So, are changes at Site 5, with supersized density, a "done deal"? What community engagement is coming? Well, it also would involve railyard sites.

This is the third of three articles about the Aug. 8 Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation (AY CDC) meeting. The first concerned the mystery topic discussed in Executive Session. The second concerned leasing of the arena plaza.

The Executive Session concerned the future of the six parcels at the Vanderbilt Yard, likely to be lost by master developer Greenland USA via foreclosure to another developer, perhaps Related Companies.

In the public session of the meeting, AY CDC Director Gib Veconi brought up plans for the project's other remaining parcel: Site 5, the parcel catercorner to the arena, currently occupied by the big-box stores P.C. Richard and the now-closed Modell's. 

It's bounded by Atlantic, Flatbush, and Fourth avenues, and Pacific Street. The latter is mostly row houses on the south side, marking a transition into Park Slope, while Fourth Avenue was rezoned for towers mostly 12-16 stories.

Looking south at Site 5

While that parcel was approved for a 250', 439,050 square foot tower in 2006, the developer in 2015-16 proposed a giant two-tower project, thanks to moving bulk from the unbuilt B1 tower (aka "Miss "Brooklyn") that would've loomed over the arena. 

That would've effaced the Urban Room, a public atrium and arena entrance attached to the tower, and made the plaza permanent.

Then it sought more.

In the 2021 Site 5 Interim Lease, as detailed in Exhibit K below right, Greenland got Empire State Development (ESD), the state authority that oversees/shepherds the project, to support an even larger project, with the taller tower rising 910'.

Unofficial rendering

Is this locked in?

The question is whether those changes are obligatory.

Exhibit K, observed Veconi, "has the effect of transferring density from the arena block to Site 5, reprogramming that density from commercial to residential, removing the Urban Room from the project, making the public plaza outside of Barclays Center permanent and creating a loading dock on Pacific Street," he observed.

Such things all require environmental review under state rules, "but these were all agreed without environmental review," he observed, suggesting that, despite that expected future public process, the developers "would probably" consider the promises binding.

He asked ESD if Exhibit K was binding. Could the lease be amended for less density or other commitments?

"That document," responded ESD's Joel Kolkmann, Senior Vice President, Real Estate, "says that ESD would endeavor to move forward with a public approval process for that."

Why the stall?

"Now we obviously haven't done that and that is because, in part, what was presented to us by the developer was something more," he said, citing plans to supersize the platform sites.

That wasn't fully candid. As I reported, ESD sought proposals from Greenland for the platform sites rather than simply proceed with the easier-to-build Site 5.

In an email April 10, 2023, Arden Sokolow, Executive VP, Real Estate, noted that, because the Site 5 changes “will involve public hearings and may face opposition,” ESD sought “better visibility into timing of the Platform and your ability to meet” affordable housing obligations.

Unofficial image

 
Now what?

Kolkmann, who like the other ESD executives joined the authority after that lease was signed, reiterated that the document obligates them to pursue approval for the changes cited.

"Without the outcome of that process having been predetermined," chimed in AY CDC Chair Daniel Kummer, serving up a fat pitch.

"Exactly, yeah," responded Kolkmann.

Veconi pointed out the specificity of the goals cited. 

(Note that Veconi, as a leader of the BrooklynSpeaks coalition, in early 2022 led a set of sessions dubbed Crossroads, focusing especially on the future of Site 5. Here's one.)

"It could be through a public approval process that those things change," Kolkmann observed. 

Veconi said it's not typical. True, but there have been some reductions in the bulk and height of towers, after they had been increased. Developers often ask for more than they need, leaving room for a seeming compromise.

What's missing?

Veconi noted the failure to mention affordable housing, given the additional residential density sought, "but I assume that other requirements could be added."

Kolkmann said yes, noting that changes would emerge from a community engagement process. (Of course, the developer had already proposed more, albeit delayed, affordable housing.

AY CDC Director Ron Shiffman, a veteran advocacy planner and Pratt Institute academic, expressed concern that they were discussing Exhibit K, "when the vast majority of the public does not know what we're talking about." He proposed that ESD make a public presentation on it, noting he had significant concerns about the plan.

The board passed a motion requesting such a presentation on Exhibit K at the next AY CDC meeting, in September.

Kummer said he recommended that everyone read it. "I think it's publicly available now"—well, for those who read my work--"but maybe could be made formally publicly available," citing the development lease, which includes Exhibit K.

Outside consultant?

Shiffman also brought up the 2018 suggestion, as I've referenced, by then-Director Jaime Stein that an independent consultant help the AY CDC board evaluate the impact of the process.

"I'm not sure we have anything in the budget for that," Kummer observed. "I agree that it could be very useful."

The budget, as I reported in April, is curious. Anna Pycior. ESD's Senior Vice President, Community Relations, said that $220,011 in personnel costs--of the $250,000 budget--represents prorated portions of staff time.

What was not explained was how, previously, when ESD had two employees assigned to Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, other staff were able to work on the project while being paid their regular salaries.

In other words, why doesn't AY CDC have any money?

Kummer suggested that some in the academic community might help. Shiffman cited the the Brooklyn office of the Department of City Planning and the Borough President's Office.

Community engagement

ESD pushed back somewhat. "We want to do a community engagement process," Kolkmann said. "I think those voices can be a part of a community engagement process." 

(Analyzing a draft document acquired via FOIL, at right, I observed that the process might just be tinkering at the margins.)

ESD's Arden Sokolow. Executive VP, Real Estate Development and Planning, wondered what people would be asking about: "Is it about how much density should be at this site? Like, what what's the question?"

That, actually, would be a very good question

After all, as I reported, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), a common measure of bulk as a multiple of the underlying lot, for Site 5 would be astoundingly large, more than twice that of the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning and more than 50% larger than the spt rezoning for the 80 Flatbush (aka Alloy Block) project.

Shiffman said that experts should study "the carrying capacity of that site," such as schools, air quality, and the ability to build community.

"This is absolutely reasonable thing for us," Sokolow responded, but said that's part of the standard environmental review.

Shiffman observed that, during his six years on the City Planning Commission, 95% of the reports--typically from ubiquitous consultant AKRF--"were just written for the developer and for mitigation that never takes place."

Kummer, more conciliatorily, suggested that the community engagement would go beyond the mandated state process.

"You need to have a thing to get people to sort of talk about the impacts of that thing," Sokolow said. 

Sure, though the proposal often serves as an anchor for discussion, while multiple proposals--as, perhaps, an outside consultant might produce--could offer more flexibility.

Divergent developers?

Veconi noted that last year they'd been discussing community engagement, but that got delayed.

He asked: given that Greenland USA still has the rights to develop Site 5, which is not necessarily part of the railyard parcel development plan, where does it stand?

"I imagine that it would be preferable for us to do an engagement process around the whole site holistically: platform sites and Site 5," Sokolow responded, which means "we need this other piece"--negotiations with Related?-- to play out first."

"I theoretically agree with you 100%," Veconi said, but if there are two different developers, there might be different paths.

That, Sokolow said, they could discuss at the next meeting.

It seems unlikely that Greenland--which leased three of the most recent four sites to other developers, and partnered with one of those developers on the fourth--would pursue construction on its own. So it's possible they'd negotiate with the firm (Related?) aiming to develop the six railyard sites.  

Divergent jurisdictions

Kummer noted that the different parcels fit in different community districts. Site 5 is Community Board 6, while the platform sites are Community Board 2, while much of the rest of the project is in Community Board 8.

That also means different elected officials, they observed.