain's reported, in a statement, as noted by DNAinfo, provided by the Pacific Park developers.

Well, duh. Tucker Reed essentially works for Forest City Ratner, whose CEO, MaryAnne Gilmartin, chairs the board of the DBP.

Who questions this?

Initially, few have been willing to go on the record, perhaps because of the dicey politics, perhaps because so little is known. Beyond my analyses, see this comment on Brownstoner from project neighbor Peter Krashes:
In my view this article should be rewritten because it is confusing to the public. I have already seen the “air rights’ terminology adopted elsewhere and it is not correct. There is no such thing as “air rights” with Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park. The project is defined by a General Project Plan and Design Guidelines which were developed largely without meaningful community or public input. When they have been modified in the past the State has withheld information from the public dishonestly and even illegally. That being said, the scaling and location of the buildings was detailed to the public as being the way it is for a reason. In order to make changes the developer and the State are going to have to explain the costs and benefits of their new plan.
Really what’s needed with Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park is open government working for the public explaining the benefits and costs of any changes in a genuine way.
Also see this comment on Fort Greene Focus:
S.J. Avery, co-chair of [Park Slope Civic Council's] Forth on Fourth Avenue (FOFA), explained that “from a FOFA perspective, it seems insane to build a mega tower on a site with such severe existing deficits in traffic control and public transport (bus and subway) capacity.”
Who owns "Pacific Park"?

Greenland Forest City Partners (except for arena and B2, aka 461 Dean, the modular tower). It's 70% owned by Greenland USA, a subsidiary of Greenland Holdings, which is owned and controlled significantly by the government of Shanghai. In other words, a significant share the majority of profits from this extraordinary state assistance goes to the government of Shanghai.

Clarification and correction on Greenland ownership: Greenland is commonly called a "state-controlled enterprise group," as noted by this 12/9/15 note from ratings agency Moody's, with the Shanghai State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) "effectively the largest shareholder." Greenland's own LinkedIn page states that it "has become one of the biggest state-owned enterprise in Shanghai." According to Greenland's Semi-Annual Report for the period ended 6/30/15, filed with the China Securities Regulatory Commission on 8/25/15, state entities held 44.72% of the shares. No English-language version of the report exists, according to a Greenland spokeswoman, but the 55%/45% split was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 7/21/15.

It's interesting to see that experts continue to call Greenland state-controlled, given the minority ownership; perhaps that reflects that such a large shareholder, with only minimal allies, can still control the board.

Shouldn't the 2006 New York City Planning Commission caution have any weight?

Yes, but most of the reporters covering this have no inkling of it.

In 2006, B1 (aka Miss Brooklyn) was reduced to 511 feet, one foot shorter (but still three times bulkier) that the Williamsburg Savings Bank, as a courtesy of sorts. Today there are far taller buildings in Downtown Brooklyn, so there's an argument that the informal height limit is passe. That said, there's a limit to how much this site can carry.

Is this location Prospect Heights? Downtown Brooklyn? "Pacific Park"?

Well, it's technically the tip of Park Slope, since it's on the south side of Flatbush Avenue. But it will arguably be an extension of Downtown Brooklyn. It surely will not be part of the imaginary neighborhood of "Pacific Park," which jumps Flatbush.

Is the time right "for the borough to have an iconic office building for the new Brooklyn economy and the thousands of jobs it will bring to the doorstep of one of the city's largest transit hubs," as the developer says?

Well, maybe. As it happens, Downtown Brooklyn was rezoned for new office space, but it became more lucrative to build residential. The only pending, ground-up office tower, 420 Albee Square, was leveraged by New York City's decision to transfer development rights on the condition that the tower be built commercial.

Office towers don't usually get built without anchor tenants. Especially one this big. So I'd bet that the city and/or state would help attract one. Or more. With subsidies.

How many jobs would a 1.5 square foot office building contain?

Well, at 200 square feet per person, 7,500. At 250 sf/person, 6,000. That seems like an astounding number to fill in one swoop--unless, again, there's a concerted push by public agencies. Even if half the building is office space, with the rest retail and/or condos/hotel, that's 3,000 to 3,750 jobs.

But it would make up for some of the criticism regarding the once-promised 10,000 office jobs.

When's the follow-up?

The issue may come up at the next Empire State Development Board meeting, tomorrow at 9:30 am (no agenda yet), and should come up at the next Atlantic Yards Community Update meeting, next Wednesday.

There hasn't been an Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation (AY CDC) meeting since last October--hey, weren't they supposed to be at least quarterly--but surely this will be brought to them for advice and comment. I can't imagine that the board, which is controlled by the governor, won't smile on this, though there may be pockets of concern.

Which officials represent this site? What Community Board is it in?

This is the 39th Council District, represented by Brad Lander, but directly adjacent to the 33rd, represented by Steve Levin, and pretty close to the 35th, represented by Laurie Cumbo. It's within the 52nd Assembly District, represented by Jo Anne Simon, and the 25th state Senate District, represented by Velmanette Montgomery. It's within Community Board 2, but very near the boundaries of Community Board 6. But all their opinions are advisory, since the state overrides the city. The governor is in charge.

How can this building, across the street from the Barclays Center, be part of the claimed "Brooklyn's newest neighborhood" of Pacific Park?



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…