Planner Shiffman: given likely public help/bailout, time to rethink Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park in public interest (housing, open space, governance)

Last week, writing about the BrooklynSpeaks’ proposal for a new governance structure to oversee Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, I quoted veteran advocacy planner Ron Shiffman, who co-founded the Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development, who said he both supported the coalition’s efforts but thought they should be more aggressive.

Shiffman, known for long involvement in community-driven projects, is a former NYC Planning Commissioner, a director of (defunct) project opponents Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, and a winner of the Rockefeller Foundation's 2012 Jane Jacobs Medal. He still teaches at the Pratt Institute.

Shiffman said he sees less a planning process from BrooklynSpeaks than a "bargaining process that accepts the existing program as is. I would urge them to abandon a bargaining process and aggressively pursue the redesign of the project.”

Given what he thinks is a likely bailout involving public support for the platform Greenland Forest City Ratner has pledged to build over the Vanderbilt Yard--which would support six towers--he'd like to see those towers no longer oriented to mainly luxury housing, as well as reduced in scale. 

He'd like to see the project's open space revised, and made truly public. And he'd like to see the plans for a giant tower (or towers) at Site 5 downsized.

What's brewing

BrooklynSpeaks, a coalition of neighborhood and advocacy groups, has proposed various "asks"--deeper affordability, better monitoring--in anticipation of the developer's expected effort to transfer the bulk of the unbuilt "Miss Brooklyn" (B1) tower, once slated to loom over the arena, across Flatbush Avenue to Site 5, longtime home to Modell's and P.C. Richard--and with the adjacent Brooklyn Bear's Garden.

That requires a public process, with Empire State Development, the state authority overseeing/shepherding the project, having to approve a revised Modified General Project Plan. It also would represent the first major decision under the authority of Gov. Kathy Hochul, who was elevated upon the resignation of Andrew Cuomo and who is running for a full term.

That could enable, instead of a building approved at 250 feet and 439,050 square feet, a two-tower project--as projected in 2016--stretching nearly 800 feet, with some 1.1 million square feet. The development rights, at least if sold unencumbered, might be worth $300 million, according to my ballpark estimate (which deserves more professional assessment). 

Requirements for affordable housing, and public space--BrooklynSpeaks has proposed a space for large community gatherings--could lower the parcel's value.

From developer's 2016 presentation to Department of City Planning. Note that neither the arena plaza
nor Times Plaza are actually green, and the Brooklyn Bear's Garden is absent from the rendering

One big question, as I see it, whether, in exchange for (some of) the "asks," the BrooklynSpeaks groups, which have the involvement and likely support of some local elected officials, would support most if not all of the requested shift in bulk.

After all, during BrooklynSpeaks' recent four-week Crossroads series of online discussions--which still invite feedback on Urban Design, Transportation/Streets, Housing, and Accountability--there was recognition of the trade-off but not discussion about how to evaluate the size of Site 5, which, as proposed in 2016, would be 50% larger than the 80 Flatbush project a blocks away, and was the product of a one-off upzoning.

A negotiation process might in some ways parallel the 2014 effort by BrooklynSpeaks, which after threatening of a fair-housing lawsuit, achieved a new 2025 timetable for the project's affordable housing--after the professed ten-year buildout had been extended 25 years, to 2035--plus $2,000/month fines for each missing unit. (Those fines are looming; we shouldn't be surprised at renegotiation.)

But that 2014 bargaining could not affect the level of affordability, and the project has been skewed toward middle-income households. Also, the coalition's request for a new governing entity resulted in the advisory Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation, which is mostly toothless.

Remaking commitments

“The underlying feeling I had,” Shiffman said regarding the BrooklynSpeaks discussions, “is everyone feels that we have to deal with this as business as usual, so the developer delivers on the original commitments. I think the commitments have to be redrawn, with a greater role from the public sector.”

BrooklynSpeaks' "asks" include a return to the original commitment for deeper housing affordability and spaces for seniors, plus tweaks to existing commitments, such as designating some of the planned privately-managed open space as "Public Park," though that concept was not elaborated on.

They've also asked for new commitments in response to quality-of-life conditions that have developed, such as residential parking permits (one of the few proposals to face pushback during the Crossroads session); a reduction of municipal uses near the coming middle school at the 662 Pacific St. tower; a system to take reports of community complaints regarding construction or operations; and establishment of a Special Enforcement District to coordinate city responses.

Most of those strike me as reasonable requests, but not necessarily if in exchange that gives the developer full scope to redeploy unused square footage as it sees fit, even with deeper affordability. 

After all, as I've written, the discount price Greenland USA paid to enter the project surely factored in the risk of not building "Miss Brooklyn" (or using all the square footage). Moreover, one big winner is the owner of the Brooklyn Nets and arena operating company, able to monetize the arena plaza in new ways--but no public entity has been compensated for that.

Could dynamics change?

Shiffman thinks public support for the platform would justify a commensurate increase in community control, with a wider group of stakeholders, and a new focus on public benefits.

That doesn't yet seem likely, but it's not implausible--after all, it's a "never say never" project.

Remember, both master developers--originally Forest City Ratner, now Greenland USA (which dominates the joint venture Greenland Forest City)--are comfortable with renegotiating settled deals. Forest City did it 2009, getting new terms from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Empire State Development, the state authority that oversees/shepherds the project.

In London, a Greenland affiliate, as I wrote, is currently trying to eliminate promised affordable housing from a tower known as Spire London, claiming it affects the project’s “viability.”

A new model

As described at the BrooklynSpeaks session on accountability, the proposed Brooklyn Crossroads Local Development Corporation was inspired by the Harlem Urban Development Corporation (HUDC), which in the 1970s was devolved power by New York State's Urban Development Corporation--today's ESD--regarding local projects.

According to a July 2004 article by Kimberley Johnson in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Community Development Corporations, Participation, and Accountability: The Harlem Urban Development Corporation and the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, the two entities were founded in predominantly African-American neighborhoods as a response to the Black power movement, as a way to “bridge the gap between the public and private.”

The context, though, was tension if not contradiction. For the HUDC, its focus on opposition to outsiders, its mistrust of ‘downtown,’ and its early capture by the Harlem machine,” Johnson wrote, meant little accountability, or progress.

Shiffman knows it's not directly applicable: “I did propose that HUDC be used as a model to be adapted (not adopted), since it allowed for the UDC to devolve planning and development to a community level.”

Other models have problems too, he noted; Battery Park City and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation were dominated by the state.

“The only model that tried to devolve powers to the community, HUDC, primarily delegated powers to the local political establishment and unfortunately did not engage the community as successfully as many had hoped,” he said. “ I would suggest that citywide and statewide representation should be retained but that the entity be broadened to include representation that reflects the diversity of the community based on race, class, and geography,” as well as advocates for social, environmental and community economic needs.

That means, Shiffman said, any “proposed planning and development entity that BrooklynSpeaks advocates should be structured so that the abuses and shortcomings of HUDC are not replicated." He sees it as “a starting point to design a means to creatively reprogram the project entirely.”

The more the board of that new entity represents the diverse constituencies in the community, the better. So Shiffman would like to see BrooklynSpeaks aim to involve more people, like a coalition of environmental justice groups, housing groups, faith-based and civil rights groups.

Another example he draws on is the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in Boston, where a community entity was granted the power of eminent domain to achieve the goals set out after a participatory planning process. While that, of course, is not a megaproject like Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, Shiffman thinks there are enough commonalities.

What next?

Shiffman thinks that the financing of the project will have to change, and that would justify a significant change in the project. The Atlantic Yards plan was premised on delivering public benefits thanks to  public support for cheap land, subsidies, tax breaks, development rights over the Vanderbilt Yard, and an override of zoning to allow an increase in development rights.

Now, the developer is expected ask for more, that increase in development at Site 5, which goes against the City Planning Commission’s 2006 assessment of the parcel as a transitional site, cutting the proposed tower from 350 feet to 250 feet.

“I would argue that we might," says Shiffman, "as part of participatory planning process, decide that Site 5 be used at a far lower bulk—or even left as open space— than previously planned because of the density of that intersection”—especially for pedestrians—“and the limited capacity of the land to carry any additional development.” That has not been part of the discourse so far, with only that parcel's nearest neighbors expressing wariness.

More public assistance may be needed to construct the platform over the rail yards to build out the project.

“Once it is truly a public entity, using federal infrastructure money to deck over the railyards, a public takeover would be possible,” suggests Shiffman. Or, perhaps, federal Build Back Better funds, if that measure passes—or new initiatives from the city and state. “The leverage in the short run is the gubernatorial primary and then the election.”

This raises an interesting question. If indeed there is money for such intrastructure projects, presumably the developer is lobbying to get that, without any commensurate interest in public control, retaining power in a “private-public partnership.”

“I don’t think [we] should continue to bail out the developers, who have failed to deliver upon their commitments,” says Shiffman. “If the property owner, who knowingly took risks, fails after all that has been given to them, I believe we have the right and the obligation to take back the property and replan and develop it to meet 21st-century, post-COVID, climate change-aware development options."

A revamped project?

What does that mean? “We know we will be losing more and more low-cost housing due to climate change,” Shiffman says, pointing to threatened NYCHA developments at the waterfront. His point: rethink the unbuilt site based on “what we know today and not based on what a private developer proposed in the early 2000s.”

While he’s not proposing that the remaining project site be “a low-income enclave” Shiffman thinks the six towers on the railyard be aimed “to meet the needs of every quintile of Brooklyn’s population as projected.” (Presumably the project's already meeting the needs of the upper quintile.)

That would mean housing for incomes, on average, lower than previously projected. Add downsizing the towers over the railyard somewhat--Shiffman has long said he thought the project too big, while recognizing the case for increased density along Atlantic Avenue--and that means lower financial returns for the developer.

“It may cost the public money, but will be cheaper in long run,” Shiffman suggests. "In essence we would be rejecting the ‘trojan horse’ of affordability that brings in scores of luxury units, a handful of affordable units and the loss of livability for development built on the financialization of housing--housing as a commodity--rather than building and/or preserving healthy diverse and viable communities.”

How big should it be? Well, Shiffman’s a planner, and says carrying capacity—things like schools, day care facility, and senior centers—can be assessed as part of a planning process. That said, there’s already a planning—well, disclosure—process, in which the state has justified the developer's requested program.

New tactics

Shiffman encourages those involved in the BrooklynSpeaks discussion, which include elected officials, “to not be timid, to seize the opportunity to make this a public project.”

So he advises against city/state/community support for additional subsidies, including the transfer of development rights at Site 5.

“In the mid-to long term,” he suggests, a revamped project “meeting the needs of diverse constituencies can go a long way in addressing some of New York State’s and NYC’s social, economic and environmental needs post-COVID,” he suggests, “and could be the ‘New Deal’ example for a Biden or other Democrat to be elected in 2024.”

Compared with BrooklynSpeaks' well-organized "asks"--albeit coupled with that question mark regarding Site 5 development--Shiffman's proposals are less detailed and developed. However, he's pointing first to a process, one that hasn't been tried yet, but one which would be justified by the request for more public assistance.

Flashback 2006, about that "scar"

Let’s revisit Shiffman’s 6/3/06 essay, Staving Off a Scar for Decades, when he announced he was joining Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn's advisory board, saying he'd held his tongue “because I believed that the inclusionary housing component was an important victory and believing that a more rational plan would eventually emerge.”

“However, that alternative has not emerged. Forest City Ratner (FCR) and, by extension, the City and State of New York, continue to follow a process that is fundamentally flawed in pursuit of a plan that, if implemented, would scar the borough for decades to come,” he wrote.

At the time, the “scar” meant the impact of a project that he thought was too big to be viable and thus would scar the borough.

Today, the "scar" is the yet-developed below-grade railyard, which remains a barrier between neighborhoods.

What about density?

“While this area along the Atlantic Avenue corridor could accommodate higher densities, density is a relative term,” Shiffman wrote at the time. “The density proposed by Forest City Ratner far exceeds the carrying capacity of the area’s physical, social, cultural, and educational infrastructure. The Atlantic Yards density is extreme and the heights of the proposed buildings totally unacceptable.”

Well, today the height is, well, relative, given new development not that far away in Downtown Brooklyn, but the accumulated project bulk still hasn’t emerged, or been tested as a viable community. 

At the time, the New York Observer confirmed Shiffman’s estimate that the project would constitute “the densest residential community in the United States.”

Let's revisit those numbers. "The densest census tract in the country is located in West Harlem, where a 1,190-unit former Mitchell-Lama building stands surrounded by numerous tenements," wrote Matthew Schuerman. "The two-block area has, according to the 2000 Census, a density equivalent to 229,713 inhabitants per square mile."

By contrast, Atlantic Yards--at least by contemporaneous estimates---was projected to have "between 436,363 and 523,636 inhabitants per square mile (based on estimated population of between 15,000 and 18,000 residents over 22 acres)." 

Today, the 6,430 apartments would house 2.1 persons per unit (as per Chapter 4 of the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement), which would mean 13,503 new residents, or 613.77 per acre. At 640 acres per square mile, that translates to 392,815 people per square mile, still well above that West Harlem tract. 

That's without adding any apartments at Site 5, which was not counted as supplying residential space.

The "architectural elite"

In Europe, Shiffman wrote in 2006, “oversized designs gained applause from the architectural elite before residents found them inhumane. I fear Forest City Ratner’s proposal will become the Brooklyn equivalent of Pruitt-Igoe, the notorious St. Louis public housing towers that have since been demolished.”

The latter sentence, to some, might mean Shiffman was suggesting that Atlantic Yards buildings would be eventually torn down. 

But Shiffman notes he was referring to praise from the architectural community, which contrasted with that of residents, and that starchitect Frank Gehry--known for sculptural buildings not necessarily beloved by their inhabitants--had been promoted as the Atlantic Yards architect.