Skip to main content

Featured Post

Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park FAQ, timeline, and infographics (pinned post)

With Related out and no full replacement yet, is "Community Engagement" coming? Won't negotiations, behind closed doors, re-shape the project?

OK, so now that we know (link) that Related Companies, expected as of last November to join a joint venture to develop six tower sites above the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's two-block Vanderbilt Yard, is out.

We also know that the key player (astoundingly!) in the fate of the project, the U.S. Immigration Fund (USIF), the questionable packager of the EB-5 loan, has recruited a partial replacement, Cirrus Real Estate Partners, but needs to add an actual developer or construction manager with experience in large-scale projects.

The question then is when the "Community Engagement," described last Nov. 14 as pending by Empire State Development (ESD), the state authority that oversees/shepherds Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, would launch regarding those tower sites.

The answer, I suspect, is: not yet.

After all, that pending plan was predicated on the expectation that the joint venture, with development expertise, would take control over those development sites (B5-B10), below Atlantic Avenue between Sixth and Carlton avenues. The current joint venture needs an additional partner.
 

The plan

As I reported, 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 recommended 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. (See my coverage of Greenland USA's plans for Site 5.)

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.


As I wrote, 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—nearby "community" 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 in 2023, when ESD was considering public engagement regarding the project's future, and only one developer was involved, the various segments were combined, as I reported.
 
Rethinking the timing
 
Now that the plan for the railyard sites is delayed, it's not implausible that the timelines could be realigned, with Greenland USA expected to recruit a partner to develop the Site 5 project, which involves moving the bulk of the unbuilt B1 flagship tower (aka "Miss Brooklyn"), once slated to loom over the arena, across the street to Site 5, longtime home of the big-box stores P.C. Richard and the now-closed Modell's.

So, could both projects proceed at the same time? Maybe, but they would have different terms and different developers, even if they were realigned somewhat in terms of the re-approval process and thus start time.
 
Could the Site 5 project proceed first? While that might  be logistically possible, it seems very unlikely.
 
After all, it would reward Greenland by bestowing significant value in the bulk transfer, even while it has defaulted on the obligation to build the 876 remaining affordable housing units required by May 2025. (ESD has made no indication it would try to collect the $2,000/month damages for each missing unit.)
 
Note the argument for considering the rest of the project as a whole. At that November meeting, AY CDC Director Ron Shiffman, a veteran community planner, said he thought it unwise to address the housing at the railyard before Site 5, because the two are interrelated. 
 
For example, one might require more subsidy. (Or, perhaps, a bigger giveaway of development rights to cross-subsidize the platform, or affordable housing.)

What's "community engagement"?

I wrote in November that ESD would seek public input to either 1) help shape the project's future (at the margins, most likely) and/or 2) provide cover for the emerging plan, likely for a larger project than currently approved, as Greeenland sought.

Now that we know that the USIF and Cirrus are planning to negotiate the contours of the project--surely timeline, affordability and scale--it's worth wondering how genuine public input would be.

“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 Shiffman last November. "Is it really to determine the program or to review and sell the product that the developers are proposing?”

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. But the argument still matters today, since such consultants could add some balance to an equation that favors behind closed-doors negotiations.

What are the parameters?

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."

If "form follows finance" (an Atlantic Yards mantra, thanks to Carol Willis), well, the vision will be shaped by those working the spreadsheets.
May 2023 draft. Click to enlarge

The limits of public input

As I wrote last November, 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. 
 
It also seems to ignore the timeline. However, the longer the wait for affordable housing, the more costly it becomes, as long as ever-deeper affordability, at lower percentages of Area Median Income (AMI), is not achieved.

Comments