Brooklyn Bear's Garden tells BrooklynSpeaks: don't agree to developer's plan for giant two-tower project at Site 5 across from arena; recognize a transitional block

The main public discussion about the future of Atlantic Yards, beyond the private talks and plans between the developers and governmental agencies, has come from the BrooklynSpeaks coalition, as in the Crossroads series of four online charettes last winter, as I described yesterday in my FAQ regarding the kerfuffle over the unbuilt Urban Room.

But BrooklynSpeaks, which in 2014 got the developer and state to agree to a 2025 deadline for affordable housing (while unable to address the level of affordability or achieve the new governance structure it had sought), does not necessarily reflect the full spectrum of local opinion. 

That's important because plans for a giant new tower (or towers) at Site 5 (a development parcel catercorner to the Barclays Center), expected to be proposed by developer Greenland Forest City Partners, were not fully addressed at the Crossroads series. 

While participants generally supported more deeply affordable housing, they didn't address the tradeoffs: should the developer get the bulk it seeks, even if that's 50% more than the already large 80 Flatbush project (which exceeded the bulk in the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning), as long as more affordable units are included?

Understandably, some constituents nearest to project site are wary. 

In late April, Jon Crow, a representative of the Brooklyn Bear's Pacific Street Garden, sent a letter on behalf of garden members (bottom) to Michelle de La Uz of the Fifth Avenue Committee, who has played a key role in BrooklynSpeaks, making several requests, notably seeking limits on the scale of the proposed two-tower project.

The letter was shared with some elected officials and others active in the Crossroads effort. They could have input, if not definitive influence, when the proposal to shift the bulk goes through public hearings and, likely, approval by the gubernatorially controlled Empire State Development (ESD), the state authority that oversees/shepherds the project.

From 2016 presentation to Department of City Planning; the garden parcel is omitted, though, ironically enough, the concrete arena plaza and concrete Times Plaza are portrayed as green open spaces

I'll go through the garden's letter and offer some analysis.

City Planning Commission, 2006

The letter states:

The changes GreenLand [sic] seeks in the Atlantic Yards Development Plan will have an enormous impact on the Garden and our residential neighbors. For this reason, we ask that you support the original plan (as proposed by your City Planning Board); that our block (Site 5) remain a “Transitional Block”.

That's a reference to de la Uz's former role as a City Planning Commissioner; she joined the City Planning Commission (CPC) in 2012. That was well after the September 2006 letter the CPC sent to the Empire State Development Corporation (now Empire State Development, or ESD) regarding the pending Atlantic Yards plan.

It recommended a reduction in the size of the tower by 100 feet and about 180,000 square feet, and that was accepted. (The Site 5 tower was originally 400 feet tall, then 350, and finally 250.)

The CPC wrote:

Site 5, located on a site bounded by Atlantic, Fourth and Flatbush avenues, is proposed for a height of 350 feet and to contain approximately 572,000 zoning square feet. The Commission recognizes the prominence of this site, which is located across from both the Williamsburgh Savings Bank and Building 1 of the Arena block, as well as directly adjacent to the low-rise buildings west along Atlantic Avenue and the terminus of the Fourth Avenue corridor. The Commission believes that Site 5’s height should be carefully assessed within this context. Given this location, the Commission therefore recommends that Site 5 be reduced to a height of 250 feet with a reduction of approximately 180,000 zoning square feet to approximately 392,000 zoning square feet in order to provide a more varied composition of building heights and to provide a stronger transition to the Fourth Avenue corridor to the south.

The 80 Flatbush example

From the garden's letter:

Unfortunately, the impacts “80 Flatbush” will have on the Rockwell Place Bear’s Garden gives testimony to the City’s (and more directly City Planning’s) willingness to ignore “Transitional” mandates.

Indeed, the 80 Flatbush site, like Site 5, both borders major streets/avenues, while also bordering a row-house block. Ultimately, that two-tower project, with the taller tower 840 feet, was approved with a Floor Area Ration (FAR) of 15.75, far bulkier than what was permitted in the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning, with the justification being affordable housing and new schools.

FAR is a common measure of bulk as a multiple of the underlying parcel. The Site 5 project, at least as presented in 2016, would have an FAR of 23.5, nearly double that of the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning, and about 50% more than 80 Flatbush.

What the letter doesn't mention is that organization de la Uz heads, the Fifth Avenue Committee, partnered with the developer on 80 Flatbush, both furthering its mission to develop affordable housing and, of course, ensure revenue and institutional viability. So the implication is that BrooklynSpeaks might push for a similar deal.

The garden's asks: redistribute bulk

The garden's letter acknowledged "little faith that we, or the larger community can do anything to stop GreenLand from getting much of what they want," but made several requests.

One is to distribute the bulk from the "Miss Brooklyn" tower "to multiple properties within the Development footprint, not just 'Site 5.' There’s been no clear reason given why it ALL needs to land on our block."

Actually, since the Site 5 project would add about 660,000 square feet of bulk, that implies that the developer--though not yet articulating this--would want to redistribute the rest to towers planned for the railyard. (No developer wants to discard buildable square footage.)

Tobi Jaiyesimi of Empire State Development, at a meeting last month, indeed implied multiple potential destination: "to Site 5 or other parts of the project." Indeed, Site 5 could not accommodate all of the bulk from the B1 tower, but perhaps 60% to 70% of the 1.1 million square feet approved.

In other words, perhaps 400,000 square feet--the size of a substantial tower, in itself--might then be redistributed to other parcels in the project, at least if GFCP does not want to give up valuable buildable square feet.

That said, the garden's argument is that the two-tower project, as proposed in 2006 without all the bulk from Site 5, is too big.

Querying BrooklynSpeaks

In January, Crow told me he and other nearby stakeholders felt their comments at BrooklynSpeaks Crossroads series breakout sessions were discounted.

On July 14, after the Urban Room press conference, I queried de la Uz about the garden's letter. "I don't think I did" respond, she said, but noted that "it's not like BrooklynSpeaks is going to make that decision" about scale--and that the Bear's Garden can participate in the expected public process.

I suggested that BrooklynSpeaks would have influence. "Obviously, we hope so," de la Uz said. "But I mean, that's why we did the Crossroads conversations, to get some public input... Obviously, that was the beginning of the conversation, certainly not the end of the conversation about Site 5."

The garden's asks: don't damage the garden

From the letter:

2) Any Block improvements and infrastructure work for “Site 5” should include the perimeters of the Garden property. It’s well documented that, after plowing the Garden, Ratner handed it back to us without fulfilling many of the promised improvements to our infrastructure.

That's a reference to relocation of the garden in the early 1990s after it was torn up by Forest City Ratner, the original Atlantic Yards developer, to build the big-box stores.

The garden's asks: height restrictions

From the letter:

Ensure that height restrictions created in Park Slope (by upzoning 4th Avenue) include the block across Pacific from the Garden in perpetuity. Towers breed towers, and we don’t want to spend our future volunteer energy fighting yet another predatory developer. And, while you’re at it, include Flatbush (from Fourth Avenue to Grand Army Plaza) in this binding agreement as well.

It seems unlikely that narrow Pacific Street would be rezoned; the R6B zoning sets a 55-foot height limit. That said, a rezoning along Flatbush Avenue--which, obviously, extends well past the garden--would be less surprising, given that it's a wide street. 

The garden's asks: traffic calming

From the letter:

Impose Traffic Calming designs not only on Pacific and Dean (as BrooklynSpeaks presentation proposes), but also surrounding the entirety of the Mall & Barclay Center’s blocks, including Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues. This should include rethinking the traffic direction on our Pacific Street block.

That's interesting and worth discussion, since that area is always in flux. That is consonant, as noted in the letter, with BrooklynSpeaks' own Crossroads presentation.

The garden's asks: plaza activities    

From the letter:

While making the [arena] Plaza a permanent feature is an inviting idea, it should come with a mandate that requires passive restrictions for its use AND the surrounding blocks… such as No Food Trucks and No Vendors.

While that's an understandable desire, the arena operator is not a party to these negotiations and has regularly had commercial activities on the plaza. 

As I wrote yesterday, some of the expected features at the plaza--including retail kiosks--never came to fruition.

The garden's asks: plaza in perpetuity?

From the letter:

Further, someone needs to explain the process by which the Plaza remains a street level open space in perpetuity. Perhaps State Parkland? Land Trust? Otherwise, what’s to stop the State from seeking to build there in the future?

The arena plaza is officially temporary, while--surely unknown to the garden at the time of the letter--a May 12, 2022 deadline loomed to start fines, potentially totaling $10 million for the unbuilt Urban Room.

So the garden's argument regarding the plaza is surely welcomed by developer Greenland Forest City Partners as well as BSE Global, which operates the arena and controls the plaza. 

As of 2016, as noted in my FAQ and indicated in the screenshot at right, the developer had planned to both eliminate the Urban Room and create permanent open space at the plaza.

That's a big value to the arena operator (as noted in a follow-up).

If the plaza is indeed made permanent, there's an argument for more public control, and oversight, regarding plaza activities.

 As noted yesterday, neighbors notice when plaza access is cut off, or when the space is devoted to commercial uses.