State authority plans "Community Engagement" regarding six towers to be built on platform sites. Won't developer Related's lobbying establish parameters?

This is the second of two articles on the Nov. 14 meeting of the advisory Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation (AY CDC). The first concerned the emergence of a "permitted developer" for six tower sites and questions about enforcing the affordable housing deadline.

A main topic of the meeting, vaguely billed as "Community Engagement," suggests that Empire State Development (ESD), the state authority that oversees/shepherds Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, is moving ahead with plans regarding the six towers (B5-B10) over the  Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s two-block Vanderbilt Yard.

Remember, as I reported yesterday, a "permitted developer"--a joint venture involving Hudson Yards developer Related Companies and two financial partners--is about to take control over those development rights, below Atlantic Avenue between Sixth and Carlton avenues.

Thus, ESD will seek public input to either 1) help shape the project's future (at the margins, most likely) and/or 2) provide cover for Related's emerging plan (likely for a larger project than currently approved).

Anna Pycior, Senior VP, Community Relations, said ESD plans to hire a community engagement consultant to “do a robust public process for the remaining portions of the site. That would include visioning sessions, soliciting input from the public.”

Somewhat surprisingly, they recommend two separate processes: one for the railyard sites, and another for the parcel at Site 5, catercorner to the arena (and the unbuilt B1 tower). Those parcels have different terms and timelines, she said, and different companies may be responsible.

“It seems to us practical and thoughtful to do them as separate processes, with the community,” she said.


Sure, there’s an argument for not conflating them and, yes, each segment might generate particular concern from different sets of neighbors and interest groups.

However, the separation, I suspect, would simply further dilute the capacity of an already fatigued—and cynical—neighboring public to respond, leaving space for development boosters--welcome YIMBYs!--to cheer on an increase in supply and for the arena operator to lobby for a permanent plaza outside the Barclays Center.

Note that last year, when ESD was considering public engagement (see below) regarding the project's future, and only one developer was involved, the various segments were combined.

What does it mean?

“I’m not concerned about splitting it up at this point, because I don't know what the role of the process is here," observed AY CDC Director Ron Shiffman, a veteran community planner. "Is it really to determine the program or to review and sell the product that the developers are proposing?”

“It would be to review the options and hear what people envision for the site,” Pycior said. “Bring them up to speed on what the obligations are as of now, and discuss with them what the project, in their opinion, ought to look like, explain the realities of the situation in terms of what the carrying loads are, etc.”

Of course, if "form follows finance," as Carol Willis memorably wrote, the parameters are established not by a public visioning session but by the developer's spreadsheet. Often developers ask for more than what they need, then seemingly compromise in response to public criticism.

ESD's own project site map, below, doesn't do much to explain the scale of what's been approved and proposed. See further below for a map I commissioned.

Site map provided to AY CDC. Annotation added. The underlying outline map is out of date, as 
shown by the arrow, since it wrongly implies that there's no LIRR railyard in Block 1121. 

Supersizing the project

Keep in mind, as I reported in August, that current master developer Greenland USA last year proposed to supersize the project by adding 1 million more square feet--free land!--in larger railyard towers. 

It sought an extension of the May 2025 deadline to build 876 more below-market "affordable" units but agreed to build perhaps 600 more affordable units, gaining an extended deadline and offering no clarity on affordability level.

Unofficial rendering of 2023 proposals

It's reasonable to assume that Related, recognizing ESD's likely acquiescence to such plans, would similarly pursue such supersizing. Indeed, it has been--as described below--actively lobbying for six months. So it surely has an advantage in assessing the balance between private gain and public benefit.

Site 5 boost

Greenland also proposed--well, it was essentially approved in 2021 by ESD--to move the bulk from the unbuilt flagship tower (B1), once slated to loom over the arena, across Flatbush Avenue to Site 5, longtime home of the big-box stores P.C. Richard and the now-closed Modell's.

That would enable two towers, one 910 feet and the other 450 feet, far larger than the 250-foot tower approved in 2006 and both taller and bulkier than the 785-foot and 383-foot towers floated in 2015-16. 

Unofficial rendering

That would not only benefit Greenland, which would avoid the complexity of building the B1 tower over an active arena, it would benefit Joe Tsai's (and the Koch family's) BSE Global, which operates the arena and would see the branded plaza, for now known as Ticketmaster Plaza, made permanent. 

That, as I've pointed out, would be far more valuable than BSE Global gaining control of the now-shelved Urban Room, the atrium at the prow of the B1 tower. After all, the plaza serves as an arena entrance and gathering space for crowds, while the Urban Room would've had to be shared with an office tower lobby.

Whose parameters?

ESD's plan assumes that the public--or, more likely, interest groups--have the capacity to muster a vision for the site.

Nobody brought up the 2018 proposal by Jaime Stein, then a member of the AY CDC, that the advisory board hire its own planning, design, and construction consultants—not merely facilitators—to review the emerging Site 5 proposal to inform the board and the public. (As of then, the plan for expanded railyard towers had not emerged.)

That could have a far larger impact on the shape of the project.

At the meeting, Shiffman asked who’d determine the parameters: the developers, or “what the capacity of the land and the area surrounding it can reasonably hold?”

“The idea is that we hold visioning sessions to get input that can be used by the developers to shape what the platform site developments would look like,” responded ESD’s Joel Kolkmann, Senior VP, Real Estate and Planning. “I think really the idea is to hold public engagement sessions and to hear what people are thinking about different topics."

May 2023 draft. Click to enlarge

The limits of public input

A significant clue regarding ESD's plans come from a draft Scope of Work produced in May 2023 in response to Greenland's plans to supersize the project. (I acquired the document through a Freedom of Information Law request.)

The contractor's "inclusive" community engagement process would involve perhaps four public sessions, anticipating 50 to 100 attendees per session, that would:

• use maps, texts, and graphics to explain the project history, site context, and programming options for the balance of the project site 
• solicit community feedback and vision on topics including but not limited to: affordable housing preferences, desired community amenities, priorities for open space and public realm, and non-residential space usage 
• translate session feedback into themes to shape project vision into actionable guidelines
• hold a “follow-up” meeting with project partners including the developer, the MTA, and other governmental agencies to present community vision 

(Emphasis added)

So the public would be allowed to express preference about the amount and affordability of below-market housing, as well as hopes for new public space. 

That, however, does not necessarily address the impact of the developer's desired scale and the significant gift of the additional bulk, much less the overall economics of the project.

Note that, even before the supersizing plan surfaced, I commissioned graphic designer Ben Keel to create renderings of the view along Atlantic Avenue of the project as approved.

See original coverage for higher-quality image

Moreover, as I've written, if deeper affordability is cross-subsidized by more profitable apartments, that means affordable housing advocates would support the developer's desire for ever-larger buildings. (That, of course, was developer Forest City Ratner's initial justification for the project parameters.)

Note that plans Greenland floated in 2018 indicated 5,200 new square feet of open space at Site 5. That's slightly larger than a standard basketball court (4,700 square feet), or the equivalent of such a court with a tiny buffer zone. The location and design was redacted.

The public purpose

“What I'm trying to get at is the outcome here what will be a product for the developer or product for ESD to determine what is the proper public purpose of these sites,” Shiffman said.

“I would say both,” Kolkmann responded.

Shiffman pressed on whether the public purpose trumped the developer’s goals.

Kolkmann said it would be public purpose. “I mean, that I view all the [ESD] projects as having public purpose, and we've been talking about the issues around housing, open space.”

Shiffman said, “Perhaps the public process would call for some sort of public entity to develop the site, rather than a private developer.” He noted how the plan has been modified to fit developer requests.

AY CDC Chair Daniel Kummer, a retired media lawyer and former chair of Brooklyn Community Board 6, scotched that notion, noting that this engagement would occur after a permitted developer has been determined.

Developer engagement

Meanwhile, Related amped up its own form of engagement in September and October. 

Its lobbying report, released yesterday, indicates that it not only lobbied four executives at ESD, it also lobbied New York City Deputy Mayor Maria Torres-Springer. (Is Related asking the city for housing subsidies?)

Related had in May/June started lobbying ESD officials and in July/August it had added executives at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and even Attorney General Letitia James

It's of course hard to imagine Related would enter the project without having negotiated, at least partly, the scale of the project, the affordable housing obligation (and deadlines), and more.

A question of scope

AY CDC Director Gib Veconi, a leader of the BrooklynSpeaks coalition aiming to monitor and improve the project, asked if a RFP (request for proposals) had been drafted.

“We have a scope of work,” Kolkmann replied.

“Is that something that can be shared with the board?” Veconi asked. He was told that such procurements are done through a list of prequalified consultants, so they’d have to check with the procurement office. (I should've shared the 2023 scope earlier!)

Veconi noted that the AY CDC was formed to provide oversight over the project’s public commitments, “and having community engagement to figure out how those public benefits actually get realized is in scope for this body.”

So the directors, he said, should express an opinion about how effectively the scope would help get community input regarding project benefits.

The six Directors attending, upon Veconi’s motion, agreed to request a review of the scope before it's finalized.

Kummer asked whether the community engagement process is paid for by the developer. The answer was yes. But they don’t have veto power over the scope, he was told.

Who’s in charge now?

Veconi noted an awkward contractual situation. While Greenland USA is currently responsible for the project’s Master Development Agreement (MDA), and retains control of Site 5 and B1, it’s lost the six railyard development sites in foreclosure.

Greenland is “working on bringing in a development partner” for Site 5, Kolkmann confirmed.

Veconi referred to the firm as Greenland Forest City Partners, the former joint venture, but Forest City is pretty much gone, for example, having given up its share of the Site 5 parcel. A spokesman for Brookfield, which absorbed Forest City, last year said it retains a "nominal" stake. So it's unlikely it retains much share in the B1 bulk.

What happens, asked Veconi, to the legal structure? While one legal entity, the joint venture involving Related, the U.S. Immigration Fund, and Fortress Investment Group, would be in charge of the railyard sites, a new entity, likely involving Greenland and a new partner, would be responsible for Site 5.

“But what happens to the MDA at that point?” Veconi asked. “Is there anyone left who has any obligations or responsibilities under the MDA once they have transferred those interim leases to the new parties?

That, said Kolkmann, is something they’re working on with counsel.

Will project name change?

Nobody brought it up, but if Related controls the lion's share of the project going forward, would they feel shackled by the name Greenland chose, Pacific Park, which, will sunnily emphasizing future open space, is, like Atlantic Yards, stigmatized by its association with developer failure?

I'd bet they change the project's name. My suggestion/guess: "Brooklyn Central." After all, an expected housing surge would make the open space ("park") less accessible.

Site 5 and the plaza

Veconi noted that Exhibit K of the Site 5 interim lease ESD signed in 2021 with Greenland agreed to move the bulk from the unbuilt B1 tower across Flatbush Avenue and make the plaza permanent.

In considering the scope of the engagement developed for Site 5, he said, “we should basically look at that as if Exhibit K wasn't there... I don't think we should just say, OK, you know, that's a done deal. It's not in the project any more, it's been broken off."

Indeed, the state’s action was an enormous bonus for the arena operator, Joe Tsai, and an ESD presentation unwisely suggested the state has no leverage.

The BrooklynSpeaks coalition, which Veconi helps lead, had proposed that, in exchange for the permanent plaza, the arena company fund a quality of life enforcement unit. I think the public should ask for more.

Veconi asked if any directors disagreed. He didn’t provoke much discussion, but Kummer agreed that the whole picture should be considered.

Veconi acknowledged the issue’s not ripe, because ESD hasn’t yet proposed a community engagement consultant regarding Site 5. But he said he thought the resolution the board passed covers both scenarios. 

The limits of engagement

Shiffman asked how much the public would have input on the number of units, their distribution, and affordability levels. “Or will this just be a way of dealing with the colors, rather than the substance?”

Pycior said it wasn’t: “I can't quantify the percentage of the input per se, but I will say we take it very seriously.” 

The record of Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park is not very optimistic on that point.

Shiffman said he thought it unwise to address the housing along Atlantic Avenue before Site 5, because the two are interrelated. For example, one would require more subsidy. (Or, perhaps, a bigger giveaway of development rights to cross-subsidize the platform, or affordable housing.)

“We'll have to see,” observed ESD’s Arden Sokolow, EVP, Real Estate Development and Planning, noting that the two different entities had with different financial capacities, development capacities, and timelines.

One would be building over an active transit hub, while the other would be building over an active railyard, requiring a platform.

What next?

Pycior said the next scheduled meeting would be in March, which is when they discuss and approve the annual budget. (Currently, the AY CDC’s budget is funded by Greenland, the master developer. Presumably that formula would be tweaked, as well. Let's see if that's disclosed.)

Shiffman suggested an earlier meeting, so ESD could report back on the resolution the board passed.

ESD staffers said they’d talk with the procurement office.

Kummer suggested they aim to meet in January or February.

Shiffman said he’d like to see a consultant who understands the finances of such projects. Kolkmann said the engagement consultant could hire a subcontractor.

“We could bring that back up when we see the scope,” Veconi said.

Sokolow asked if it would be better for ESD to talk about the scope with the Directors, or to bring the consultant to a meeting.

Veconi and Kummer agreed it would be better to bring the consultant.

Director Tamara McCaw, otherwise not particularly vocal at such meetings, then said, “I think it's also important that the consultant you get is deeply rooted in community practices around multiple ways of getting information.”

(She's a founder of Public Assembly, which develops strategy and programming for cultural institutions, not-for-profit organizations, and more.)

Of course, if the Directors had heard an honest discussion about the level of community engagement in the blinkered recent Quality of Life meeting ESD hosted, such rhetoric might have provoked skepticism. Heck, even the failure to produce a candid Agenda for the meeting should've provoked skepticism.

A basic question

At the meeting state Sen. Jabari Brisport, who brought up ESD’s failure to hold the developer accountable, also asked what he called “a light architectural question… it's never been clear to me, and I think a lot of the public, why the platforms are necessary” for the project.

Vanderbilt Yard, between Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues

Because, he was told, that would interfere with MTA operations. (A "duh" was implied but withheld.)

Is that a failure by a public official to understand a basic tenet of the project? 

Yes, but credit Brisport for actually showing up, unlike any other elected official. (Some sent staff.)

Is it a failure of ESD's unclear map? Probably.  

Is it also a failure of the press, including me? Maybe.

But the Vanderbilt Yard is a below-grade railyard where the Long Island Rail Road stores and services its trains, as I’ve written numerous times. 

You can’t build over it—just as with Hudson Yards—without an at-grade platform. You can see the trains parked there. 

If the level of public information is that low--and Brisport, understandably, has more pressing things on his plate--how exactly can public input steer the future of the site?