TimesRatnerReport

Introducing the Atlantic Yards Report

2006-03-01T07:06:00.000-05:00

From today onward, my reportage, analysis, and commentary on the Atlantic Yards project will appear at the Atlantic Yards Report.

This blog, originally dubbed TimesRatnerReport, was conceived to accompany the 9/1/05 publication of my report The New York Times & Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards: High Rises & Low Standards. I thought a blog could help track and comment on the response to my report.

The report has not yet spurred the Public Editor of the New York Times to assess the newspaper's coverage of the Atlantic Yards project. However, I do think my criticisms have contributed to a somewhat better performance by the media, including the Times.

Moreover, the report and the research behind it have served as a base for an evolving blog. While I initially emphasized media analysis and commentary, I now include much more original reporting.

Given the broader focus, the name TimesRatnerReport doesn't fit as well. The blog under that URL will remain intact, and I will link back from the Atlantic Yards Report to old blog entries when necessary. (Why not simply change the name/URL of the old blog? Many original links would be lost.)

I will continue my analysis of the New York Times's coverage, and of media coverage in general. But I also will continue to take a broader view of the biggest development project in the history of Brooklyn.

ESDC: terrorism not part of Environmental Impact Statement

2006-02-28T07:23:00.000-05:00

Ok, this isn't new, given that the discussion happened four months ago, but it's news because it hasn't been reported before: The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), which in perhaps a month will issue a Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Atlantic Yards plan, will not go beyond its legal mandate to consider terrorism as a separate issue.

On 10/24/05, even before the comment period on the Draft Scope of Analysis had closed, ESDC officials met with Brooklyn elected officials and others in the first session of Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee.

I wasn't there and the recently-posted notes are terse, but here it is:
Will terrorism be taken into consideration as part of the EIS?
No. It is not in the scope of the EIS, but ESDC heard this recommendation at the public hearing.

Thus, the ESDC apparently won't heed the requests of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods and community boards to consider terrorism, an issue I wrote about before the 10/24/05 notes were posted.

That's not to say that the New York Police Department won't evaluate security issues, as it's been asked to do--though the report hasn't yet been released). But the law governing the EIS--which was written, of course, before the 9/11 attacks raised public consciousness about terrorism--doesn't require the state to do so.

As with the ESDC's close relationship with developers, which is part of its mission, the statute governing the scope of the EIS might deserve another look.

An alternative to Ratner's CBA? Development groups work toward new principles

2006-02-25T10:12:00.000-05:00

Was the Atlantic Yards plan just a few years too soon for economic development groups to get organized? That's one conclusion from Mark Winston Griffith's article Redefining Economic Development in the February Gotham Gazette.

Griffith wrote:
A fledgling coalition of some of the most prominent economic development groups in the city have been meeting over the last year to create a blueprint that offers a comprehensive and alternative vision of what development should look like in the Bloomberg era. “Re-Defining Economic Development” -- or RED NY, as this coalition’s efforts are called -- began as an attempt to make new development projects in the city more accountable. Its participants all have the conviction that New York’s prosperity should be shared more broadly throughout the city.

While the Atlantic Yards plan was announced in December 2003, RED NY's precursors began in the following year:
The roots of Re-Defining New York go back to a series of meetings in 2004 -– the Subsidy Accountability Strategy Session -- that were put together by Jobs with Justice New York, a group that organizes to support the rights of workers and increase their standard of living. At these meetings more than 40 organizations, including the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Good Jobs New York and the Pratt Center for Community Development, attempted to figure out how to demand more public benefit from projects that received incentives and subsidies from the city and state coffers.

It took more than a year to reconstitute the group:
[A]t a meeting in November of 2005, Jobs with Justice, along with Good Jobs and Pratt, again invited dozens of activists to participate in a series of meetings, this time called Re-Defining Economic Development (RED NY).
Since the November meeting of RED NY, a working group consisting of more than a dozen organizations has emerged to establish a set of principles that could possibly be “endorsed” by a broad range of organizing and advocacy groups in the city. One suggestion is that these principles could then be used to judge the candidates for governor, and encourage them to adopt a progressive platform on economic development. RED NY is also organizing training sessions designed to help people from different economic development disciplines establish common ground and a common understanding of the issues.

Atlantic Yards alternatives?

The principles developed could have had consequences for the Atlantic Yards plan:
But Michelle de la Uz, executive director of the Fifth Avenue Committee, is very clear on the practical uses for a new economic development blueprint. The Fifth Avenue Committee is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit to stop Bruce Ratner from demolishing six buildings en route to building the Nets stadium and hundreds of commercial and residential units over Atlantic Yards in downtown Brooklyn.
(Note that Atlantic Yards not a place but a project that includes the MTA's Vanderbilt Yards, and it's near downtown.)

While the developer Forest City Ratner and eight community groups, several of them with no track record, negotiated a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), that has been widely criticized. But it was the city's first CBA, and there were no standards. As Griffiths wrote:
What de la Uz envisions is a set of standards for job creation, environmental impact, buy-in from the surrounding area, etc. that the city or a private developer could be held to whenever they planned to use public resources. In her opinion such a standard would have set a much higher bar for Ratner to clear before he was able to pursue the Nets Arena project. The surrounding neighborhood, in de la Uz’s opinion, would have had “real” community benefit “guarantees” instead of what she considers to be the highly questionable and unenforceable promises for job creation and affordable housing that Ratner was able to negotiate.

Zoning stasis (for 45 years), the local downzoning push, and the Atlantic Yards bypass

2006-02-24T07:22:00.000-05:00

Development in New York is usually shaped by zoning--though the state would override city zoning for the Atlantic Yards project--and the building boom around the city has caused local officials and neighborhood activists to wake up. "For the most part, the zoning we have in New York is from 1961," Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society, recently told the real estate monthly The Real Deal. "That rezoning was based on the expectation that the city's population would double over the next 40 years, which hasn't come close to happening."

For example, parts of Fort Greene and Prospect Heights, have R6 zoning. As the Fort Greene Association (FGA) has pointed out, a typical R6 development is between three and 12 stories. While the zoning code supports "construction of tall, slender buildings surrounded by large, open spaces," the FGA would prefer more contexual buildings that produce similar square footage but cover larger portions of the lots, under R6B zoning. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in R6 districts ranges from 0.78 to 2.43, while R6B would have an FAR of 2.0. (Remember, the FAR for the Atlantic Yards project would be much larger, from 9.5 to 12, depending on how it's calculated, according to architect Jonathan Cohn.)

The response: downzoning

As noted by The Real Deal, in the article headlined Looking for an upside to downzoning, the local backlash has led to new zoning restrictions on building heights and density in neighborhoods such as Bensonhurst, South Park Slope, and Bay Ridge. (This is separate from the rezoning to spur development in Williamsburg/Greenpoint and elsewhere.) "The key phrase invoked with these rules is 'preservation of the existing character of the neighborhood,'" the article stated.

At a panel 2/21/06 organized by the Historic Districts Council, titled "Neighborhood Preservation in Brooklyn: Preserving the Past, Planning the Future," several people pointed to the rapid change and the belated response. "Brooklyn has been complacent," observed architectural historian Andrew Dolkart, who noted that the last sizable historic district in Brooklyn was established in 1982. "If nothing else good comes out of Atlantic Yards," he said, "it will be that people have woken up to the fact" that they must much more closely consider the built environment.

Dolkart pointed to efforts to add blocks to the Fort Greene and Clinton Hill historic districts, and the need to preserve Wallabout, the area between Myrtle Avenue and the Brooklyn Navy Yard. (Note that the panel specifically aimed not to address the Atlantic Yards project.)

It's political

Asked what role politics should play in community preservation, Aaron Brashear of the Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Heights commented, "In our case, very heavily." He said his group lobbied the local community board, elected officials, and the city planning office: "We were fortunate there weren't too many developers in our neighborhood with their hands in political pockets."

"We live in a democracy," said Winston Von Engel, of the Department of City Planning. "You can use political pressure and reason. Zoning changes usually come from the grassroots." A question for those watching the Atlantic Yards project remains: how much leverage does the public have in a state process that overrides zoning and is supervised by the Empire State Development Corporation?

A Times roundup on eminent domain: no mention of Brooklyn or the newspaper's own history

2006-02-21T10:35:00.000-05:00

The New York Times offers a front-page article on eminent domain today, headlined States Curbing Right to Seize Private Homes. It's one of those national roundups, covering a lot of bases, with a nod to issues in the tristate area. There's no mention of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn or the parent Times Company's own use of eminent domain.

There's a finite amount of space for such an article, so it's a judgment call about what to include. And the New York Times is a national newspaper. Still, its center of gravity is New York City, and there's a strong case that even roundup articles should mention its home city where eminent domain is at issue--such as the Atlantic Yards project. Perhaps this is caused by balkanization of coverage. As noted in Chapter 9 of my report, the national desk's coverage of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision--the ruling that sparked the new state legislation discussed today--neglected the local angle.

[Update: a reader comments that the reporter was writing a roundup of state legislative efforts, not the eminent domain issue in general, so the failure to mention the Brooklyn issue was defensible. Yes, I should've been more precise. Still, the article did mention some the impact of state reforms on some specific projects: a new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys, a Texas highway project, and a case in the Cincinnati suburb of Norwood. The issue in Brooklyn may not be as prominent in New York, relatively speaking, as the other cases mentioned are in their states. Then again, the Times should think of its local readers as well.]

There's also a case that the Times should disclose its own corporate role; it has not done so regularly but did in a 1/26/06 article (from the business/financial desk) headlined Bank to Deny Loans if Land Was Seized: "The New York Times Company used eminent domain to acquire the land for its new headquarters under construction in Midtown." [Addendum: After some discussion, I'll suggest that it is a judgment call, and the case is strongest when the Times is writing about the use of eminent domain in New York--which was not the subject of this article.]

Today's article included these passages:
The issue was one of the first raised when Connecticut lawmakers returned to session early this month. There are bills pending in the Legislature to impose new restrictions on the use of eminent domain by local governments and to assure that displaced businesses and homeowners receive fair compensation.
(The New London project is essentially delayed, even after the Supreme Court go-ahead, because of contractual disputes and an unwillingness to forcibly remove the homeowners who sued to save their properties.)
In the New Jersey Legislature, Senator Nia H. Gill, a Democrat from Montclair who is chairwoman of the Commerce Committee, proposed a bill to outlaw the use of eminent domain to condemn residential property that is not completely run down to make room for a redevelopment project. The bill, which is pending, would require public hearings before any taking of private property to benefit a private project.
In New York, State Senator John A. DeFrancisco, a Republican, has proposed a measure similar to one in other states that would remove the right to exercise condemnation power from unelected bodies like an urban redevelopment authority or an industrial development agency.

Demolitions timeline: what do "emergency" and "immediate" mean?

2006-02-20T07:08:00.000-05:00

What did they know and when did they know it? Did Forest City Ratner act responsibly in its plans to demolish several buildings it owns or controls? Did the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC)?

The testimony and legal filings in the court case filed by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) and other community groups, in which state Supreme Court Justice Carol Edmead refused to overturn ESDC's approval of the demolition plans, offer a timeline to flesh out some of those questions.

The papers suggest that the terms "emergency" and "immediate" may be legal terms required to approve the demolitions, but at the same time, the actions of the parties belie the urgency suggested by the plain meaning of those terms. Otherwise, the parties might have acted more quickly and tried harder to warn the public.

In Spring 2005, Forest City Ratner was advised to apply to the ESDC to demolish the buildings as an "emergency." However, the company did not, for various reasons, make the effort for several months. On 11/7/05, LZA Technology, a respected engineering firm hired by the developer, certified that 11 buildings at five properties were in "immediate" danger. But it took the ESDC five weeks to approve the decision; during that interregnum, there was no apparent effort by the developer to warn the public.

That's not to say that Forest City Ratner has tried to knock down most of the buildings it has acquired. Indeed, a company official said in his affidavit that the developer deferred to the judgment of its consultant and withdrew plans to demolish buildings that were deemed structurally sound.

Winter 2004-05: plans emerge

According to Forest City Ratner's contract for demolition work with Gateway Demolition Corp., the environmental firm AKRF--the same firm that is now working for the ESDC--conducted environmental site assessments in April, June, and August of 2004. But the real path toward the demolitions began at the end of the year. In December, 2004, contractors conducted asbestos inspection report for the Underberg Building, at 608-620 Atlantic Avenue. (Photo by Forgotten NY.)

In January or February 2005, according to an affidavit from FCR's Andrew Zlotnick, in consultation with environmental consultants at AKRF, he put together a list of buildings that appared to be so dilapidated that they would require demolition rather than maintenance. Besides consulting with staff members, the company also retained LZA Technology, "a well-known Manhattan based firm of consulting structural engineers."

According to the contract, the inspections began in January, and in February and March, demolition plans were drawn up for several buildings.

1/14/05: Pre-demolition asbestos inspection for 461 Dean Street
1/16/05: Pre-demolition asbestos inspection for 463 Dean Street
2/05: Environmental site assessments
2/10/05: Pre-demolition asbestos inspection for 585-601 Dean Street
2/15/05: Demolition specifications for 608-620 Atlantic Avenue
3/2/05: Structural due diligence survey of 461 & 463 Dean Street, and 585-601 Dean Street
3/4/05: Demolition plan for building at 585-601 Dean Street
3/7/05: Demolition plan for buildings at 461-465 Dean Street and 626 Pacific Street

Spring 2005: legal twist, MTA roadblock

Zlotnick stated: "As to some of the buildings that I had identified as potentially so hazardous as to require demolition, LZA advised me that, in its opinion, the buildings were not structurally unsound and need not be demolished. As to those
buildings, FCRC deferred to LZA's professional judgment and decided not to proceed with demolition. Nevertheless,in the spring of 2005, FCRC had received reports from LZA recommending that six or seven buildings that FCRC had acquired or was in contract to acquire were so unsafe and structurally unsound that they should be demolished." (Right, 461 and 463 Dean Street, in a photo taken shortly after the 12/16/05 demolition announcement. There were no apparent warning signs.)

On 4/28/05, FCR issued a notice of intent to award the demolition contract and on 5/2/05, the developer listed the scope of work for demolition. However, a legal dispute arose about FCR's right to demolish the buildings. Attorney Melanie Meyers argued that FCR had the right to demolish the buildings without any ESDC review; attorney David Paget, then working for the developer (but later for ESDC), and the ESDC's Rachel Shatz said state regulations required ESDC approval. Paget suggested a solution, according to Meyers: state law exempts from the SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Act) "emergency actions that are immediately necessary on a limited and temporary basis for the protection or preservation of life, health, property or natural resources." FCR, according to Meyers, decided to submit materials to ESDC to determine that an emergency existed.

However, a roadblock arose. According to Zlotnick's affidavit, some of the structures were close to subway tunnels and could not be demolished without the MTA signing off on the process. Meyers wrote that "efforts toward demolition" halted in late spring because the Metropolitan Transportation Authority sought competitive bids for the Vanderbilt Yards. "Because of the ongoing public bidding process, there was a moratorium on any FCRC communications with the MTA and ESDC regarding the Project," she stated.

The moratorium lasted until 9/14/05, when the MTA awarded FCR the right to develop the railyard. Note that Jeffrey Baker, the attorney for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, said in court that Bruce Ratner met twice with MTA officials, including Chairman Peter Kalikow, during that supposed interregnum.

Summer 2005: moving ahead

According to the contract, LZA continued its inspections:
6/23/05: Structural due diligence survey for 608-620 Atlantic Avenue
6/27/05 & 6/30/05: Demolition plan for buildings at 620 Pacific Street
7/6/05: Pre-demolition asbestos inspection for 620 Pacific Street
7/23/05: Structural due diligence survey for 620 Pacific Street

On 9/14/05, the MTA awarded FCR the right to develop the railyard, and thus removed the moratorium. On 9/16/05, ESDC issued a notice that it would be the lead agency for environmental review process.

Fall 2005: another look, a five-week gap

On 10/18/05, ESDC held a six-hour public scoping hearing on the project. At about the same time, FCR asked LZA to update its surveys, expressing concern that snow, ice, and other weather conditions could further damage the buildings, according to Zlotnick. On 11/2/05, a LZA engineer made a presentation, with Power Point slides, to MTA, ESDC, and FCR representatives. On 11/7/05, LZA prepared a new report on the buildings, calling their condition "an immediate threat to the preservation of life, health, and property." The next day, FCR sent the LZA report to ESDC, via FedEx. (Above, 620 and 622 Pacific Street, shortly after the 12/16/05 announcement of the demolition plans. There were no apparent warning signs.)

It took five weeks for the ESDC to act, but it's not clear why. The agency's Shatz said in an affidavit that there were both internal and external meetings. "After reviewing the LZA report and consulting with other senior officials at the ESDC, and our outside environmental counsel Sive Paget, I determined that an 'emergency' existed," she stated.

[Note that I wrote on 12/30/05 that "the timing of Forest City Ratner's announcement seems to have been tied less to the receipt of the report than the plans for asbestos abatement." According to the papers filed in the lawsuit, the timing related to the receipt of the ESDC's approval.]

Meanwhile, work by LZA continued, according to the contract.
11/22/05: Environmental site assessments
11/30/05: Demolition plan for building at 622 Pacific Street

On 12/1/05, FCR issued a revised scope of work for demolition, the next day revised its notice of intent to award the demolition contract. On 12/14/05, according to the contract, it again revised the scope of work for demolition.

Emergency declared

On 12/15/05, Shatz, in a memo to the ESDC's Atlantic Yards project file, concluded that "demolition of the Unsafe Structures by FCRC is an emergency action that is immediately necessary on a limited and temporary basis for the protection and preservation of life, health, and property." (The footer of the memo, curiously enough, was dated 12/5/05.) The same day, Forest City Ratner gave the New York Times an exclusive regarding its demolition plans.

On 12/16/05, ESDC sent FCR a letter declaring the demolitions to be an emergency action. The same day, when the Times story appeared, FCR issued a press release saying it would begin asbestos abatement and then demolish six buildings. (One of those buildings, 622 Pacific Street, was incorrectly listed, because LZA had not included it in its report to ESDC.) FCR also issued a demolition contract that day.

A week later, on 12/22/05, FCR again revised its notice of intent to award the demolition contract, and revised the scope of demolition work.

During the week of December 19, DDDB and local politicans asked for an opportunity to look at the buildings, with an independent engineer. Forest City Ratner initially agreed, and an inspection was scheduled for 12/20/05, including representatives of DDDB, Council Member Letitia James, and the engineer. "That inspection was cancelled by FCRC without explanation, and a subsequent inspection was scheduled for December 21st or 22nd," according to the legal filing. "However, FCRC informed DDDB that it would not be permitted to be present at the inspection and it informed Councilwoman James that she would not be permitted to bring an engineer to the inspection." James said she wouldn't visit the buildings without the engineer. "They told me that an independent review might 'slow down the process," James said.

"The question is, God forbid that a building collapses, God forbid that a falling brick hits someone in the head, or that there's a fire," FCR's Bruce Bender said, according to the 12/16/05 Times article. On the one hand, the approaching winter did present a more hazardous situation, especially since Forest City Ratner neglected to seal all the windows in its buildings. On the other hand, the concept of "emergency" had existed since the spring.

Winter 2005-06: lawsuit

In January 2006, engineer Jay Butler said in an affidavit, after reviewing the LZA report and conducting an external examination of the buildings: "Any defects to the buildings or threats to public safety appear to be consistent with conditions found at countless other buildings in New York City. Such defects can be safely stabilized with commonly-used repair measures." He acknowledged that his observations were preliminary; the LZA report said that the interiors of the structures were far more damaged than the exteriors. (Above, 585-601 Dean Street.)

On 1/18/06, DDDB and associated groups filed suit to block the demolitions and to disqualify Paget. On 2/14/06, Edmead refused to block the demolitions but did disqualify Paget. Two days later, the ESDC appealed Edmead's disqualification decision.

Note that there are five properties at issue, since a sixth building initially announced for demolition has not yet approved by the ESDC. The petitioners consider the six initially announced properties 12 buildings since one of the properties has a building behind it, and the Underberg Building is six joined structures. Subtracting that one building, five properties and 11 buildings are, according to the ESDC, approved for demolition, but Forest City Ratner must still get permits from the city Department of Buildings.

ESDC appeals decision, says loss of lawyer puts Atlantic Yards project on hold

2006-02-18T07:01:00.000-05:00

Until the decision on February 14 disqualifying a lawyer for the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) because he previously worked on the Atlantic Yards project for developer Forest City Ratner, ESDC had planned to issue the Final Scoping Document--a prelude to a Draft Environmental Impact Statement--within 30 days.

Now, with the potential loss of attorney David Paget, "the order of the court below has brought the environmental review process respecting the Atlantic Yards project--and thus the project itself--to a screeching halt, since experienced outside counsel is required for a project of this nature," said ESDC attorney Douglas Kraus in a statement filed with the appeal of Justice Carol Edmead's decision.

What about finding a new lawyer? Well, said Kraus, relatively few such qualified counsel exist, and three are already working for other parties in this case: two for Forest City Ratner and one for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. He asked for an expedited appeal "in the interest of fairness," and called for a schedule that would lead to an oral argument before the state appellate court during the week of March 6.

A factual twist in the legal case

As shown by Edmead's narrow decision upholding the ESDC's right to approve the demolitions proposed by Forest City Ratner, what's legal may remain questionable. While Edmead's disqualification of Paget may seem intuitively right to those objecting to the "collaborative" relationship between developer and state agency, it may not rest on solid legal ground. The judge herself said from the bench, "I don't doubt that the court's determination may not stand."

While the case law undoubtedly will be argued in competing memoranda of law, the memorandum initially filed by the ESDC makes the case that Edmead misread the documents in asserting that Paget was retained by ESDC in February 2005 and thus was representing both parties at the same time. Rather, Kraus argues in the memorandum, there was no such formal retainer, just the signing of a cost reiumbursement agreement, which actually occurred in February 2004.

Rather, Paget worked for Forest City Ratner through September 2005, then went to work for the state agency the next month--but never for both parties simultaneously. The issue, though, is broader: whether there is an apparent conflict of interest as well.

Edmead wrote, "The Court does not question respondents' contention that it is normal procedure for the applicant to pay for ESDC specialists. However, that does not obviate the obligation to avoid any conflict of interest"--a conflict stemming also from the "oft bottom-line, profit-making pursuits of real estate development corporations" and the "valid environmental interests of the ESDC." Since that pattern may be typical for such large development project, the appellate court must decide is whether it's inappropriate.

Collaborative, arm's length, or just cheerleading? ESDC's Gargano embraces Ratner plan

2006-02-16T07:19:00.000-05:00

One URL for the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the state's chief economic development agency, is nylovesbiz.com, and the homepage logo features a heart. That suggests that the relationship between the agency, known formally as the New York State Urban Development Corporation, and the businesses it works with is hardly adversarial and may not merely be collaborative--a description offered by an agency lawyer during the court hearing 2/14/06--but positively embracing.

But that rosy image is belied by Justice Carol Edmead's ruling that the lawyer advising ESDC on the proposed demolitions within the Atlantic Yards footprint should be disqualified because he recently worked for developer Forest City Ratner. She called it "a severe, crippling appearance of impropriety," and said that the relationship could not always be collaborative, because the agency and the developer differed at one point on whether the demolitions required agency approval.

Can the agency be expected to do a fair job in both promoting economic development and evaluating the environmental impact of the proposed Atlantic Yards development? ESDC Chairman Charles Gargano gives little cause for confidence. He recently said he knew nothing of any conflict of interest posed by the agency's lawyer, didn't know the agency rents space in a mall owned by Ratner, and endorsed the Atlantic Yards project without reservation, even before the environmental impact statement has been issued.

Other statements made on the Brian Lehrer Show, cited below, show Gargano unaware that the Atlantic Yards plan began via a developer rather than an open process, overestimating the number of public hearings associated with the review of the Atlantic Yards plan, and claiming--even though his agency's goal is job creation and economic growth--that the reason to support the project is because it would create housing.

Republican fundraiser

Though he had a successful business career, Gargano is better known for his job as a prodigious fundraiser for Republican candidates like President Ronald Reagan, Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, and Gov. George Pataki, who appointed him to his current post. Under the administration of President George H.W. Bush, he was named ambassador to Trinidad & Tobago; he sought the ambassadorship to Italy under the current president, going so far as to submit a letter from Manhattan D.A. Robert Morgenthau clearing him of any wrongdoing in charges of politically-motivated grantsmanship, according to a 3/17/01 article in the New York Times.

An 11/7/99 review by the Daily News showed that 40 of 201 companies that received ESDC loans or grants had given political contributions to Gov. Pataki or other Republican causes. In a 9/26/96 article in Newsday, state Sen. Franz Leichter, a Democrat from Manhattan, called the ESDC a "political slush fund" for Pataki, citing 11 procurement contracts to firms politically linked to Republicans. (Forest City Ratner head Bruce Ratner is a Democrat, but companies he controlled have historically made contributions to various politicians, including $7,500 to since 2000 to state groups affiliated with Governor Pataki, according to a 12/10/03 article in the New York Sun.)

On the radio

On 11/15/05, Gargano appeared on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC, and was mostly asked about the Atlantic Yards project. Lehrer began by reading an article about a fundraising walk held two days earlier by opponents of the project, citing objections to the density of the plan, the lack of democracy, and to use of eminent domain. He then cited a commentary posted that day by Tom Angotti, a professor of urban studies at Hunter College, that said "the planning for Atlantic Yards is all backwards." Lehrer asked Gargano, "Is this a through-the-looking-glass version of how development should work? (Photo from Brian Lehrer show.)

CG: If you understand development and how it does work, we have a process in government, state government and I’m sure other government bodies have the same, whereby we put out first of all, on any area we’re trying to develop, we put out what we call an RF-- I, request for-- EI, expressions of interest. The reason why we do that is we want to pick the brains of the private sector, and see what kind of ideas they have, and after all, they’re the ones with the resources who are going to build these projects, so we want their ideas. We put out this RFEI, that’s the initial—that’s the first part of the process, and it has worked very well for many, many decades. So it’s not necessarily so that the governments put out a plan of how they want to see something done. An example of that is 42nd Street. Now 42nd Street--the finished product is a very good project, however, that plan, over more than a dozen years, was changed three or four times, until the government came up with a plan that was acceptable to all. So I believe bringing in the private sector, and their ideas, with their engineers and architects, and their resources, is the proper way of going about it.

There was no such RFEI issued for the Atlantic Yards project, though there have been for other projects. As Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz said in affidavit, he urged Bruce Ratner to buy the Nets basketball team, and Ratner concluded that a standalone arena made little economic sense.

The agency had a previous relationship with Ratner, on several projects. For example, as the Village Voice reported in a 6/17/02 article headlined Paper of Wreckage, Gargano met with Ratner in 2000 to discuss the state agency's role in condemning properties on Eighth Avenue in Manhattan for the Times Tower that Forest City Ratner would build in partnership with the New York Times Company.

Avoiding democracy, or just red tape?

Lehrer continued to quote Angotti's essay, pointing out that, because the ESDC is in charge, Forest City Ratner can avoid the city's Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP), which would require votes by the local community board, borough president, city planning commission, and city council. Lehrer asked, "So, are you helping Forest City Ratner do an end run around the usual land use democracy?

CG: That’s one way of categorizing it, but we don’t believe that’s the case at all. More than 40 years ago, the Urban Development Corporation [the ESDC’s predecessor name] was created with the powers of getting projects done. That doesn’t mean that we abuse any kind of process or circumvent any process. But what we’re trying to do is get projects built that are in dire need of being developed, such as 42nd Street as I mentioned before, and there’s a whole host of projects. And it’s not a question of circumventing or trying to avoid a process. It’s a way of going about it, with the scoping process that we have, and then environmental impact review. So we go through a lot of process. What we try to eliminate is a lot of red tape that doesn’t necessarily make for a better project

The difference between process and red tape is unclear, but unmentioned was how, by going through the ESDC, the project can override city zoning and be built at a higher density than otherwise allowed.

Lehrer followed up by asking, "Why shouldn’t a big project like this that affects several city neighborhoods go through the ULURP land review process.... Why isn’t that just better democracy?"

CG: Well, you’re going through many, many layers of government, and we don’t think it really is always necessary. As I said before, we do go through a process here, we do go through a scoping process, and we have public hearings to allow the public to comment while we’re going through the scoping process. And then when we develop a draft EIS, we have public hearings once again. In the meanwhile, we have a lot of public hearings, with the community and other members, interested parties. So, it’s a lengthy process in itself, but that doesn’t mean we have to go through many layers of government when sometimes it’s not necessary.

Public hearings? There was only one public hearing so far, on 10/18/05, after the draft scope of analysis was issued, and there may be only one more, after the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is released, likely in the next few months. There are no public hearings "in the meanwhile."

Opponents NIMBYs?

Lehrer pointed out that project opponents were unhappy that there was no public hearing until the one held in the previous month. Gargano responded by raising the spurious NIMBY claim.

CG: Well, one of the things I think we have all learned in our lifetime is the fact that when we are in a particular area, we want nothing else to happen in that area, we don’t want any future development, we don’t want any cleanup, even blighted areas. Look, I received a lot of criticism when we started working on 42nds Street, and we had all these peep shows, sex shops, prostitution, drug sales. And there were objections there, that we were getting a lot of these-- cleaning up a blighted area and getting a lot of these undesirable establishments moved from there. So everyone has their own opinion and that’s fine--

Lehrer interjected, "So it sounds like what you’re saying is the way to keep things moving that the direction that the leaders of the state want is to lock out public input?" Gargano repeated his "process" mantra.

CG: That’s not so. We do have enough public process in everything we do. As I said before, we have a number of public hearings and we do have a process where the public is involved. I don’t think it’s trying to exclude the public. I think what we have to do, when there is a need to accomplish something where it's for the public good, we have to find a way of doing it, and not getting blocked in red tape for long periods of time.

Competing plans

Lehrer read another section from this article, citing the community-developed UNITY plan for the Vanderbilt Yard, as well as the plan for the railyards submitted by the Extell Development Co. that was rejected by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Lehrer asked if it was "right or fair for the MTA to reject the alternative proposals without a public hearing"? Gargano said it wasn't his business.

CG: Well, first of all, the MTA owns the property, you’d have to speak to the MTA on what the process is. But I know that the MTA does own that property, and they have their own processes they have to go through, when they sell their property. So I’m not going to question them, but obviously that question has to go to the MTA.

Lehrer asked, "Do you have your own opinion that the Ratner plan is better on the merits than the Extell plan?"

CG: What I do know is we have a lot more detail on the Ratner plan. We know--again, this is a question of what the MTA has decided, who to sell the property to, we’re not a part of that, Empire State Development. I can tell you what I do know. The Ratner plan is a very detailed extensive plan to clean up the blighted area within that area, finally develop railyards. Isn’t it interesting that these railyards have sat for decades and decades and decades, and no one has done a thing about them, just accepted them in their community, throughout Brooklyn. I remember these yards, I grew up in Park Slope, Brooklyn. These railyards have been sitting there for 40 or 50 years, or longer, obviously, that I remember. The reality is, when someone comes in to develop, all of a sudden everybody is up in arms about how valuable they are. We just had that on the West Side of Manhattan, with the Jets. Now all of a sudden, now that the Jets have decided to stay in New Jersey, which was a big loss in my opinion to us here in New York, now all of a sudden, where’s the interest for those railyards at this point? Very little.

But wasn't it ESDC's job to send out an RFP to develop the railyards, or to work with the MTA to do so? And Gargano failed to acknowledge that the MTA accepted a bid for less than half the appraisal, and for $50 million less than that bid by rival developer Extell.

Nor has the ESDC apparently made any effort to conduct an independent review of the fiscal impact of the Atlantic Yards project, instead relying, in a 3/4/05 press release, on a study conducted by developer Forest City Ratner's paid consultant. Does the ESDC accept fiscal impact studies in the same way it accepts an engineering report regarding emergency demolitions?

Atlantic Yards a "wonderful plan"

Lehrer pointed out that the main opposition group, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, has pointed out that they don't oppose development, just excessive development. "Why do you think there’s no interest for 40 or 50 years, and then, all of a sudden, there are competing ones?" he asked.

CG: Well, I think what happens, it brings interest to a particular site. As the Jets brought interest to the site on the West Side railyards, similarly here, Forest City Ratner, who has been doing a tremendous amount of good development work, in Brooklyn, downtown Brooklyn, MetroTech and others. They came up with a wonderful plan here, for not only bringing back the Nets, that’s also a plus, but the main reason here is the housing that’s going to be developed, and it’s going to be affordable housing, and it’s going to be set aside for minority workers to work on the particular project, the largest percentages I have ever seen in construction. So therefore it includes the entire community when it’s being developed. It includes the entire community, who want to still live in that area. I don’t know what the other plans are and again, based upon the decision by the MTA, that’s their decision, not ours.

Does MetroTech constitute good development work? Well, it has kept back-office jobs from moving to New Jersey, but only thanks to some significant subsidies, producing a decidedly mixed record, as WNYC has reported

The agency's goal is economic development, not housing, and Atlantic Yards is mostly a project to build luxury housing. Only 2,250 of 7,300 units would be affordable. As for including "the entire community," Gargano apparently hasn't noticed criticism of the Community Benefits Agreement.

Gargano said 2/14/05, commenting on an unrelated issue, "As New Yorkers know, the benefits, programs and services that we provide companies are in return for them creating and retaining jobs in New York State." Note that the number of permanent office jobs at the Atlantic Yards project, once estimated at 10,000, would be no more than 2,500.

Too dense? Not to Gargano

Lehrer asked if he was concerned by the project's density. "A lot of people who even support the idea of this development by Ratner, including the Nets arena, were kind of taken aback when they saw the blueprint," he said.

CG: Well, there’s going to be a lot of open space as well. You can build in many ways, Brian. You can spread it out with lower buildings, or you can concentrate taller buildings and have a lot of open space. The developer proposes to include approximately seven acres of public open space within the project site, with all kinds of amenities. So you have to take the square footage over the entire area. Plus the developing has become more popular, so that we leave open space.

While that last sentence makes no sense, Gargano was repeating Forest City Ratner's claims regarding open space. However, the amount of open space would be far less than recommended by the city, given the population.

Lehrer, citing the one public hearing, asked if there would be more. Gargano repeated his favorite word: process.

CG: Oh, absolutely. There’s a lot more that has to be done. First of all, October 18, we started hearings, during the scoping process. That ended October 28, and now we’re beginning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and that’ll take a long period of time. From that, there will be more comment periods, and we’ll have to evaluate those comments before we go into the Final Environmental Impact Statement. So there’s a lot of process yet to go.

Personal qualms?

Lehrer tried to get Gargano to acknowledge any "environmental questions or concerns, any spot that you’re looking at and saying, ‘Well, I’m not sure of this aspect, they’re really going to have to satisfy me on this’?"

CG: I think what we have to do is make sure that we have the proper infrastructure that is required for a development of this type, and we will make sure of that, and that’s part of the environmental impact statement, it takes traffic studies, air quality, and so forth, so--

Lehrer interjected, repeating his question, asking for a personal view, and Gargano repeated himself.

CG: As I said, the infrastructure has to be built in accordance to the needs of this particular development.

Lehrer gave up and turned to questions of Ground Zero.

A few weeks later, Gargano, apparently disregarding process, offered his personal view to the New York Observer: "There is no need to scale down the project."

From the case file: $4 million a month (FCR's costs), Roger Green freelances, and the $6 billion deception

2006-02-15T07:30:00.000-05:00

For every month Forest City Ratner waits to commence construction on the Atlantic Yards project, it costs the company $4 million. State Assemblyman Roger Green has a novel theory for why the developer traded office space for housing in the Atlantic Yards plan. And 15 public officials, apparently unfazed by parroting the developer's paid consultant, have predicted that the project would bring $6 billion in new tax revenues to the city and state.

Those tidbits and more emerged from the legal papers filed in the case challenging Forest City Ratner's plans to demolish five properties and asserting that a lawyer for the Empire State Development Corporation has a conflict of interest because he previously represented the developer. Yesterday the judge refused to block the demolitions but ordered the attorney removed from the project.

FCR's bottom line

FCR VP Jim Stuckey, in his affidavit, argued against delaying the project, because it would cost the developer $4 million a month. He stated:
At this time, it costs FCRC about $2,500,000 per month to carry the real property that it has acquired for the Project and the overhead that is in place to work on the Project - a figure that does not include FCRC's legal fees and also does not include the operating losses that the Nets basketball team, which has been owned by an FCRC affiliate since early 2004, and continues to incur while it is based at its current venue in New Jersey. In addition, delay on a project such as this one probably would subject FCRC to escalation in its eventual construction costs of nearly $1,400,000 per month. Therefore, if a preliminary injunction were to stop the Project temporarily for even one month, the damages to which FCRC would be subjected would exceed $4,000,000 per month.
(Photo from Forest City Ratner web site.)

The model CBA

Why would a brake hurt the public? Stuckey cited jobs, housing, and the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA):
The Community Benefits Agreement is the first such agreement ever entered into by a development in a major development project in New York City. We believe that the Community Benefits Agreement may set the standard for all future major development projects in the City, and FCRC is the first developer to have - and the Project is the first development project- to have undertaken such far-reaching and extensive commitments to the community.

Set the standard? Remember, activists in West Harlem say they're avoiding the Brooklyn model.

Alternatively, it might be argued that the CBA was also promoted to garner political support for a project that would cost the public well over $1 billion.

Economic claims

In his affidavit, Stuckey asserted that the project would be an economic boon:
If approved and built, the Project also will serve as a powerful engine of economic growth in other respects as well. We estimate that the Project will create 15,000 construction jobs and, eventually, at least 2,500 permanent jobs. We also estimate that the Project will generate $6.1 billion in new tax revenues-and $5.0 billion in net tax revenues - for the City and the State over the next 30 years.

Once again, 15,000 construction jobs means 15,000 job-years, and the 2,500 permanent jobs is a cut of 75% from the 10,000 originally promised.

Attached to the affidavit of Borough President Marty Markowitz are numerous letters sent to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority from local elected officials, all written from the same template, apparently provided by Forest City Ratner, making the same economic claims. A typical sentence:
According to the estimates, the Arena will add another 400 jobs and - most importantly - serve as an economic engine generating over $6 billion in new tax revenues to the city and state over 30 years.

First, the arena jobs may be filled by current employees. And it's not the arena but the project that has been estimated to generate $6 billion in revenue. But the $6 billion in revenues must first be offset by the at least $1.1 billion in public costs that Stuckey acknowledges (though the politicians don't). More importantly, the costs and benefits are estimates by the developer's paid consultant, and its assumptions have been criticized not only by project critics but also by the New York City Economic Development Corporation and the Independent Budget Office, who point out significantly lower revenues and higher costs. In other words, the cost-benefit claim deserves a much closer look.

But the $6 billion claim was made in letters from the following: Senator Chuck Schumer; Representative Ed Towns; State Senators Martin Malave Dilan, Carl Andrews, Carl Kruger, and Kevin Parker; State Assemblymen Roger Green, Joseph Lentol, and Darryl Towns; City Council Members Erik Martin Dilan, Bill de Blasio, Lewis Fidler, Michael Nelson, and James Sanders; and Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum.

State Senator Martin Golden and then-Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields, perhaps wary of such figures, both wrote letters in support without mentioning revenue estimates. City Comptroller William Thompson, who works with numbers every day, more cautiously cited "the millions of dollars in revenue it will generate."

Delays kept Paget on FCR payroll

In the course of explaining FCR's relationship with Paget, Stuckey acknowledged that the project has been delayed:
In fact, in a letter agreement dated February 18, 2004 (the "Cost Letter"), between FCRC and ESDC, I confirmed to ESDC's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Charles A. Gargano, that FCRC would "pay certain costs incurred by [ESDC] with respect to the proposed Atlantic Yards-Brooklyn Arena Mixed Use Development Project (the `Project')."... The Cost Letter specifically confirmed that FCRC had "requested that [ESDC] authorize and/or oversee... services to be performed in connection with the Project," and it specified that these services included "[l]egal services to be provided by Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. in connection with the environmental analysis of the Project...."
At FCRC, we understood the Cost Letter to mean that Mr. Paget really was representing ESDC, although FCRC was obligated to pay his firm's fees. This is customary practice in virtually every public-private transaction we have been a party to and was customary when I worked in government as well. Furthermore, as shown in the accompanying affidavit of Jane Marshall, an FCRC Senior Vice President, when the Cost Letter was finalized in February 2004, we anticipated that the Project would move forward to the point where ESDC would formally retain Mr. Paget much more rapidly than turned out to be the case.

Message: keep web site updated

Paget said that he "provided advice to Forest City, from time to time, from the time of my initial retention in December 2003 until September 2005, with long periods of inactivity in between." However, "[f]rom and after October 1, 2005, I and my firm have at all times advised only ESDC concerning the Atlantic Yards project." The reference on his firm's web site that stated that he represented the developer "is outdated and has been amended."

On the conflict

Anita Laremont, senior VP and general counsel for the ESDC, said that hiring Paget was not a conflict of interest:
Indeed, we believe that such a characterization indicates a serious and fundamental misconception of ESDC's unique mission and the legislatively mandated role it plays in the development process.... When ESDC agrees to become involved in a proposed project, it does so because it perceives that the project has the potential to further ESDC's mission of fostering economic investment and development. In short, when we determine to sponsor a project, we want to see it completed for the benefit of New York State and its residents. The developer also wants the project to be completed, so our interests are not adverse.

That didn't convince the judge.

Paget also said that his firm had represented Forest City Ratner in two unrelated and much smaller cases since March 2004, with a total billing of $27,000.

Wonder what a top environmental lawyer bills? Paget bills $550 an hour to ESDC, while two of his colleagues bill $480 and $350 respectively.

Underberg worries

Regarding the Underberg Building, FCR Senior VP Andrew Zlotnick stated that company officials were worried about the building falling down:
This structure is so unstable that it has been supported by a sidewalk bridge for several years, and this condition is extremely dangerous due to the fact that there is a public bus stop on Atlantic Avenue immediately adjacent to the property. After demolition of this property, I and others at FCRC will sleep better at night, knowing that this structure is no longer a threat to the pedestrians who walk under that sidewalk bridge every day. (Photo from Forgotten NY.)

He didn't address why the developer hadn't posted warning signs elsewhere.

Roger Green, engineer?

Green said in his affidavit:
I have personally walked the streets in and around the Project's area and have visually examined the exteriors of the buildings that the developer intends to demolish. I also have reviewed the expert engineering report that recommends the demolition of these buildings. There is no doubt at all in my mind that these buildings are very dangerous and pose serious threats to the safety of my constituents who live along or use these streets. It horrifies me to think that a court is being asked to halt the demolition of these obviously hazardous structures.

Green might have better left the authoritative commentary to a real engineer, who had a different opinion. (Then again, Council Member Letitia James, a "This Old House" fan, could've done so too.)

Herbert Daughtry, amnesiac?

The Rev. Herbert Daughtry said in his affidavit:
I [have] always been impressed by Mr. Ratner's public-mindedness and always have found Forest City Ratner Companies to be an organization that cares about the communities in which its projects are built and goes out of its way to do right by those communities.

Well, Ratner has begun making contributions to local charities. But has the Rev. Daughtry taken a walk around the perimeter of the Atlantic Center mall?

Green, freelancing again

Green offered another explanation for Forest City Ratner's decision to trade office space for luxury housing in the Atlantic Yards plan: it was the developer's concern for the community. In a 6/28/05 letter to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority included in the case file, Green wrote:
In response to concerns that the developers [sic] proposal for 1.9 million square feet of commercial office space might be a burden on the infrastructure and the built environment of the local neighborhoods (Fort Greene, Prospect Heights, Park Slope), Forest City Ratner Companies is now offering up an alternative plan that would build 428,000 square feet of commercial space.

However, the market for office space was iffy at the start, and became even more questionable by the time Forest City Ratner made the switch. The New York Times reported 11/6/05 that it was a question of revenue:
Officials of Forest City Ratner said they eventually realized that they would have to reduce the amount of commercial space, to accommodate condominium units that would help pay for the project, including the below-market rental housing.

As I pointed out, the evidence suggests that Forest City Ratner had had the condo plan in the cards for a while, but wanted ACORN on board before announcing the switch a week later.

Marty: unqualified supporter

In his affidavit, Borough President Markowitz declared:
I am an unqualified supporter of the Atlantic Yards project. This project will be a huge growth engine and will benefit a wide swath of our public with thousands of units of affordable and market rate housing, thousands of good, well paying jobs, and billions in new net tax revenues for the Borough, the City and the State.

So much for Marty's concerns about privatized park space on the arena roof and even the scale of the project. Well, he did acknowledge: That is not to say that the Project does not present challenges for the Borough, including traffic and its scale, among others, and that the Project's opponents, many of whom have legitimate and fair-minded concerns about the Project, should have input in shaping the Project.

Final scope in a month?

The ESDC's legal filing stated that a Final Scoping Document, which precedes the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and then a public hearing, should be issued within 30 days. The Draft Scope generated much criticism and a raucous public hearing, so it'll be interested to learn if the agency is prepared to consider a broader range of public impacts than initially outlined.

Judge won't block demolitions, disqualifies ESDC lawyer who worked for Ratner

2006-02-14T13:01:00.000-05:00

After a lively and contentious three-hour hearing today, state Supreme Court Justice Carol Edmead denied a lawsuit by Atlantic Yards plan opponents to stop developer Forest City Ratner from demolishing five properties within the project footprint. That gives the developer some momentum--despite assertions that the project is in its early stages--but Edmead also gave those opponents a partial victory, endorsing their claims that the process has been unfair. She ruled that David Paget, a lawyer reviewing the project for the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), should be removed from the case because he recently worked on the project for Forest City Ratner.

Lawyers did not immediately announce an appeal, though Edmead as much as invited one on the latter issue. The case drew a standing-room-only crowd of some 80 people--mostly project opponents--to a small courtroom. Several press accounts (see below) emphasized the conflict-of-interest ruling.

While advocates (including Council Member Letitia James, representing herself and two other local elected officials) raised larger issues, such as the respective opposition to and support for the project in Brooklyn, Edmead based her demolitions ruling on a fairly narrow issue of law. It didn't matter that that the properties may have deteriorated under the control of the developer, or that recent inspections by city agencies did not lead those agencies to recommend demolition, or that the developer first approved, then denied, an invitation for James to bring an independent engineer to inspect the properties.

Rather, such an "emergency action" is considered a Type II action under state environmental law (SEQRA), and must be allowed unless the decision was "arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion." The ESDC, in approving the demolitions, relied on reports, written and oral, from the developer's engineering firm, and internal consultations and site visits by its own personnel, and the judge said that was within the bounds of the agency's discretion. Demolitions may begin in ten days.

(Note that there are five properties, since a sixth building initially announced for demolition was not yet approved by the ESDC. The petitioners consider the six initially announced properties 12 buildings since one of the properties has a building behind it, and the Underberg Building is six joined structures. Subtracting that one building not yet approved for demolition, five properties and 11 buildings were at issue today. Given Edmead's ruling, the ESDC can similarly approve the sixth demolition. Picture from Forgotten NY.)

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn spokesman Daniel Goldstein commented, "We disagree with the Court's decision on the demolitions. We believe that Ratner's public safety claims warranting demolition, for most of the buildings, are a sham. If the buildings are near collapse and a threat to the public why are there no warning signs posted on the buildings and no public protection measures like sidewalk sheds?" He added that the disqualification of Paget placed ESDC's previous approval under a cloud, and that there was a burden on ESDC Chairman Charles Gargano--who had previously claimed no knowledge of a conflict--to restore faith in the agency. (The DDDB press release emphasized the disqualification, not the demolitions.)

Conflict of interest?

Paget, a well-respected environmental lawyer, has represented ESDC for nearly 30 years on various projects. In December 2003, Forest City Ratner, after discussions with the agency, retained Paget on the Atlantic Yards project. He provided advice to the developer through September 2005, but in February 2005, ESDC formally retained Paget as outside counsel, according to the ruling. "In short, the ESDC essentially hired the sponsor's current lawyer, at the sponsor's expense, to assess the environmental ramifications of the sponsor's project," Edmead wrote. (Note that the ESDC appeal says Edmead's fact sequence is off.)

Lawyers for ESDC and Forest City Ratner said the process was not adversarial, but collaborative, since both the developer and agency are interested in having the project move forward. Jeffrey Baker, an attorney for petitioner Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, instead characterized it as "an arm's length transaction."

Edmead agreed. She wrote in her decision, "Potentially, the interests of Ratner Companies, as an applicant or project sponsor, are adverse to the interests of the ESDC, which is charged with the responsibility to protect the environment and regulate the activities of individuals and corporations so that 'due consideration is given to preventing environmental damage.' The oft bottom-line, profit-making pursuits of real estate development corporations may not necessarily align with the stated, valid environmental interests of the ESDC."

She enjoined the ESDC from taking further action that requires Paget's services until new counsel is engaged, within 45 days. However, she also said from the bench, "I don't doubt that the court's determination may not stand, but I believe the objective public interest standard has not been met." Paget, she added, should not be in a dual role: "It has such a severe, crippling appearance of impropriety." (Note that a commentator to this blog suggests that her statement was pro forma.) She said that she was "very much swayed" by the arguments of Council Member James, though that might have referred to the judge's oral rhetoric more than the legal decision; the ruling had been in preparation, since the judge's law secretaries were able to finish it and deliver it to litigants just after the hearing concluded.

The press coverage

The Daily News, in a 2/15/05 article headlined Ratner aide, key buildings get heave-ho, declared it a mixed result, but gave an edge to the critics: Opponents of Bruce Ratner's controversial Nets arena complex lost a battle yesterday - but not the war.

The New York Sun, in an article headlined Opponents of Atlantic Yards Plan Say Court Ruling Is Auspicious, emphasized the conflict, leading:
Opponents of the proposed Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn said a Supreme Court ruling yesterday is a signal that in future legal battles the courts will look favorably on their contention that the approval process is tainted.

The New York Post, in a brief article headlined HOOP LAWYER IS BOUNCED, led with the conflict: A judge called a technical foul yesterday on Bruce Ratner's bid to build a $3.5 billion basketball arena in Brooklyn.

The New York Times, in an article headlined Demolition Can Proceed for Brooklyn Arena Project, had the most thorough coverage, but emphasized the demolitions issue. The shorthand headline compresses the issue, since, while the demolitions are within the project footprint and it does give the project momentum, the project has not yet been approved, and the developer may choose to build other structures if the project is blocked.

The Times reported on issues raised by the conflict:
"There's a built-in ambiguity or inconsistency to the law there," said Philip Weinberg, a professor at St. John's University and an expert on environmental review. "The whole principle behind review is to have the agency deciding whether to go ahead with the project review the project's impact themselves. But they are also supposed to play it down the middle."

Leading off

Baker began his case by assuring the judge that his clients do not oppose "jobs, housing, or responsibility development." Rather, he said, "This case is solely about the objectivity and validity of the environmental review process." He said that ESDC and Forest City Ratner had not made the case for demolitions, noting there were no affidavits "from any trained professionals attesting to the imminent threat." He added that, since the announcement of the demolition plans, "there has been no action taken by Forest City Ratner to secure or demolish these buildings." He said that, on Monday, he saw no warning signs or scaffolding outside 461 and 463 Dean Street.

"There is no imminent threat," he said. "This has been a planned demolition from Day 1 that has been shoehorned in SEQRA [the state environmental review] to make it an emergency." Baker noted that demolition plans were completed for 461 and 463 Dean Street on 3/7/05, for 585 Dean Street on 3/4/05, for the Underberg Building (608-620 Atlantic Avenue) on 2/15/05, and for 620 Pacific Street on 6/30/05--all long before the 11/7/05 report by LZA Technology that called the buildings "an immediate threat to the preservation of life, health, and property." (At left, 620 and 622 Pacific Street.)

Baker said that the developer recognized that it would be difficult to demolish the buildings while the project was pending before the ESDC, and Paget "advised them... that there's a loophole, that there's an emergency."

Edmead challenged Baker's language. "Don't give me a spin." Baker withdrew his characterization of the plan as a "loophole," but said it was an "exception."

Baker pointed out that, according to affidavits from Forest City Ratner employees, the developer was delayed because, in May, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority began an RFP process that led to an additional bid for the agency's Vanderbilt Yard. "I can't imagine how the bidding process affected making necessary inquiries about the underlying structural integrity" of the buildings, Baker said, adding that company president Bruce Ratner had met with MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow twice in August.

He pointed out that there was no technical review of LZA's report by inhouse staff at ESDC, and no evidence that they had inquired about lesser steps to stabilize the buildings. "Every agency has technical expertise," he said. "We don't take an applicant's word for it. That's the reason we have government." Asking for a "hard look" to be taken, he acknowledged, "Maybe they warrant demolition, but not all of them," citing "particularly 461-463 Dean Street, which are an important element of the streetscape." (See photo at right.)

Edmead proffered a photo of a dilapidated structure behind 463 Dean Street. "You'd be hard-pressed to say this is a building you can shore up." Baker pointed out that engineer Jay Butler, hired as an expert for the plaintiffs, had pointed out that such a backyard structure is valuable since, if demolished, it cannot be rebuilt.

A lawyer and a client

After Jennifer Levy, representing low-income residents of Dean Street, pointed out that neither the Department of Buildings nor the Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development had issued the most serious violations after visiting four of 12 buildings, Council Member James stepped to the podium.

James, who with the judge was one of four black women in the room, began her statement in a personal style unlike that of the other lawyers. "Judge, I'm not naturally a woman of courage," she said. "I'm here today because someone has to stand up."

She offered a nonlegal analogy. "This weekend on Channel 13 I watched 'This Old House.' They restored a house in much worse shape than any of these buildings." She recounted how, after she asked for permission to tour the buildings with an engineer, Forest City Ratner at first said yes, but then said she could tour them herself. "Judge, I am many things, but an engineer I am not." (The two-story building at 620 Pacific Street is scheduled for demolition, as is the single-story building at 622 Pacific.)

James noted that Forest City Ratner, in its legal papers, said it wanted to avoid a dangerous building collapse, like one in Fort Greene. "I was there. That building is less than 50 feet from the BQE. That building fell because of vibrations from the BQE, as well as age."

As for the buildings at issue, she said, "These buildings were allowed to deteriorate. They left windows open. The roof was open." She called it a case of "demolition by intentional design, with intentional neglect."

James tried a kitchen sink approach, contending that, because some of the buildings contain asbestos, the demolitions will aggravate the community's high asthma rate, "be visually disturbing and will render this beautiful community blighted."

Paget's dual representation, she argued, "undermines the public faith and trust in government and taints the integrity of the project. SEQRA is a means of doing an analysis, not a means to arrive at a certain conclusion."

James reiterated that she and her fellow elected officials, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery and Rep. Major Owens, are not against development, but oppose development that destroys the character of the community and disrespects elected officials.

The judge pointed out that affidavits submitted by Forest City Ratner included endorsements of the project by numerous elected officials, including Borough President Marty Markowitz. "You represent a voice, not the only voice," Edmead said.

James responded, "I was elected to represent the interest of Prospect Heights. The reality is, overwhelmingly in my district, the community is opposed to the project and the process. We know the community like the back of our hand. I daresay that none of those elected officials can say the same." (Arguably, State Assemblyman Roger Green, a project supporter not in the room, could contest that.)

ESDC's case

Douglas Kraus, representing ESDC, emphasized that the project was in the early stages of review. "ESDC has not approved this project," he said. "We're not here to debate whether it is a good project or a bad project." (Apparently, he was not channeling ESDC Chairman Charles Gargano's endorsement of the Atlantic Yards plan.)

Kraus pointed out that the buildings are "virtually certain" to be demolished, either if the Atlantic Yards plan is approved or if Forest City Ratner decides to build on the property. Referencing James's explanation for the collapse of the building in Fort Greene, he said, "It can't be worse than the vibrations from the railyard, which is literally across the street." (James broke into a grin, perhaps recognizing that vibrations are hard to feel all the way on Dean Street, and that the rail cars move rather slowly anyway.)

As for 461 Dean Street, he said the building has no window: "Anyone can walk in off the street into that building, as I did." Nobody followed up by pointing out that the building might be better secured.

He pointed out that there's no requirement for the agency to consider alternatives to demolition nor to take a "hard look" at the case. The project itself is a Type I action, requiring such a level of scrutiny, but the emergency declaration is a Type II action, he noted.

As for whether the demolitions indicated that the project is a 'done deal,' he said, "That's total speculation. I couldn't see how anybody could help but understand that this process has along way to go."

FCR's case

FCR attorney Jeffrey Braun said that those working for the developer "are very proud of the project. It's going to physically close an enormous gash that cuts through the heart of Downtown Brooklyn." (His location was a bit off.)

He called the lawsuit "an attempt to hijack the process" that allows the public to comment during Environmental Impact Statement process. He pointed out that the legal test "is whether [ESDC's decision] was rational, rather than arbitrary and capricious. Courts cannot second-guess the agency's decision." As for failing to submit an affidavit from an engineer from LZA, he said, "We think that's superfluous."

Braun pointed out that "there are ten vacant building that my client owns or is in contract to buy that it has no intention to demolish." Either FCR decided against demolition on its own, he said, or LZA advised against it. "We're going to wait and see if the project is approved before those buildings are demolished," he said.

He said that ESDC's Rachel Shatz, who approved the demolition, "is a professional urban planner. She is entitled to bring her own evidence to bear," including the 70-slide Power Point presentation made to ESDC by LZA on 11/2/05.

"Pure ugly money terms"

Braun reiterated that the damaged buildings posed a safety hazard. "If you want to put it in pure ugly money terms, can the petitioners post a bond to protect Forest City Ratner from the financial consequences if one collapses?"

As for contentions that residents would be displaced or harassed, "we really take umbrage at that," he said, adding, "We are partners to a pioneering Community Benefits Agreement."

Some in the crowd, critical of the CBA, murmured contentiously. The judge quickly quieted them.

Braun offered his own take on 461 and 463 Dean Street, saying that a photo in the record didn't show cracking in the sidewalk and where concrete had been poured to stabilize the building.

Then he went off on a dangerous tangent. "In our view, even if there was something defective about [ESDC's approval of the demolitions], we'd be entitled" to proceed.

Judge Edmead pressed him: "You would need the approval of ESDC. Is that not right?"

Braun said no.

Edmead: "How can you ignore co-respondent ESDC?"

Braun: "I'm not saying it's a smart move."

Edmead: "It is bonehead stupid. Why are you arguing it?"

Braun said that, under another theory, demolition is not subject to SEQRA "because prudent ownership implies that they should be demolished separately and apart from the project."

Edmead said cuttingly, "I would not rest my partner bonus on that."

A bit later, Braun explained that the company received two interpretations, and that Paget had offered the more "expansive" one. "So as a practical matter, Forest City Ratner agreed to go through with it."

Another road?

The judge suggested that the petitioners might have gotten farther had they argued that the demolitions were a central part of the project, a Type I action that deserved a more rigorous level of review.

Baker said that both Type I and Type II actions deserved the same level of review.

Edmead said, "This all stems from the road you chose to take.... You unfortunately have limitations on the argument you're capable of making." The "hard look" standard does not apply to Type II actions.

She asked what the legal basis was to request a review by an independent engineer. Baker cited a case involving historic buildings in Albany, "but the case did not turn on that. It was an action by the county. The court said there's a question of fact: the independence of the analysis."

Baker said that the 90-minute discussion at ESDC proceeded without an engineer or an architect, and that nobody asked about specific details of the damage.

Edmead said, "To say they didn't do the review the way you think it should be done is not the standard."

Baker responded, "They're making you superfluous."'

Edmead asked where in the law there was a right to demand an independent review. Baker offered a case, and the judge was unimpressed, saying, "It would be more credible if you didn't put ridiculous spins that are not in the record."

Baker said that Shatz "parrots the report of LZA."

Edmead offered her own interpretation: "She indicates other people she consulted... Nothing in the law requires that she consult an engineer."

Conflict of interest

Baker said that "It's beyond question that Mr. Paget had a prior relationship with Forest City Ratner." He noted that an affidavit from FCR VP Jim Stuckey mentioned that Paget or other lawyers at his firm had worked with the developer on several occasions, but "curiously enough, Mr. Paget's affidavit doesn't mention it."

"ESDC has the final determination" on the project, Baker said. "ESDC has tremendous power, and should this project go forward, they will usurp and overrule the city zoning codes, something that's ten times in excess of what zoning would provide. It's an extraordinary power, and the people have a right to expect that the lawyer is doing that in an objective manner." (The ratio may be ten times for part of the project footprint, but not for all of it.)

Private parties, he said, have the right to waive a conflict of interest if they agree on the lawyer, "but does ESDC have the right? I submit: this is more than just an appearance of a conflict, it's a true conflict."

Extell alternative?

One reason that impartial legal counsel is important, he said, is that the ESDC scoping process should contain references to alternatives to the Atlantic Yards plan, including Extell Development Company's proposal to develop just the railyard.

Referencing the developer's lawyer, he said, "Mr. Braun points out that of course Extell's plan will be considered. But the draft scope didn't have any reference to the Extell plan."

At a meeting of the Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee, Baker said, "people asked, 'How come the Extell plan was not included?' The response from Mr. Paget was, 'We are not privy to it.'" (The summary of that meeting does not include this, but the summaries are cursory.)

"To me, that exemplifies the conflict," Baker said, "to massage the process to get an outcome that favors the developer." He noted that ESDC and FCR "claim it's not an adversarial process, it's collaboration."

Where does that theory come from, the judge asked.

Collaboration or not?

ESDC lawyer Kraus acknowledged that it's not in SEQRA, but in the underlying statute that establishes the state agency, "to undertake projects that promote economic development... There's nothing in the statute that says it's collaborative, but it's the way the process works."

Edmead pointed out that there was already evidence that the developer and agency had differed: on whether Forest City Ratner could demolish the buildings without applying to the agency. "You could not possibly be collaborative," she said.

Kraus contended that the judge was misreading the law, that a state agency can waive a conflict, and that you can't object to a conflict unless you're in an attorney-client relationship.

Baker disagreed. "It's bizarre," he said. "It removes any challenge to a corrupt determination.... The people who live in and adjacent to the project have a right to say, 'This is a stacked deck.'"

Kraus pressed on, saying that community members could always later challenge a decision made by the ESDC. Edmead, as if hearkening back to the earlier issues, noted, "But the review of the determination is very limited."

Kraus said, "If you felt there was a conflict, the conflict has clearly been waived. It was also clearly contemplated that Mr. Paget would be involved representing ESDC when the environmental review got started."

Baker, however, said that Kraus was misreading the case law. "The public is not an adversary in this proceeding," he said. "We expect an objective look.... If they want to issue a final scope that may be tainted by Mr. Paget, go ahead."

He acknowledged that it was typical for developers to pay the cost of counsel hired by ESDC to evaluate their projects. "My question is, would they agree to do it if it weren't Mr. Paget."

FCR attorney Braun said, "Of course... There's been talk about a taint, but there's been nothing demonstrated. The final scope is going to look a lot different." He pointed out that Paget is the state's preeminent environmental lawyer, and that two lawyers at the table, including his own colleague and Baker, had worked for Paget's firm.

Edmead asked Braun why the developer didn't simply leave Paget "where he was, knowing ESDC would pick him up."

Braun said Paget's responsibility was to start the process of an environmental review. Edmead pointed out that Paget was still working for FCR. Braun responded, "He was working for the project."

That led the judge to comment about the "severe crippling appearance of impropriety," to order Paget's removal from his role as counsel to ESDC.

Atlantic Center mall: promise, reality, & NYTimes amnesia

2006-02-12T07:29:00.000-05:00

The Atlantic Yards plan has changed significantly, trading office space for luxury housing, and the explanation from Forest City Ratner VP Jim Stuckey, in the 11/6/05 New York Times, was that "Projects change, markets change." Is that the same explanation for why the developer's nearby Atlantic Center mall, once billed as "sympathetic to its urban environment," turned out to be precisely the opposite, offering blank walls to the subsidized housing across the street?

A Real Estate section article in the 6/27/93 New York Times headlined "Perspectives: Bradlees at Atlantic Center; Retailing Opens a New Front in Brooklyn" focused on the emerging plans for the Atlantic Center mall, which ultimately opened in November 1996. It stated:
Mr. [Stanton] Eckstut, the architect, noted that all the stores would be entered from the street rather than from an interior mall and would use building materials compatible with their Brooklyn surroundings.
"We're determined to build a store that is sympathetic to its urban environment, not just a suburban store plopped down on a city street," said Paul A. Travis, executive vice president of Forest City Ratner.

Now the plans did evolve--at the time Forest City Ratner was talking about a 150,000 square foot Bradlees store on two levels, and was also planning another two-level retail facility, with 120,000 square feet. The Atlantic Center mall contains 393,713 square feet. But the design may be an even more dramatic change. The L-shaped mall, just to the right of the Atlantic Terminal mall at the top left of the map showing the Atlantic Yards site, is open to the public only along its southern and western flanks. The two tilted rectangles above the bottom half of the mall outline are the subsidized Atlantic Terminal I buildings.

Ratner's explanation

As noted in Chapter 4 of my report, an article about the developer’s much-derided Atlantic Center mall (Rethinking Atlantic Center With the Customer in Mind; 5/26/04) quoted only FCR's Bruce Ratner to explain away the mall’s design:
Although critics have long called the mall an eyesore and complained about its seemingly incoherent design, there are reasons for its structure and layout, reasons embedded in both the perception and the reality of race, class, economics and crime in late 20th-century Brooklyn.
Planned and built in the early 1990’s, when the area there -- at the crossroads of Fort Greene, Prospect Heights and Downtown Brooklyn -- was just beginning to emerge from a cocoon of high crime and bleak prospects, the center was intended not as an oasis but as the target of a kind of consumer dive-bombing: customers would dart into one place, grab what they needed and quickly leave.
The isolation of stores and lack of gathering locations inside the building was intentional, said its developer, Bruce Ratner of Forest City Ratner, driven by the needs of skittish national retailers and the notion that urban malls had failed because they became magnets for loitering teenagers who frightened the shoppers away.
“It’s a problem of malls in dense urban areas that kids hang out there, and it’s not too positive for shopping,” Mr. Ratner said. “Look, here you’re in an urban area, you’re next to projects, you’ve got tough kids.”
Adding that it was not an issue of class or ethnicity, he said: “You know it’s kids that cut school. In the burbs, a 15-year-old can’t get to the mall without his parents. Here, it’s a little different.”

Forgetting the past?

The Times did not quote any critic who might have argued, contradicting Ratner, that the mall’s design did in fact involve issues of class and ethnicity. Nor did the article quote the 1993 reportage from the Times that promised a very different retail design. At the time of my report, I hadn't seen that 1993 article either but, then again, I don't work at the Times nor have an inhouse library to help with research.

In fact, a look back at the 5/26/04 Times article shows that it exclusively concerned the mall's much-criticized interior design:
Instead of open, multilevel atriums where dozens of storefronts are easily captured by the naked consumerist eye, there are vast expanses of nothingness and dead corridors leading, it seems, to nowhere. In place of furnished common areas offering respite between purchasing bouts, there are broad stretches of shiny institutional floor tile and walls left bare save a hodgepodge of clown-colored signs advertising stores that no longer exist, or that cannot be reached without wending a route of circuitous switchbacks, or leaving the structure entirely.

Forest City Ratner has since renovated the interior, and modified the exterior sections where shoppers enter. But the blank walls remain, a contrast to the Atlantic Terminal mall, pictured above. The north wall of the Atlantic Center mall is in the background; there's a retail store at the corner, beneath the blue vertical signage, but that's it.

Nets renegotiating lease, may stay in current arena until 2010

2006-02-10T08:26:00.000-05:00

An article today in the Newark Star-Ledger, headlined Nets might stay in N.J. until 2010, describes how the New Jersey Nets may postpone the planned move to Brooklyn for two more years:
With delays mounting for their proposed arena in Brooklyn, the Nets and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority are now in serious negotiations to keep the team at Continental Airlines Arena through the end of the decade.

Nets officials wouldn't comment, but the move has already been delayed once. (So much for conclusory shorthand.) The Star-Ledger adds some reasons:
When Bruce Ratner purchased the Nets in 2004, he had hoped to move the team into a new arena in downtown Brooklyn just months after the current lease at Continental Airlines Arena expired.
However, the Brooklyn arena remains a controversial project whose costs grow with each delay. That arena, which at a cost of nearly $600 million would be the most expensive ever built, is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by a community group that opposes it. In addition, the arena and Ratner's planned development of roughly 5,000 apartments surrounding the building have become bogged down in New York's complicated land use approval process.

Yes, the project remains controversial, and maybe construction costs have increased past the previously announced $555.3 million. The lawsuit is directed at the Atlantic Yards project, not simply the arena, and another legal battle, over eminent domain, is likely.

The Star-Ledger, in July 2003, broke the initial story on the move and sale of the Nets, so the New Jersey reporting here should be taken seriously. Some of the reference to the Brooklyn project, however, contain errors. The development would include 7,300 apartments, not 5,000. The article states that "Ratner won the right last year to purchase the land on which he plans to build the arena from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority," but the arena would spill over from the railyard.

As for "New York's complicated land use approval process," it's a lot less complicated than it could be, since the state project bypasses city rules. The state subsidies are subject to the Public Authorities Control Board, which is controlled by the governor and the respective majority leaders in the state Assembly and Senate.

The buidling of the arena is estimated by the Star-Ledger as "at least a three-year construction process." Let's assume that refers to the arena and first phase of towers, since the second phase, originally scheduled to be complete by 2016, might be pushed back.

But if the Nets do delay the move, what does that mean to the project approval process? Will the Empire State Development Corporation delay the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? Will the city, the state, and the developer work on new means to alleviate traffic congestion?

It also places the litigation over demolitions, scheduled to be heard 2/14/06, in starker relief. As the brief from City Council Member Letitia James states:
[A]llowing FCRC, in effect, to “jump start” the Project by commencing demolition before the SEQRA review has been completed would give the appearance that the project is already going forward, thereby intimidating and squelching legitimate opposition to the Project, and discouraging opponents from participating in the SEQRA process.
...Even if it were ultimately determined that the conditions of some of the 12 buildings at issue truly present a public danger, choosing a less obtrusive action such as repairing and/or shoring up the buildings where necessary, and limiting demolition to only those buildings, if any, that could not be made safe by less drastic means, would send a clear message that the Project’s approval is not a foregone conclusion.
Note that the previous number of buildings was reported as six, but there's an extra building behind 463 Dean Street, and the Underberg Building on Atlantic Avenue (pictured, from Forgotten NY) is six buildings combined and has six addresses.

Also, New Jersey officials are reconsidering the terms of the lease, "which now costs the state some $2 million each year," the Star-Ledger reports, including an obligation to "buy $750,000 of Nets tickets each year. This also sets up a challenge for the new Devils arena in Newark, which had been set to attract all the events previously scheduled for the Continental Airlines Arena.

The NYTimes sports section: arena a done deal or just maybe?

2006-02-09T10:40:00.000-05:00

"Everybody knows where the Nets are going: Brooklyn," declares New York Times sports columnist George Vecsey in today's column, headlined, at least in the print edition, While Nets Are Headed East, Knicks Are Going South.

The shorthand suggests it's a done deal, but many might argue differently, given the yet-to-be-issued Environmental Impact Statement from the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the likely litigation over the state's need to exercise eminent domain to assemble properties for the Atlantic Yards project, and even the hearing February 14 over developer Forest City Ratner's aim to demolish several properties in the project footprint.

And the Times itself hedges on its Sports homepage, previewing Vecsey's column with the sentence (emphasis added): The Nets may be moving to Brooklyn, but at least they still have talent and hope, unlike the Knicks.

Listening to readers?

As Eric McClure of Brooklyn wrote Vecsey today:
If the citizens of this borough have their say, the Nets will be going anywhere but. There are more than a few of us here who are opposed to handing a billionaire team owner a couple billion more in tax breaks and subsidies, opposed to giving him private land seized through the abuse of eminent domain, and opposed to letting him steal a publicly owned rail yard with the lowest bid. Not to mention all of the closed-door, back-room dealing and the web of cozy mutual back-scratching with his politician-accomplices. As bad as the Knicks are, they don't stink nearly as much as what Bruce Ratner is trying to put over on the taxpayers of Brooklyn, New York City and New York State.
(McClure wrote in his personal capacity, but he is also the Atlantic Yards Campaign Chair for Park Slope Neighbors.)

Perhaps other readers--and possibly, even Times staffers--might have informed Vecsey that his column was conclusory.

Vecsey's column also ends with another error, locating the arena in Downtown Brooklyn: The Nets are playing in an arena surrounded by new parking garages for an amusement park that will be built before they split for downtown Brooklyn. The Knicks are staying in Midtown Manhattan, but otherwise their future is fuzzy and bleak.

More about that litigation

Several community groups and residents have sued Forest City Ratner and the ESDC to block the planned demolitions, and this week three elected officials--City Council Member Letitia James, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, and Rep. Major Owens--have joined the case, as have four rent-stabilized tenants from a building a short way down the block from some buildings planned for demolition.

The motion to intervene on behalf of those tenants, from South Brooklyn Legal Services, points out that the ESDC approved the demolitions based on a report by Forest City Ratner's engineering consultant, even though evidence from city agencies should have given the state agency pause:
The agency should have conducted an independent investigation and not relied exclusively on a report commissioned by the developer. Had the agency even perused publicly available records pertaining to the buildings, it would have discovered that the two New York City agencies empowered to order the demolition of unsafe structures, the Department of Buildings and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, have inspected at least four of the buildings since 9/04 and at no point thought it necessary to order their demolition on the grounds that they were unsafe or in imminent danger of collapse.
For example, the Department of Buildings (DoB) visited 608 Atlantic Ave. in 9/04 and issued a violation for improper signage, see Exhibit E; in 1/05 DoB visited 463 Dean St. and 585 Dean St. and issued a boiler violation, see Exhibit E; and, fantastically, in 7/05 the Department of Housing Preservation and Development visited 463 Dean St. and, upon information and belief, issued no immediately hazardous (code `C’) violations. See Exhibit F.

Two commercial real estate firms, the MTA, and inevitable Forest City Ratner ties

2006-02-08T07:45:00.000-05:00

The 2/7/06 Brooklyn Eagle, in an article headlined MTA Names Real Estate Firm Advisors (registration required) reports:
Two real estate firms active in the Brooklyn commercial property market have been retained by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to assess the MTA’s real estate portfolio and create and execute a program to maximize the properties’ revenue potential. Massey Knakal Realty Services and CB Richard Ellis (CBRE) have been retained as part of the MTA’s efforts to generate additional revenue for essential capital improvements and operational needs. The portfolio is expected to include more than 14,000 properties. The selection of Massey Knakal and CBRE was made following a Request For Proposals process that began in 2004.

Could the MTA, in an effort to maximize its properties' revenue potential, consider reopening the bid for the Vanderbilt Yard? Remember, the agency accepted Forest City Ratner's $100 million offer for the site, a key part of the Atlantic Yards project, even though an appraiser said the land was worth $214.5 million and rival bidder Extell offered $150 million. MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow dismissed the agency's own appraiser as "some guy."

It's doubtful that the two real estate agencies would offer that advice. Both have business relationships with Forest City Ratner--probably inevitable with such a major developer--and one has a particularly close relationship.

Massey Knakal brokered a deal to sell a residential development site at 585 Dean Street "in Brooklyn’s Prospect Heights" to Forest City Ratner as part of the Atlantic Yards project, according to the firm's newsletter.

Ratner, the Times, and CBRE

The business relationship with CB Richard Ellis, and especially CEO Mary Ann Tighe, is closer. CBRE is the exclusive leasing agent for the office portion of the proposed Ridge Hill Village development in Yonkers, NY.

Tighe served as agent for Forest City Ratner on leasing of the Bank of New York tower at Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Terminal mall in Brooklyn. Also, representing the New York Times Company, Tighe, according to the firm web site, "arranged a network of joint ventures enabling the construction of a new 1.5 million square foot tower at 8th Avenue and 41st Street...The transaction included a joint venture between NYTC and developer Forest City Ratner (FCR), which becomes 2 condominium interests upon construction completion..."

As noted in Chapter 8 of my report, in a 1/22/04 profile of Bruce Ratner, the New York Times quoted praise of Ratner from Tighe but did not mention the real estate agent's connections to the Times or to Ratner. A 12/10/03 New York Sun profile noted: "After she helped pick Mr. Ratner [while working for the Times], she hopped over to his team, where she’s representing the company on the Times project, as well as some of its Brooklyn properties. Also, the Brooklyn Papers reported 8/21/04 that Tighe is a member of the investment group that Ratner assembled to buy the New Jersey Nets and move them to Brooklyn.

Curious FCR omission in Times story about Senegal-to-NYC rower

2006-02-06T10:42:00.000-05:00

The Times today ran an 1,190-word story about Victor Mooney, a Brooklyn man who's working on a rowboat he plans to row from Senegal to New York to raise consciousness about AIDS. But there was no mention of corporate contributor Forest City Ratner, the company mentioned at the top of the Goree Challenge home page.

The article, headlined A Slow, Solo Crossing of the Atlantic Is One Man's Response to the AIDS Crisis, acknowledges some corporate donors:
He eventually approached more than 70 companies for help, nearly all of it in-kind. Snapple made his only cash donation so far, for $5,000. Mr. Mooney needs to raise $30,000 more to pay off the boat kit and cover his expenses during journey, which he expects will take seven months. Whatever he raises above that will go to charity.
The United Parcel Service offered to ship the finished boat to Senegal. A Lowe's in Brooklyn pitched in thousands of dollars' worth of tools, while West Marine, a marine equipment supplier, contributed radios, fittings and other electronics. West System, another supplier, gave Mr. Mooney rolls of fiberglass cloth and nearly 100 gallons of epoxy and glue.

The quote on the Goree Challenge homepage:
"I'm proud to be helping Mooney. We wish him well in his mission and journey."
Bruce Ratner, Chairman and CEO of Forest City Ratner Companies and Principal Owner of New Jersey Nets

Space from Forest City Ratner

Forest City Ratner, as the Courier-Life chain reported 9/29/05 in an article headlined Brooklyn Iron Man Prepares to Row the Atlantic, has donated the space where Mooney works. It's a building the developer controls and would later demolish for the Atlantic Yards project. Mooney's web site calls it "the Atlantic Yards Boathouse," which furthers the notion that Atlantic Yards is a place rather than a project.

Why leave Forest City Ratner out of the article? It's a judgment call, and not an easy one. Is the donation of a work space more worthy of mention than the donation of supplies? Maybe the omission was a question of space, and that paragraph got cut from the final version of the article.

Maybe a mention of Forest City Ratner would require the Times to publish--or at least consider publishing--the disclosure that the parent Times Company has a business relationship with the developer. And that disclosure might distract from an article about fight against AIDS, which has little to do with Forest City Ratner.

However, given that Forest City Ratner gains such a prominent spot on the Goree Project's home page, that the donation of the space was highlighted in a press release and local news coverage, that the construction space is called the Atlantic Yards Boathouse, and that local charitable donations have been part of the Forest City Ratner community strategy, I'd say that, on balance, a mention was in order.

Too tall and too dense? Atlantic Yards, Downtown Brooklyn, and the elusive FAR

2006-02-06T06:40:00.000-05:00

What's the appropriate height and density for the Atlantic Yards project or, for that matter, any other project built on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard and environs? There are no rules, since there's been no rezoning for the Atlantic Yards project (despite what the New York Times said and has yet to correct), and the state can override zoning. (Map is from Jon Keegan.)

Density involves Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which the city defines as "the total floor area on a zoning lot divided by the lot area of that zoning lot. For example, a building containing 20,000 square feet of floor area on a zoning lot of 10,000 square feet has a floor area ratio of 2.0." Architect Jonathan Cohn did the math and calculated a proposed FAR (roughly: building area divided by site area) of 9.5. (That would include 11 buildings over 400 feet.) As I note below, Forest City Ratner VP Jim Stuckey recently said that the FAR would be 8 to 8.5.

The figure reaches 11 if the streets taken by the project are subtracted, and perhaps tops 12 if the low-rise arena is subtracted. That's comparable to the plans at the World Trade Center site and, more relevantly, blocks at the core of the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning. See the tan blocks in the center marked C6-4.5. Note also that the Atlantic Terminal site (mall/office building), at the southeast edge of the map at right, is also at 10 FAR (C6-4). Note that the Atlantic Terminal mall is in the northwest corner of the map two paragraphs below portraying the Atlantic Yards site plan.

But only part of the rezoned Downtown Brooklyn has an FAR that reaches 12, and Downtown Brooklyn is not a low-rise residential district. Another comparison might be the extensive rezoning of Williamsburg and Greenpoint, where a recent rezoning proposed waterfront development parcels with districts of 2.43 FAR and 6.02 FAR to produce an FAR of 4.3, which itself is greater than the neighborhoods to the south, east, and north of the Atlantic Yards site.

Downtown Brooklyn or Prospect Heights?

That raises the question: is the Atlantic Yards site more like dense Downtown Brooklyn, or is it in fact in less-dense Prospect Heights? City officials and Forest City Ratner often describe it as Downtown Brooklyn--the original FCR press release on 12/10/03 stated: Frank Gehry, internationally acclaimed architect, unveils vision for world-class basketball arena and mixed-use complex for downtown Brooklyn. But downtown Brooklyn has historically not crossed Atlantic Avenue, and barely crossed Flatbush Avenue, if at all. The Department of City Planning describes it as "[g]enerally bounded by Tillary Street to the north, Ashland Place to the east, Atlantic Center and Schermerhorn Street to the south, and Court Street to the west." The Atlantic Center mall is north of Atlantic Avenue, but east of Flatbush, as is the Atlantic Terminal mall.

Also note that one triangle of land, at the southeast tip of the proposed Downtown Brooklyn rezoning, was subtracted from the rezoning because it would be the northwest tip of the Atlantic Yards project. This segment is arguably the part of the Atlantic Yards project that might be considered Downtown Brooklyn.

An authoritative book, The Neighborhoods of Brooklyn, describes the Atlantic Center Mall as being in Fort Greene and says that the western border of Prospect Heights is Flatbush Avenue and the northern border Atlantic Avenue. And the New York Times, in a 12/18/05 Real Estate section profile of Prospect Heights, mapped out the neighborhood in the graphic at right.

Forest City Ratner VP Jim Stuckey, at an 11/22/05 presentation before the American Institute of Architects, described the density as 8 to 8.5 FAR. "The overall density, across this entire project, to be built to exactly what’s proposed today, would be roughly eight to an eight and a half FAR," he said, according to a tape of the meeting. "Which while it looks to people thinking of a large amount of space, in fact, in the adjacent Downtown Brooklyn plan, which was approved not too long ago, the density in that plan ranged from an 8 to a 10 FAR....The density of this project is really not all that different than what recently went through the public approval process."

But Downtown Brooklyn is not Prospect Heights, a mostly residential district which borders low-rise residential districts. And it's not clear whether Stuckey was describing the average density in the Downtown Brooklyn plan. The rezoning actually reaches an FAR of 12 on some blocks, but other blocks retain densities of 2, 4, and 6 FAR.

I asked Brad Lander of the Pratt Center for Community Development about the right comparision for the Atlantic Yards site. He observed, "It is very difficult to say. Of course, people who live immediately adjacent to the site have a reasonable point that they think the relevant comparison is their own, immediately adjacent blocks (which have average FAR of 2.5-4). Essentially, the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards plan would extend downtown Brooklyn much further to the east than most people would say it currently goes." (The photo above, at the corner of Dean Street and Sixth Avenue, contains buildings that would be within the project footprint and thus demolished.)

Indeed, is Vanderbilt Avenue, the eastern border of the Atlantic Yards footprint, part of Downtown Brooklyn? Look at the map above. There is an argument, however, for increased density in the northwest tip of the Atlantic Yards footprint, where the Williamsburg Savings Bank is 512 feet, as well as along the northern border, the south side of the wide Atlantic Avenue, which has some tall buildings, 15-30 stories, along its north side, including the Bank of New York tower at the Atlantic Terminal mall.

What density suggests

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the Empire State Development Corporation is expected in the next few months. Lander observed, "One challenge is the FAR is really relevant for two totally different things: context/urban design, and infrastructure. Context/urban design is really a matter of taste: what you like, want to look at, and want to live near, so it is difficult to give an objective basis for comparison or analysis. Infrastructure is more objective: how much traffic, transit, weight, energy, water, waste, schoolkids, etc. can an area handle and still function well. This is why a genuine EIS, with good scrutiny and real analysis, alternatives review, mitigation, etc. is so important."

City official Andrew Alper: "not up to us to find a better deal"

2006-02-04T07:49:00.000-05:00

It's old news, but the question still gets asked: did the city ask any other developers if they were interested in bringing basketball to Brooklyn? The answer: no.

And, perhaps more importantly, did the city ask any other developers if they were interested in some valuable land near Brooklyn's busiest transit hub? Again: no.

Andrew Alper, then president of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, testified at the 5/4/04 City Council hearing. According to the transcript:

COUNCIL MEMBER ERIC GIOIA: And then the final part, and this is my last question, is, if we are trying to maximize public investment for public benefit, are we, for this issue, are we proactively then going out and saying to other similar developers, similar type entities. In other words, have you been doing a road show looking for other NBA teams or other athletic teams, or other developers to build stadiums? Or are we sitting back and we are in this position because this developer initials athletics come to us and said, I own this property, I want to build this project and I think it is good for the City? In other words, how proactive is the City's Economic Development Plan, are we doing this now because this has been brought to us, or are we doing this because we proactively looked and said, we think this is good for Downtown Brooklyn, and we think this is good for New York City?

And depending on your answer, the second part of it is, how do you know it is a good deal, unless we know that there is somebody else out there? In other words, if they are negotiating and it is not, what else is the market out there, and are we negotiating against ourselves?

ANDREW ALPER: Well the answer is yes and no. We are actively out marketing the City all over the US, all over Europe, all over Asia to talk to companies and prospective, tenants for buildings and prospective projects. We have been doing that very aggressively, and I think with some early success to bring more jobs to New York. This particular project came to us. We were not out soliciting, we were developing a Downtown Brooklyn Plan, but we were not out soliciting a professional sports franchise for Downtown Brooklyn.

The developer came to us with what we thought was actually a very clever plan. It is not only bringing a sports team back to Brooklyn, but to do it in a way that provided dramatic economic development catalyst in terms of housing, retail, commercial jobs, construction jobs, permanent jobs.

So, they came to us, we did not come to them. And it is not really up to us then to go out and try to find a better deal. I think that would discourage developers from coming to us, if every time they came to us we went out and tried to shop their idea to somebody else. So we are actively shopping, but not for another sports arena franchise for Brooklyn.

[Note: This is a 6/9/07 replacement of an article that had inadvertently vanished from the blog.]

On a "backwards" design process, "blocking the clock," and a zoning bypass

2006-02-03T07:16:00.000-05:00

It's already been said that the planning process for Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project is backwards, but that was by an urban affairs professor. Yesterday, at the Brooklyn Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee's meeting, the observation came from an insider: Jerry Armer, chair of Community Board 6 and director of services for the Business Improvement District at MetroTech, a Forest City Ratner development.

The session addressed issues of urban design, visual resources & neighborhood character. Armer's comment came during a discussion of the urban design guidelines for the project, which have not yet been issued, even though the project was announced on 12/10/03. The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the state agency supervising the project, is expected to issue a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the next few months. Sometime after that the city, state, and developer, according to the Memorandum of Understanding, should agree on urban design guidelines for the project. (Note that Frank Gehry's 7/5/05 design, above, is expected to be modified.)

The guidelines, according to the MOU (p. 2), include such things as "building massing and heights, streetwall location and heights, building articulation, distance between buildings" and "signage, streetscape improvements, public open space use and design guidelines," among others.

When the guidelines are established, will the city consult with local elected officials, City Council Member Letitia James asked Winston Von Engel, of the Department of City Planning.

Von Engel hedged. "That will be up to the head of our agency, and her boss," he said.

Armer brought up the issue a bit later "The EIS is supposed to look at the action if it introduces development with a different basic form or scale. From the models we've seen, the drawings we've seen, not only the arena but the residential buildings--they are very different from what the surrounding area is," he said. "And yet, without knowing exactly what shape they're going to have, we're doing an EIS, with design guidelines to follow. It seems to me it's backwards. The design guidelines should be established so the EIS could evaluate what's really going to be there."

He continued: "I think it's being done backwards, and because of that, how much input will the community boards and elected officials have?"

Von Engel responded by saying that an EIS responds to a proposal, and analyzes the worst case scenario, giving planners options. "What's approved in the end doesn't have to meet that [in the EIS]," he said. "It can be less. It cannot be more."

He said it was his understanding that the General Project Plan--the outline of the project--and the Draft EIS would be issued at the same time.

Views of the bank?

How should we think about the iconic 1929 Williamsburgh Savings Bank, which itself is in transition, from a dental-centric office building to upscale condos? Panelist Michael Kwartler, an architect and planner, pointed out that there may be a loss, of the building becomes less visible, but if the new buildings "are as compelling as they may be, they may supplant" the bank building for orientation.

James said Brooklynites like herself had long used the building tower for visual orientation and to tell time. "To coin a phrase, 'Don't block the clock,'" she said.

Could mitigation strategies recommended in the EIS include height limits on buildings close to the bank tower, asked Robert Matthews, chair of Community Board 8.

"Sure," said Von Engel, "if the decisionmakers believe that preserving the view of the Williamsburgh Savings Bank is so important... that's part of the approval." He reminded attendees that the EIS is not a decisionmaking document, just a description of potential impacts.

Who are the decisionmakers?

The Borough Board hearings are informational only. James said after the meeting that "the question is whether or not the Borough President is going to address a lot of the issues that have been raised around this table." Borough President Marty Markowitz can influence Mayor Mike Bloomberg and the city agencies that have input on the project.

Crucial to approval of state subsidies are the members of the State Assembly who represent affected areas, notably Assemblyman Roger Green, a supporter of the project, and Assemblywoman Joan Millman, a critic. Both will seek to influence Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who controls one of the three votes on the Public Authorities Control Board, the agency that shot down the West Side Stadium.

Overriding zoning

Millman yesterday pointed out that the tallest of 16 towers is slated to be 60 stories. "If this goes through," she asked, "will it set a precedent for other developers" to build similarly in adjoining neighborhoods?

Von Engel answered that, in the adjacent low-rise residential neighborhoods, "we've either rezoned with height limitations ore are considering [similar] actions. Those areas are relatively safe." In Downtown Brooklyn, there are height limits on the east side of Flatbush Avenue, but "within the Central Business District, there is no height limit. What controls height is density. At some point you run out of density."

Architect Mark Ginsburg added, "There are very few sites that large. It's going to be hard to create another site that big to justify the rezoning or a change like this."

Left unstressed was that the Atlantic Yards project would bypass city zoning, which could include either height or density limits to limit the size of the development.

James asked what role the City Planning Department would have.

Von Engel replied, "We are an agency that listens to the mayor, and supports the mayor, who has expressed his support for the project. There is a process by which the state has to request from the city permission to override the zoning and then also to present this project to the city and ask for the city's concurrence."

Demapping streets

Irene Janner of Community Board 2 pointed out that the current plan would include superblocks that take away the street grid, and how it would affect pedestrian circulation.

Ginsburg noted that the space around the residential buildings is considered public open space for pedestrians, even if a street is demapped. "That's something we'd hope in the final document is much more clearly identified," he said.

Kwartler observed that land between certain Mitchell-Lama projects is considered public, "but basically it's private property, not a public street." He added, "One alternative [for Atlantic Yards] might be remapping thes treets back through."

Others were more positive. Von Engel pointed out that the project "might actually bring the communities closer together." Greg Atkins, chief of staff for Markowitz, asked whether the EIS would analyze the effect of "negative views," like the view of the railyard from the Sixth Avenue bridge. "Are views not as beautiful analyzed in the EIS?"

Ginsburg said yes, that the state guidelines say that creating new visual resources "can be a mitigation" of a project's effects.

Is there a city policy regarding demapping streets, asked Irene Van Slyke, representing State Senator Velmanette Montgomery.

"I don't think there's one policy for demapping or mapping streets," Von Engel replied. "In Downtown Brooklyn, we demapped streets to create more rational building sites, more rational blocks, because the leftover remnants were not lending themselves to be building on. But in other cases, we've mapped streets back and we appreciate the life that streets bring. There is no one set policy."

Van Slyke warned that demapped streets can lead to privatization.

Von Engel referred to the MOU, which spells out publicly-accessible open space and noted that, in public-private plazas sanctioned by the city, "We have plaques to announce, 'This is publicly-accessible.'"

James reflected that, typically, demapping streets would go through the city's ULURP (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure) but in this case ULURP has been overridden.

Kwartler observed that the EIS process can propose reconfigured plans, but gave listeners less cause to expect that: "There tends to be a loss of an opportunity when the state does this rather than when the city does this."

New glare?

Markowitz pointed out that the arena would bring new large-scale signage with "advertising lighting," and asked how the EIS would analyze it.

Kwartler said the lighting might bring glare, perhaps so bright it would obscure the Williamsburgh Savings Bank. "You can either think of it as a positive or as light pollution," he added, noting that it might be helpful to pedestrians but a traffic hazard for vehicles.

Offering "an overall comment" about the EIS process, he said, "I think what it generally lacks are objective ways that define in advance" the issues to be evaluated.

"Intense verticality" of Prospect Heights transformation would have ripple effects

2006-02-01T07:44:00.000-05:00

At the Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee meeting 1/25/06 on socioeconomic conditions, the issue of displacement came up, and Borough President Marty Markowitz took a more narrow and optimistic view of the potential effects.

Assemblywoman Joan Millman pointed out, "I know that there are some very small owners of buildings not far from the planned project who have done mass rehabs, rented, with the proviso that, should something change... renters will be given three months notice before the developer turns the property into coops or condos. It seems like other people are thinking ahead, and thinking that the surrounding areas will change greatly."

Kate Suisman, legislative assistant for Council Member Letitia James, noted that small business owners on shopping strips like Fulton Street are concerned about effects during and after construction on the project. What could be done?

Jerry Armer, chair of Community Board 6, noted that, during the reconstruction in recent years of Smith Street in Carroll Gardens and Fifth Avenue in Park Slope, "We went to the city and the City Council for a reduction in real estate taxes. We didn't get very far."

Borough President Marty Markowitz asked Rob Perris, district manager of Community Board 2, "Do we have any major retail areas being impacted" by the project, other than the Modells/P.C. Richard complex on Flatbush Avenue? (Note that a 430-foot tower is planned to replace that complex.)

Perris responded, "I think there are several. Kate [Suisman] mentioned Fulton Street--"

Markowitz interjected, "On the construction site."

Perris pressed on and pointed to a wider range of impact, depending on where trucks come and leave from, and the ensuing traffic patterns: "The indirect impact would be not just Fulton Street but probably Vanderbilt Avenue. There's concern that Atlantic Avenue will change."

The effect: intense verticality

Markowitz said, "This developer has pledged that tenants in the footprint will be given first dibs [in the project] at the same rent they're currently playing. It's a pledge I happen to hold very dear, in support of this project."

Mindy Fullilove, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Columbia University and author of a book on displacement, Root Shock, said, "People make pledges but they don't follow through. Part of the issue is: what teeth does it have?"

She added: "If you think about what's happening as the [project] footprint, you're missing the point. It's a transformation from a horizontal neighborhood to an intensely vertical neighborhood. It's meant to be upscale. It's going to create ripple effects.... It's an indirect blast to the neighborhood."

Markowitz was more sanguine, noting that new residents and arena visitors would lead to an economic spillover and new businesses. In his lifetime, Markowitz said, there were once 100 kosher delis in Brooklyn. "Consumer tastes have changed," he said.

Times architecture critic Ouroussoff gets political--regarding the Javits Center

2006-01-31T13:33:00.000-05:00

In his assessment today on the expansion of the Javits Convention Center, headlined In Javits Expansion, Old Dreams Revisited, New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff includes this passage:
Embarrassed by the rejection of a Jets stadium for the West Side and the endless squabbling about the design for a Freedom Tower at ground zero, city and state officials overseeing the Javits project seem to be in a mad rush to push it through. With shadowy political maneuvering, they have stifled the kind of public debate that could have led to a more ambitious vision for the convention center and the decrepit neighborhoods next to it.

By contrast, his 7/5/05 essay on the Atlantic Yards plan, headlined Seeking First to Reinvent the Sports Arena, and Then Brooklyn, Ouroussoff wrote:
Frank Gehry's new design for a 21-acre corridor of high-rise towers anchored by the 19,000-seat Nets arena in Brooklyn may be the most important urban development plan proposed in New York City in decades. If it is approved, it will radically alter the Brooklyn skyline, reaffirming the borough's emergence as a legitimate cultural rival to Manhattan. More significant, however, Mr. Gehry's towering composition of clashing, undulating forms is an intriguing attempt to overturn a half-century's worth of failed urban planning ideas.

There's no mention of the political maneuvering behind the project, and the potential, for example, of ruinous traffic. Now that more public concern has been voiced about this project, let's see what Ouroussoff writes in response to the third version of the Gehry's design, expected in the next months.

Municipal Art Society: consider alternatives, including no arena and/or less density

2006-01-31T10:50:00.001-05:00

The influential Municipal Art Society has finally posted its comments on the Draft Scope of Analysis for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic Yards. (The Draft Environmental Impact Statement, observes MAS, could come as early as mid-February.)

There are many finely grained observations, with several exceprted below, but the most interesting ones come in the section called Alternatives, in which the MAS suggests studying a project that included no arena and buildings with a height limitation of 120 feet (as opposed to more than five times that).

Thinking about density

Another suggestion is for a development with an arena but with a height limitation of 320 feet (about half the current proposed level) and 4.9 million square feet (as opposed to 9.1 million square feet). The suggested Floor Area Ratio is 6.5, not dissimilar from that discussed by architect Jonathan Cohn in his Brooklyn Views blog.

Forest City Ratner argues that adding density allows it to meet its affordable housing pledge. But until we know the costs and benefits of the project, as well as the developer's projected profits, it's impossible to calculate.

And shouldn't the appropriate density be driven by a planning process, rather than a developer?

MAS alternatives

The MAS suggests:

• Study an alternative to reduce land use impacts, that includes the following components:
o No arena;
o 600,000 sf of at-grade retail space;
o Minimal office space, with priority given to community and educational facilities;
o 2300 units of housing with a height limitation of approximately 120 feet;
o 1100 parking spaces;
o Green public walkway, roughly parallel to Atlantic Avenue and a landscaped public park;
o No residential displacement with development limited to MTA site only;
o Extension of existing Fort Greene street grid across the rail yards, creating smaller blocks with more street frontage.

• Study alternative to reduce land use impacts, that includes the following components:
o A non-arena development with buildings at a density of between 3 million sf of development over the yards only;
o An arena development and 4.9 million square feet of development and lower scale with a maximum combined FAR of 6.5 and a height limit of 270 feet for residential buildings and 320 feet for commercial buildings, for a site bounded by Atlantic Avenue, Flatbush Avenue, Sixth Avenue, Pacific Street and Vanderbilt Avenue (to the extent that these parcels would not have to be acquired through eminent domain);

• To increase public access and usability of proposed open space, consider alternative with buildings on sites 5-14 reconfigured. Study alternative that maximizes public access to fully usable open space that is designed to address the specific needs of the existing community as well as new users.

• Study alternative with different mix of uses, including space for high-performing light industrial uses.

• Study alternative with arena reconfigured at Vanderbilt Avenue, where there is more traffic capacity than Flatbush Avenue.

• 5th Avenue is a major connection between Park Slope, Prospect Heights and Ft. Greene. It is also major point of access to an enormous retail center. Alternatives that do not lead to closure of this street should be analyzed.

Taking a broader view of the impact

The MAS observes, as have others, that the environmental review should take a much broader view of community impact:

• The impacts of this development, particularly as it relates to traffic, should be studied in conjunction with the entire redevelopment plan for Downtown Brooklyn, including both proposed and projected development sites identified in the Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning EIS, and the upcoming Fort Greene Rezoning.

STUDY AREA: Proposed ½ mile and ¼ mile study area is not sufficient to determine true land use impacts in certain instances.
1. Study area for traffic and transit should include Grand Army Plaza, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. Study use of congestion pricing model to control vehicular traffic to arena.
2. Study area for parks and open space should include all of Fort Greene Park and all of Prospect Park. However, these areas should not be included in the required open space ratio for the proposed development.
3. Number of intersections identified in traffic study area should be increased to include all intersections within ½-mile study area. Drivers will seek alternative routes through residential neighborhoods at peak traffic hours.
4. Study area for land use, zoning, and public policy impacts should be increased to include all of the Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning Study Area. • While there are no 197-a plans for the study area, the site is shared by three community districts—Brooklyn 2, 6, and 8. All public policy documents created by the affected community boards, including but not limited to Community District Needs Statements, annual budget priorities, and adopted resolutions pertaining to the Atlantic Yards and development and rezoning proposals such as the Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning, should be analyzed.

• Study the impact of the proposed development on the Clinton Hill, Boerum Hill, Fort Greene, and BAM Historic Districts.

Socioeconomic Conditions

The MAS wants more clarity about jobs:

• In the analysis of the operating period benefits to the state and city after the project is fully developed, provide working definition of “permanent employment.” While jobs associated with operation of sports facilities may be permanent, they are often part-time, or only occasional, as the need arises.

Also, the MAS asks when affordable housing would be built:

• Specify whether any low and moderate income housing will be built in Phase I and provisions to be made for community preference in allotting units.

Open Space

The MAS says the arena roof shouldn't count as open space and warns that the open space promises are out of sync with the project timetable:

• Rooftop space for commercial tenants should not count against required ratio.
• The proposed development will not result in any public open space until 2016. Determine impact of new residents and workers added to area in Phase I of construction in terms of current open space ratio.

Cultural Resources
The MAS warns that a narrow focus has its costs:
• The scope document states that the analysis of known resources will focus on resources closest to the development site. All resources in the study area should be equally analyzed. In recent large-scale rezonings, the area impacted by accelerated land values has been more generalized than the limited study area. Subsequently, attempts at the preservation of noteworthy historic buildings in the general area but not within the study area is weakened because the resources have not been identified.
• The field survey of the project site and study area for potential architectural resources is defined as being limited to those buildings that will be affected by the project. The survey should be of the entire study area, not just those with known impacts. The range of possible effects needs to be analyzed on all of the potential resources. Limiting the scope of review to a small subset of buildings is to determine in advance what those impacts might be.
• The visual impact of new buildings on resources, including the impact on the Williamsburg Clock Tower Building, must be analyzed, and binding mitigation measures must be developed.

Shadows
The MAS brings up the issue of solar rights:
• Impact of shadows on ability of surrounding residences and businesses to utilize solar heating potential should be studied.

Traffic and Parking/Transit and Pedestrians
The MAS has concerns about the narrowness of the scope so far:
• Times for analysis should be expanded to peak traffic hours of 7-10 AM, 4:30 –7:00 PM weekday for commercial and residential.
• Weekend Hours analyzed should be from 10-6 when most retail businesses are open, and traffic eastbound on Atlantic now backs up to 3rd Avenue or farther.
• Study potential for parking sharing agreements with surrounding businesses and residents for off-peak hours
• Study should include analysis of a regional transportation plan to reduce vehicular traffic to the area. The plan needs to address impact of new traffic patterns associated with events at the arena and vehicular trips associated with other commercial and office uses on the site and with the addition of (an estimated) 3600 cars for the 7300 new residential units.

Neighborhood Character
How would the Gehry plan impact the neighborhood around it? The MAS observes:
• In defining neighborhood character to determine impact of proposed development, examine:
o Low-rise character;
o Low-medium density character;
o Typical block/lot configuration;
o Typical street grid pattern;
o Mix of land uses;
o Brownstone character;
o Historic districts;
o Predominant building form and type;
o Pedestrian scale of buildings;
o Synergy between local businesses and local needs;
o Absence of social, commercial, and visual connections between neighborhoods of Fort Greene and Prospect Heights;
o Unique landmark status of the Williamsburg Clock Tower Building.

Will Ratner build offsite affordable housing? We don't know yet

2006-01-31T07:45:00.000-05:00

How many units of affordable housing might be built as part of the Atlantic Yards project but located offsite? We don't know, though the issue came up at the 1/25/06 meeting of the Brooklyn Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee, which focused on socioeconomic conditions. (I've already written about the unresolved questions concerning the costs of the Atlantic Yards project.)

Assemblywoman Joan Millman cited rumors that the affordable housing component would be moved offsite. If so, how would this affect gentrification in the area?

Panelist Barry Dinnerstein, of the City Planning Department, responded that it wasn't his bailiwick, as the state--not the city--is conducting the environmental review.

"Where do I direct the question?" Millman asked.

"To us," Borough President Marty Markowitz responded. His chief of staff, Greg Atkins, picked up the issue, pointing out that the offsite housing has been discussed as a way for the developer to reach the stated 50 percent affordable housing goal.

Markowitz added, "We'll have to clarify to get exactly where they are in the process." No one from developer Forest City Ratner was present, but the developer and Borough Hall staff are presumably in contact, so the issue could be clarified.

What the record states

The issue first came up last October. Assemblyman Roger Green, at the Empire State Development Corporation hearing, suggested that moving affordable housing offsite might reduce some of the project's density (and, presumably, contribute to the revitalization of the Crown Heights area he represents).

His suggestion was interpreted to involve the rental units, since that's the affordable housing located onsite. However, Forest City Ratner has pledged that half (2,250) rental units would be affordable, and company officials have reiterated that those would be located onsite.

So the offsite affordable housing would involve condos.

Once the developer added 2,800 market-rate condos on top of the 4,500 rentals, the spirit, if not the letter, of the 50 percent affordable housing pledge was breached.

However, another part of the Housing Memorandum of Understanding concerns a program to build 600 to 1000 affordable for-sale units, either on or off site, over ten years. This would move toward matching, though not fully so, the 2,800 added condos.

As has been reported by the Brooklyn Papers and the Daily News, the developer may acquire the former St. Mary’s Hospital in Crown Heights, which could be used to build the affordable condos. FCR VP Jim Stuckey told the Daily News that the St. Mary's site could accommodate 600 to 800 condos.

50/50 affordable?

Currently, the project would include 2,250 affordable rentals, 2,250 market-rate rentals, and 2,800 market-rate condos. That would make 31 percent of the 7,300 residential units affordable.

Add 600 affordable condos, and 36 percent of the 7,900 projects units would be affordable. Add 1,000 affordable condos, and 39 percent of the 8,300 units would be affordable.

Note, however, that the concept of "affordable" includes low-income, moderate-income, and decidedly middle-class (up to six-figures) components. Only 900 of the rental units would go to people earning under Brooklyn's median income. And they likely wouldn't get many of the affordable condos. The housing memorandum states: "It is currently contemplated that a majority of for-sale units will be sold to families in the upper affordable-income tiers."

An 11/6/05 New York Times article did the math and observed that if Forest City Ratner builds 1,000 units offsite, the number of below-market units would be about 40 percent. In the Times, Bertha Lewis of ACORN, who negotiated the affordable housing agreement with the developer, said she was negotiating with the company, and with the government agencies that help subsidize housing, to help make a greater proportion of the for-sale apartments available below market prices.
"We know that when we get through this thing, half of all the housing is going to be affordable - half of the rental, half of everything else," she said. "We haven't gotten down to the last part of this. But our whole principle is 50-50."

That's worth checking on, as well, especially since Lewis, writing a few weeks earlier in Forest City Ratner's Brooklyn Standard, unequivocally declared that the 50-50 program was in place.

ESDC's Gargano: no inkling of conflict, doesn't know agency rents from Ratner

2006-01-29T19:35:00.000-05:00

Charles Gargano, chair of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the agency supervising Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project, has already endorsed the project without changes, even before an environmental impact statement is issued.

And when several community groups filed a lawsuit against the ESDC and the developer to block the demolition of six buildings, they also charged that the agency was using a lawyer who had until recently worked for the developer. "I don't know whether we are using the same lawyer," Gargano said, according to the Daily News. "I don't know of any conflict."

The Brooklyn Downtown Star, in a 1/26/06 article headlined Lawsuits DDDB Just Fine, added some more details on that, and also pointed out that Gargano was unaware that the agency rents space from Ratner:
When asked about this on the morning when the lawsuit was filed, ESDC Chairman Charles Gargano attempted to laugh the whole issue off. "A conflict between lawyers?" he chuckled rhetorically, but none of the media members present laughed.
"I'm not sure if we have the same lawyer," he then went on to hedge, "but I'm sure the lawyers themselves would know if there's a conflict."
When pressed by the Star about another perceived conflict of interest - namely that the ESDC currently rents office space from FCRC in the Atlantic Center Mall, which sits across the street from the new footprint - Gargano pled ignorance again.
"I know of no such property," he said at first, before other media members confirmed that it was indeed there. "Oh, you mean the community center?" he reacted. "Well, we have a bunch of those, and we've had them for several years. We just try and put them in ideal locations. I don't know if they [FCRC] even owned that property when we moved in."
In fact, FCRC has owned the entire Atlantic Center Mall since they built it in the mid-90s.

Beach volleyball coming to Brooklyn; Ratner will market it

2006-01-28T08:09:00.000-05:00

The first New York stop on the AVP Beach Volleyball Tour will be in Brooklyn, for the AVP Brooklyn Open, August 17-20, and yes, it will be televised on NBC. The tour is a product of AVP, Inc., which focuses on professional beach volleyball, and the local marketer will be Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment, the affiliate of Forest City Ratner. It seems to be part of a general strategy for the developer to get involved in sports and sports marketing beyond the Nets; Ratner has also offered support to amateur sports in Brooklyn.

In a photo caption, the Brooklyn Papers declared, "Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project remains controversial, but there’s nothing ire-provoking about his latest initiative — a deal to bring Kerri Walsh (above) and other top pro volleyball stars to Coney Island this summer."

Well, maybe question-provoking. The press release didn't answer some basic questions. Will the 4,000-seat volleyball stadium to be built for this be temporary or permanent? And where exactly will it be located? What's the financial relationship between AVP & Ratner?

Those questions weren't answered in initial coverage last week in the New York Daily News and the New York Post, and the Times didn't cover the issue. I sent emails asking those questions of Forest City Ratner, but didn't get any response. Fortunately, the Brooklyn Papers, in its 1/26/06 article headlined Pro volleyball is coming to Coney Island beach this summer, explained that yes, the stadium will be temporary.

Another twist has been ignored by all but Brian Hatch of NewYorkGames.org. For New York's 2012 Olympics bid, beach volleyball was proposed for beachless Williamsburg, apparently because it was closer to the center of the city and because Coney was an "obvious" site. Obvious, yes, because there's a great beach there, as AVP and Forest City Ratner clearly recognize.

Correcting the Times on which mall is which: one more try

2006-01-27T08:26:00.000-05:00

I'm still surprised how hard it is to get a relatively straightforward correction in the New York Times. As I wrote in a 12/27/05 post, a caption in the business section that day stated that a shopper was outside the Atlantic Center mall, while he actually was outside the Atlantic Terminal mall.

The two malls from Forest City Ratner are quite different--Atlantic Center is mostly dun-colored, while Atlantic Terminal is red brick. But I initially erred by misidentifying the building in the fuzzy background of the photo as Atlantic Center, which is east of Atlantic Terminal, while it was actually Site V at Atlantic Center, which is south of Atlantic Terminal and across Flatbush Avenue. (Note that the photos at the above links from the Forest City Ratner web site show a now-departed Macy's store at Atlantic Center and a somewhat earlier design for Atlantic Terminal.)

There was other evidence, of course, that the shopper had just been to the Atlantic Terminal mall. The version of the photo in the online version of the newspaper was cropped to show only Atlantic Terminal (right). And the shopper was carrying two bags with the bullseye logo of Target, an anchor tenant of Atlantic Terminal. The other bag that's identifiable, as seen in the print copy version of the picture, has the red star of Macy's, which does not operate in either of the mall complexes, but has a store on the Fulton Mall in Downtown Brooklyn.

I went back to the malls yesterday to try to reenact the photo as seen in the print edition of the Times. It was taken from the southeast border of the Atlantic Terminal Mall (at top left of the Atlantic Yards site plan), looking southwest at Site V, which is across the street (in blue and yellow on the map, below the diagonal Flatbush Avenue). Note that the Atlantic Terminal mall and the Atlantic Center mall, the modified L-shaped building to its east, are outlined in black but are not part of the Atlantic Yards project, as both are on the north side of Atlantic Avenue.

First, I took a photo to try to capture the same light poles (which now lack the festive holiday decorations, obviously, as pictured in the Times) and the mall to the right.

Then I took a closer-in shot to gain a clearer sense of the P.C. Richard sign in the background, as well as the traffic on Flatbush Avenue.

Then I rotated slightly to capture the name of the mall: Atlantic Terminal.

I backed up a little to capture the name and logo of Target under the name Atlantic Terminal. (Yes, it's a little dark.)

Then I rotated and took a picture of the Atlantic Center mall opposite.

There are other sides of the Atlantic Center mall that look more like Site V (which is actually considered by Forest City Ratner to be "Shops at Atlantic Center"). But the bottom line is: the shopper had been to Target in the Atlantic Terminal Mall, he was just outside the Atlantic Terminal mall, and he was headed in the direction of both the Atlantic Center mall and a parking garage.

The caption stated: "Keino Bennet leaving the Atlantic Center Mall in Brooklyn yesterday." It still should be corrected.

Marty's State of the Borough: Atlantic Yards gets less push than last year

2006-01-27T07:34:00.000-05:00

Is Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz backing away from the Atlantic Yards arena-cum-skyscrapers project? No, but maybe. If you see him at public meetings regarding the project, he maintains his enthusiastic support. But at last night's State of the Borough Address, held at Brooklyn Technical High School in Fort Greene, Markowitz gave Atlantic Yards far less attention than in his 2005 and 2004 addresses. (Photo of Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Marty's wife Jamie, and Borough President by Kathryn Kirk, from Brooklyn-usa.org.)

That's reading the tea leaves, of course, but that's all we have. A State of the Borough Address is many things--a chance for fellow politicians to pay homage, a shout-out to various neighborhoods and ethnic groups, a recounting of achievements, and a chance to honor those who've "done Brooklyn proud." (A particular favorite last night was Keith Beauchamp, the filmmaker whose documentary helped reopen the investigation of the murder of Emmett Till.)

But it's also a chance to lay out goals, and in his previous addresses, excerpted below, Markowitz devoted several paragraphs to the Atlantic Yards project. Last night he gave it part of a sentence--plus the prominent closing segment in a post-speech video. Maybe that's because some of the previously stated goals--such as 10,000 permanent jobs--have fallen by the wayside, or maybe it's because he didn't want to remind people of potentially ruinous traffic. Maybe it's that there are more changes to come, like a new design from architect Frank Gehry. Or maybe it's simply that we're still waiting for a Draft Envirornmental Impact Statement from the Empire State Development Corporation.

Marty got to Atlantic Yards in the middle of his address. "Maybe it's an obsession with realizing Brooklyn's promise, or maybe it goes back to my childhood, but everything I do has the same objective. Fulfilling government’s core duties of providing affordable housing, quality health care, public safety, and a sound education for all — and making Brooklynites proud of our home town," he said. "I pushed for two of the largest affordable housing initiatives in New York City history with the Greenpoint-Williamsburg re-zoning and the Atlantic Yards project — and it is worth the agita and mishegas, because I’m confident it’s good for these neighborhoods, and good for Brooklyn."

That was it--no mention of jobs, or the controversial Community Benefits Agreement, or the concerns of local residents, references he made last year. (Interestingly, the press release touted the Greenpoint-Williamsburg and Atlantic Yards as "economic development.)

By contrast, in his inaugural address yesterday, Mayor Mike Bloomberg was effusive: In Brooklyn, construction workers will put shovels in the ground at Atlantic Yards, the most exciting housing, commercial, and sports development in Brooklyn’s history.

Bloomberg, swearing in Markowitz last night, said in Brooklyn, "Standing together, we'll cheer for the Nets."

The video and the heckler

Near the end of Marty's address, a video featured six disparate people congratulating the Borough President. Among them: Yvette Jarvis, the Brooklynite who is now a City Councilor in Athens, Greece; Gavin McLoed (of The Love Boat), on behalf of Princess Cruises; the captain of the Queen Mary II, scheduled to dock in Brooklyn; a couple of seniors from Red Hook hailing the new Ikea; and beach volleyball star Holly McPeak, whose pro tour will stop in Coney Island in August.

Finally, after a montage of basketball action, Vince Carter of the New Jersey Nets declared, "I want to congratulate Marty on his reelection, and we look forward to having you sit at center court when we get to Brooklyn." Then came a quick shot of Marty holding a Nets jersey.

The audience was quite enthusiastic about the Nets, but the ending of that segment, and the resumption of Markowitz's speech, was interrupted, at least for one section of the audience, by Schellie Hagan of the Prospect Heights Action Coalition, which has long opposed the Atlantic Yards project. She had periodically heckled Markowitz during his speech by shouting, "What about eminent domain? What about Prospect Heights?," and she upped the volume when the Nets were mentioned. One fellow attendee angrily urged her to shut up, and a squad of auxiliary police officers approached. Hagan and her sister Patti Hagan, who had also participated in some heckling, agreed to be quiet, and soon left the building, as Markowitz's portion had finished.

Unmentioned power brokers

Among those in the VIP section of the audience: Forest City Ratner president Bruce Ratner and VP Jim Stuckey. Neither Ratner nor any of the other powerful developers in Brooklyn--Joseph Sitt of Thor Equities, David Walentas of Two Trees Management, and Shaya Boymelgreen of Leviev Boymelgreen--were mentioned in the speech, though they, more so than the many Brooklynites hailed by Markowitz, are Brooklyn's power brokers. (I don't know if those other three developers were present.)

Brooklyn touches

It was the first State of the Borough I've attended in person and, while the speech has some formulaic inclusiveness, it's hard not to be impressed by the diversity of Brooklyn. (That can lead to unintended consequences: the table with kosher food was near the entrance, and the crowds were so thick that many non-Jews lined up for the kosher food, despite the protests of the servers.)

And Marty's people know how to put on a show. The program opened with songs from the multiethnic Brooklyn Youth Chorus Academy and an invocation from a Borscht Belt-y rabbi. Then Marty entered, in the midst of the Brooklyn "Steppers" Marching Band. (Photo by Kathryn Kirk, from Brooklyn-usa.org.)

As he spoke, a giant postcard saying "Greetings From Brooklyn, NY" was projected on screen. After a reference to the "Leaving Brooklyn, Fuhgeddaboudit" sign Marty managed to get placed on Brooklyn roads, he announced a new sign for the Jackie Robinson Parkway: "Welcome, Brooklyn's in the House." No wonder Bloomberg hailed Marty as Brooklyn's "the best salesman" Brooklyn's ever had and Senator Hillary Clinton called him "the most enthusiastic cheerleader for any community in the U.S."

Most impressive was a witty visual rebuke to the 3/7/2005 New Yorker cover that depicted, as the Daily News described it, "a horrified Adam and Eve exiled from Manhattan by God - into a dark and forbidding Brooklyn." Markowitz defended Brooklyn back then and last night introduced the cover of "The Brooklyner" (Price: Affordable), which showed Adam and Eve strolling peacefully over the Brooklyn Bridge into the borough, beckoned by God.

Also, all attendees were given a booklet containing the more than 1,000 entries submitted in a call for a new Brooklyn slogan. Among them: "Brooklyn is like an everything bagel;" "Brooklyn: Where Life Gets Interesting;" and "Brooklyn: "It's More than a Freakin' Tree."

Past speeches

From Marty's 2005 address:
Meanwhile, new residents, businesses, and cultural institutions — not to mention the upcoming arrival of the NBA’s Brooklyn Nets — are increasingly making Brooklyn a true land of opportunity.
Now, I fought hard to get a national sports team to call Brooklyn home.
I know of three things that bring people together like nothing else — music, religion, and sports.
As a boy, I’m happy to say that I was able to watch the Brooklyn Dodgers play every summer, just a few blocks from where I lived.
This year, by the way, we mark the 50th anniversary of the Dodgers’ legendary 1955 World Series championship.
I want to tell you what I remember about that time.
After that World Series victory — life as we knew it stopped in the borough of Brooklyn, because for two weeks, there was a non-stop party in the streets.
That was then, and this is now.
The Atlantic Yards Project will include the Nets arena, as well as residential and commercial buildings. Every city in America competes for a national sports team. If you’re lucky, you get a chance like this once in a lifetime.
Brooklyn — now is our time.
I expect Atlantic Yards to result in two things that are vital to Brooklynites — more jobs and more affordable housing. I want to say right now, that I fully understand — and I share the concerns — of local area residents who have spoken out in opposition to this development.
People of good will can differ. And constructive opposition is something I value and cherish — because I honestly believe that, in the end, it makes for a better plan.
The Nets arena — and the Atlantic Yards project — will go forward, but it must work for both Brooklyn and for the community surrounding the arena.
Because people do not move out of Brooklyn today seeking a better life. They move out because they can’t afford the good life we have here.
It is estimated that Atlantic Yards will create about 10,000 permanent new jobs. That is above and beyond the 15,000 construction-related jobs that it will create over the next decade. And we can all be proud that 100 percent of those workers will be union employees.
Under a proposed groundbreaking Community Benefits Agreement, as many as possible of those new jobs will be filled by Brooklyn residents, and I promise you, those jobs will go to those who need them most — particularly low income residents living in public housing nearby.
I believe this project will help give individuals and Brooklyn families the chance they need — and deserve — to break the cycle of poverty, with opportunities to work at jobs that will grow into careers.
I want every Brooklynite to be given the same chance I had.
As someone who grew up in poverty — and who grew up in public housing — I know what an opportunity can mean. And with this project designed by a world class architect, Brooklyn-born Frank Gehry, Atlantic Yards will be an unmistakable statement that the new center of this universe we call New York City has shifted to the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic!

From Marty's 2004 address:
Oh yeah, I almost forgot.
There's one other little project that's coming to Brooklyn.
The borough of Kings is about to get its crown back.
Brooklyn needs this arena because Brooklyn's best -- like the Lincoln High School team -- deserve a place in Brooklyn where they can compete at the highest levels, and watch the stars of the game.
Just as the Dodgers thrilled Brooklynites in the first half of the 20th century, the Nets will be the team that unites us in the 21st.
It's a moment in our history that future generations are going to look back on as a turning point, and they're going to thank us for making it happen!
If everything goes according to plan, in a few years we will bring a new center of life to the heart of this borough.
I want to thank Mayor Bloomberg for his enthusiastic support of this project – it couldn't have happened without you, Mayor. And thank you to Governor Pataki.
I will of course make sure that this is the best possible project for all Brooklynites, including those in the immediate neighborhood. I will do everything in my power to make sure that as few people as possible will be displaced -- that any negative impacts are minimized -- and most importantly that they are treated with dignity and respect.
For 26 years, I have kept my promises to Brooklynites.
And I will keep this one too.
This project must be a great resource for the entire neighborhood -- and for the entire borough.
The world-class arena and surrounding area will be designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry – and will include:
4400 units of new housing – up to half of which will be at below-market rates for middle and moderate income households – which we desperately need.
Many new businesses and stores, which will create thousands of new, much needed jobs.
Six acres of public park land.
And even a skating rink on top of the arena.
And we're going to make sure that those who have missed out on construction and contracting opportunities in the past – especially women and minority owned businesses -- have their rightful place at the starting gate for this project -- and aren't just watching the race.
Above all, the Brooklyn-wide pride for a top basketball team – which is the urban sport – will bring all of our neighborhoods and cultures even closer together.

The big unknown: Borough Board punts on fiscal impact of Atlantic Yards

2006-01-26T07:19:00.000-05:00

It's one of the biggest questions--perhaps the biggest--surrounding the proposed $3.5 billion Atlantic Yards development: would this project be a winner or a loser economically?

The answer: we don't really know, beyond generalities, even though developer Forest City Ratner estimates billions of dollars of new revenue to the city and state, and some of FCR's assumptions have been forcefully challenged by not only critics but also by two city agencies, which estimate costs and revenues differently.

And our government isn't helping us find out more.

Yesterday, the issue came up briefly, and inconclusively, at the meeting of the Brooklyn Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee. The topic: socioeconomic conditions, which, according to the state environmental impact process, covers a lot of ground, including direct or indirect displacement of residential and commercial tenants,and adverse effects on specific industries.

There's no requirement to figure out the fiscal impact of the project. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the state Empire State Development Corporation won't address it--a draft should be issued in a few months--and the Borough Board meetings are supposed to track issues in the EIS process.

Yesterday, Borough President Marty Markowitz, an enthusiastic supporter of the project, brought up the issue, querying George Sweeting, a deputy director of the city's Independent Budget Office (IBO), with a leading question. According to a September 2005 report from the IBO, Markowitz said, "this project would result in a small net fiscal gain to the city over 30 years. If you evaluated it on the basis of the commercial, and retail, and residential sections, would it result in... a bigger net gain?"

Sweeting responded cautiously but positively. "The paper focused solely on the arena. We had a pretty good sense of the subsidies and benefits that were available," he said, adding that calculating the impact on the entire city was complicated, since it would require determining whether new residents at Atlantic Yards were new to the city (and thus new taxpayers), and who would occupy apartments vacated by New Yorkers moving to the project.

However, given that most of the subsidies available on the non-arena portion are of-right, and available to any developer, Sweeting said, "it's a virtual certainty we would find a larger net fiscal benefit."

But how much larger--a few million, or a few billion? A benefit sufficient, for example, to absorb a potential huge increase in traffic and transit costs? (The arena would represent less than ten percent of the project square footage.) That tantalizing question was put aside.

Certain tax breaks indeed would be available to any developer, as Sweeting said, as would some affordable housing subsidies--though these would be cumulatively much larger than typical. However, other benefits that don't fall under the rubric of subsidies would not be of-right; those include the conveyance of city streets, city infrastructure costs, the opportunity to override city zoning, and the opportunity for the state to invoke eminent domain. Note that Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn calculates a very large set of subsidies.

A look at the arena numbers

The IBO report estimates that, over 30 years, the arena would produce $28.5 million (present value, 2005 dollars) more in revenue than the project would cost the city, and that "the combined state and local 30-year net fiscal surplus would be $107.0 million (2005 dollars)."

The IBO's conclusions have been challenged. Sports facility analyst Neil deMause, on his Field of Schemes site, noted that the IBO underestimated the amount of subsidies due to the developer, and also made optimistic calculations--based on assumptions provided by the developer--about the number of fans coming from New Jersey. Change those numbers and the "small net fiscal gain" could turn into a loss.

Why would the arena benefit the state more than the city? The report states: Much of the difference between the results for the city and the state is attributable to the fact that all those who earn income at the arena—Nets players, executives, coaches and other staff, and other workers—must pay New York State personal income taxes, while only New York City residents pay New York City personal income taxes.

Public costs for the project

Even though the IBO didn't try to estimate revenues from the new taxpayers who would move into Atlantic Yards, it did try to estimate some public costs posed by the project as a whole, not just the arena. The IBO report estimates that the cost of delivering new education, sanitation, and police services over 30 years would be $530 million in current dollars (present value), or $208.6 million more than the $321.4 million estimated by Andrew Zimbalist, the sports economist FCR hired to estimate the fiscal impact of the project.

However, the cost almost certainly would be even higher. The IBO's higher cost prediction was based on an estimated 6,000 housing units, not the 5,850 number used by Zimbalist. However, the developer now plans at least 7,300 units onsite, plus up to 1,000 additional units offsite. More people require more city services.

And the IBO report doesn't address the cost of traffic. Transportation engineer Brian Ketcham, looking at the entire range of development for northwestern Brooklyn, including Atlantic Yards, estimated that traffic could generate $250 million a year in externalities, including the cost of air pollution, traffic noise, and lost productivity.

As noted above, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn calculates a very large set of subsidies.

$6 billion in revenue?

Forest City Ratner cites $6 billion in new revenue to the city and state to be created by the project over 30 years, but less frequently acknowledges the $1.1 billion in public costs. Note that the apples-and-oranges issue here. The IBO uses present value--the cumulative number in current dollars, rather than the cumulative number after 30 years. So the developer should use present value as well; under one scenario, that means $2.1 billion in revenues and $572.6 million in costs. Under present value, note that the ratio of costs to revenues is higher. (See Chapter 3 of my report for all these figures.)

But those revenues depend on some dubious assumptions, ones criticized by the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), which is a general supporter of the project.

For example, as noted in Chapter 3 of my report, NYCEDC disagrees with Zimbalist’s estimates of how many staffers associated with the basketball team would live in New York City and pay city income tax. Zimbalist, in his 2004 report and 2005 report, assumes that 30 percent of the Nets players will live in the five boroughs and pay city and state taxes, while 75 percent of the arena workers will live in the city. However, NYCEDC estimates that 20 percent of the players, 35 percent of the executives and team staff, and 50 percent of the facility staff would reside in New York City.

More crucially, NYCEDC and Zimbalist differ significantly on those assumptions mentioned by the IBO's Sweeting: how much revenue would be generated by the new residents in the project. Zimbalist, in his first report, in 2004, projects that the average annual income of households in the development would be between $80,000 and $90,000. In his second report, in 2005, he projects that the average annual income would be $94,875. (If he were to do another report, acknowledging the addition of another 1,300 market-rate condos, his estimate would undoubtedly rise.)

But Zimbalist and the city agency apparently disagree significantly in methodology. NYCEDC assumes that the new units "will represent an equivalent increase in households Citywide, either directly in the project itself or as infill in units vacated by households relocating to the project. Income tax revenue is based on an average income of $45,000, the Citywide average for all industries." (Emphasis added.)

Given that income tax revenue is key to Zimbalist's estimates, this represents a discrepancy deserving of further study. Also note considerable challenges to Zimbalist's assumptions in this report by urban planner Jung Kim and economic anthropologist Gustav Peebles.

The overburdened IBO

I caught up with Sweeting after the session yesterday and asked him again about the challenge of doing a full fiscal impact study. "You would have to make assumptions about the kind of firms that come in, assuming there's still a commercial component," he said. "That would tell you what the salaries are. You make assumptions about the income taxes that would result, and the corporate taxes."

He continued, "To estimate tax revenue [on the residential component], you'd need to know the average household income of the people coming in. Then you want to make at least some calculations about how many of them are new to the city and how many are from elsewhere in the city."

Were Zimbalist's assumptions appropriate? "I'm not going to criticize the assumptions he made," Sweeting said. "The way we set it up, once we got to a positive fiscal impact for the arena, that was the part that we felt comfortable tackling."

But that's a fraction of the entire project, I said, pointing out that the NYCEDC and Zimbalist differ. "That's why that assumption about how many are new is a key part of the analysis," Sweeting acknowledged. "And you also want to think about who takes the apartments, does that create space for other new people to come in, or maybe that solves some of the shortage of affordable housing."

"We just chose not to do that," he said. "But that's not a reflection on the quality of the work of other people who have tried to do it. It's just not something we had the time or the resources to get into."

Sweeting pointed out that, as stated during the meeting, the project as a whole would likely generate greater fiscal benefits than the arena would. Still, a solid estimate of the project's fiscal impact remains elusive. Can any other agency pin it down?

"Not that I'm aware of," Sweeting said. "We could, if we had nothing else to do."

Will we ever know?

At the 5/26/05 City Council hearing on the project, urban planner Mafruza Khan of the Pratt Center for Community Development testified:
Given the wide divergence in [subsidy] estimates, from $200 million to over $1 billion, we do want to emphasize that it is impossible for the public to know whether this project is a good deal without knowing how much it will cost to taxpayers. It is being asked to buy something without knowing how much it will cost.

Given the wide divergence in estimates of revenues, as well, it remains impossible to know whether the project is a good deal. However, the press has not pursued this question. In an 11/27/05 editorial, the New York Times declared:
The city's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office calculates the arena would produce a modest benefit for the city and state, $107 million over 30 years. Even that may be optimistic...
The Nets arena is not destined to be a cash cow, but the borough deserves a sports team, so long as the price is not too high.

But the Times didn't acknowledge that the IBO report mostly concerns the arena. We still don't know the price of the Atlantic Yards project.

Some "blight" back story: replacement was planned for building that Ratner wants to raze

2006-01-20T07:52:00.000-05:00

Now that the demolition controversy is back in the news, some back story: the smallest of the six buildings Forest City Ratner plans to raze--a one-story garage at 622 Pacific Street (small building at left, below)--had been purchased by an investor who planned a five-story building there. That's before the investor, Menachem Friedfertig, publicly asked the developer for $4 million, according to a 9/2/04 New York Sun report. Did he get it? Unclear--but he likely got far more what he paid: $382,000 on 5/20/03, which was two months before the Atlantic Yards plan was mentioned by the Newark Star-Ledger 7/23/03 and nearly seven months before it was announced officially on 12/10/03.

The building is among those Forest City Ratner either owns or has under contract, according to a company press release, though available documents, at PropertyShark.com, do not indicate that the ownership has changed.But the transaction adds another layer to the issue of blight and its role in a future eminent domain case. Is the area blighted because it has deteriorating buildings? Is a deteriorated building less an indication of blight if the market was already responding? Or will it make little difference, since as a law professor has noted, current state law on blight is extremely loose?

At 622 Pacific Street, the 25 ft x 68 ft building sits on a lot 25 ft x 73.75 ft. Under current city zoning rules, it could support a Floor Area Ratio of 4, or a maximum of 5,382 square feet. That would suggest a five-story building, much smaller than the arena+high-rises slated to be built at that part of the site. Note that, because Atlantic Yards is a state project, city zoning rules don't apply.

According to the New York Sun, whose 9/2/04 article was headlined Message to Ratner: ‘I Want My $4M’: Brooklyn Developer Looks To Cash In, an effort to develop the site likely added leverage:
Friedfertig pushed ahead with a plan to develop the building, with medical offices on the first floor and five stories of residential condominiums above. He even went so far as to hire architects and get permission from the city’s Department of Buildings....
Despite the risk of eminent domain, Mr. Friedfertig’s threat to wring millions out of Mr. Ratner is formidable because he has the city’s approval to build his development....
“I am waiting for Ratner to make a realistic offer, or I could just go ahead with the development,” Mr. Friedfertig said.
Architects Joe and Moshe Friedman have drawn up plans for Mr. Friedfertig’s building, and the developer expects that each condominium could be sold for about $1 million — the same price Mr. Ratner has paid for other apartments that have stood in the way of the Atlantic Yards development. An additional $1 million to $2 million could be generated by the medical offices, bringing the total for the developed building to $6 million to $7 million, Mr. Friedfertig said.

Friedfertig had the plans drawn up in early 2004, which suggests he could also have been using the condominium project as a bargaining chip. He clearly felt he had lucked out, telling the Sun, "I have the winning lottery ticket and I want my $4 million." Forest City Ratner has not been a chintzy spender. An 11/6/05 New York Times article reported that, one factor that has contributed to the higher projected cost of Atlantic Yards, from $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion, has been the above-market prices the developer has paid to buy out residents who live on the project's footprint. And the company has likely paid above-market prices to buy out other property owners. Such costs factor into Forest City Ratner's profit estimates, which remain unreleased by the MTA.

Developer's blight?

Also, a look at city records suggests that charges of "developer's blight"--that the building deteriorated while under the control of Ratner--may be murky here, as there were several violations and complaints, including a partially collapsed roof cited in January 1998. Then again, it's not clear why the building now poses an immediate danger and must be demolished. By contrast, there are fewer complaints at the recently-inhabited row houses at 461 and 463 Dean Street, at right. There's one violation, from 1922, at 461 Dean Street, and three boiler violations, two dismissed and one active, at 463 Dean Street. That's not to say that complaints are a proxy for deterioration.

Jay Butler, a professional engineer who conducted an external review of the buildings on behalf of community groups suing to stop the demolitions, acknowledged that he couldn't make definitive judgments without going inside, but stated: I cannot conclude that the buildings pose an imminent threat to public safety. Any defects to the buildings or threats to public safety appear to be consistent with conditions found at countless other buildings in New York City.

He did not comment on 622 Pacific Street because, despite statements in Forest City Ratner's initial press release, the report to the developer by LZA Technology did not mention the building. According to the lawsuit filed Wednesday, the lawyer for ESDC said that the agency's Emergency Declaration did not apply to 622 Pacific Street, but noted that the developer planned to submit another engineer’s report in support of demolition there.

Observer: ESDC had lawyer recommended by Forest City Ratner

2006-01-19T21:44:00.000-05:00

The New York Observer, in a post today on the blog The Real Estate headlined Life in a Small Town, noted that Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, had brushed off questions of a conflict of interest because the agency is using a lawyer who formerly worked for Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project. "I don't know whether we are using the same lawyer,” he told the Daily News.

However, reported the Observer:
It turns out, according to a document The Real Estate obtained through a Freedom of Information request, that Forest City actually recommended the law firm to the E.S.D.C. A letter, dated Feb. 18, 2004, states that “[Forest City] has requested that [E.S.D.C] authorize and/or oversee the following services to be performed with the project” including “legal services to be provided by Sive, Paget & Riesel in connection with the environmental analysis of the project.”

While it is standard for developers to pay for the legal and consulting costs that the state incurs from the project, and the state works with the consultants, the Observer set out the issue:
The question is, do developers regularly get to select—or even recommend--the consultants? And should they?

ESDC did not explain whether the developer usually gets to play that role, and lawyer David Paget did not return the Observer's messages. The issue is murky: Paget had worked for the ESDC several times before, which means that Forest City Ratner's recommendation was likely not the sole reason to consider him.

While the community groups suing to block Forest City Ratner's demolition plans did not get a temporary injunction today, the case will come return to court on Februar 14, which, the Observer said, "would be almost a week before Forest City said it would be able to begin work anyway."

Community groups sue ESDC to block demolitions; engineer expresses doubts

2006-01-19T07:47:00.000-05:00

A set of community groups, led by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), filed suit yesterday to reverse the Empire State Development Corporation's approval of Forest City Ratner's plans to demolish six buildings controlled by the developer within the footprint of the proposed Atlantic Yards development. The suit also argues that the ESDC lawyer, David Paget, should be disqualified because he until recently represented Forest City Ratner on the project. The suit also names Forest City Ratner as a defendant.

While this dispute may seem relatively minor in comparison to a decade-long, $3.5 billion project, the lawsuit asserts that the demolitions indicate that the project is a done deal: ESDC’s actions do significant harm to the SEQRA process by giving the public the perception that the Atlantic Yards Project is a foregone conclusion headed toward approval and that physical actions are underway to permanently change the fabric of the community.

The plaintiff group includes: Fort Greene Association, Boerum Hill Association, Society for Clinton Hill, Pratt Area Community Council, Fifth Avenue Committee, Prospect Heights Action Coalition, Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association, Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council, East Pacific Block Association, Dean Street Block Association (4th to 5th) and DDDB.

What the engineer said

None of the news coverage quoted from the affidavit of a professional engineer, Jay Butler, who conducted an external review of the buildings. Acknowledging that he couldn't make definitive judgments, Butler stated:
Based upon that review I cannot conclude that the buildings pose an imminent threat to public safety. Any defects to the buildings or threats to public safety appear to be consistent with conditions found at countless other buildings in New York City. Such defects can be safely stabilized with commonly-used repair measures.

The Village Voice's blog, Power Plays, in an entry headlined Nets Foes Shoot Suit, took a look at city records and found a mixed record: some, but not all, "like most buildings, had multiple violations of building and environmental codes."

Will part of the suit prevail?

The New York Times had the most extensive coverage, in an article headlined Local Groups Sue to Halt Big Project in Brooklyn. It suggested that part of the lawsuit has a stronger chance of prevailing:
Philip Weinberg, a professor at St. John's University and an expert on the state's environmental review law, said the lawsuit faced "an uphill battle" in trying to get Mr. Paget disqualified. "There's nothing in the law or the regulations saying they can't have the same counsel," he said.
In general, he said, courts have tended to defer to public agencies on questions of fact, which might include whether the buildings are unsafe enough to warrant demolition. Still, Mr. Weinberg added, the agency "is supposed to play it down the middle," and "courts are supposed to step in if it doesn't pass the smell test."

Gargano unaware

The Daily News focused on the conflict-of-interest claim, in an article headlined Same lawyer repped state, Ratner: suit. The newspaper reported the developer's explanation, and ESDC chair Charles Gargano's indifference:
A Ratner spokesman said Paget has not worked for Forest City since at least the fall, when he began working for Empire State Development Corp., and never worked for both simultaneously...
Asked about Paget's alleged conflict, Empire State Development Corp. Chairman Charles Gargano said he was unaware of any problem.
"I don't know whether we are using the same lawyer," said Gargano. "I don't know of any conflict."

Gargano, it should be noted, has already endorsed the project without changes.

The New York Post ran a two-paragraph summary, headlined HOOPS-ARENA FOES SUE STATE. The New York Sun didn't cover the story.

The back story on timing

Though the Times did the most to explain the request by City Council Member Letitia James to gain access to the buildings with an independent engineer, even its report lacked some key details:
City Councilwoman Letitia James, whose district includes the site and who is an outspoken opponent, asked the company to allow her to inspect the buildings with a different engineer. At first, Forest City Ratner officials agreed to the inspection, but said later that Ms. James could not bring an engineer.

The Times didn't point out that Forest City Ratner's explanation--that letting that engineer inspect the property would cause undue delay--was undermined by the five-week gap between the receipt of the initial engineering report and the public announcement of the demolition plans.

A reference to that delay would have added some context to statements yesterday from the developer, which appeared in most coverage. The Times reported:
In a statement, Bruce Bender, an executive vice president of Forest City Ratner, defended its initial engineering report and said the lawsuit amounted to "delay tactics."
"While the opponents have another agenda," Mr. Bender said, the developer "will not play games with the public safety and is proceeding as any responsible property owner should and must."

Another look at that delay

Previously, I had speculated that Forest City Ratner had waited five weeks to announce its action on 12/15/05, in part because it needed to get its plans for asbestos abatement in order.

However, it seems likely that the delay could be attributed, perhaps in major part, to the ESDC's Declaration of Emergency, which was dated 12/15/05, the day the company alerted the New York Times. Then again, a look at the ESDC document shows that it was drafted on 12/5/05 (see the footer on the last page). Is it possible that the ESDC had its document ready 10 days earlier but only issued it after discussions with Forest City Ratner? That's speculative, but also consider that the lawyer for the ESDC formerly worked for the developer.

Whatever the scenario, the 11/7/05 report from Forest City Ratner's engineering consultant stated that the buildings posed "an immediate threat to the preservation of life, health, and property." If the threat really was immediate, shouldn't the company have made a public statement upon receipt of the report and/or urged the ESDC to expedite its review?

A newspaper covering itself: "like getting your left fielder to cover your baseball team"

2006-01-18T08:11:00.000-05:00

It's not easy for newspapers to write about themselves, but it can get dicey when newspapers hire outsiders to cover themselves as well, as the recent experience in Seattle suggests. This issue has resonance regarding the New York Times's coverage of its parent company's Times Tower project with Forest City Ratner, its coverage of eminent domain, and also the coverage of FCR's Atlantic Yards project.

Let's backtrack. In his 12/4/05 column, headlined When a Newspaper is the News, New York Times Public Editor Byron Calame suggested that newspapers set up links to coverage of themselves by other publications. I suggested links regarding coverage of the parent New York Times Company's project with developer Forest City Ratner to build the new Times Tower: after all, other newspapers, notably the Village Voice and New York Observer, have provided more aggressive coverage.

One letter-writer to the Times offered another idea, arguing that "truly independent and critical coverage of yourself" requires hiring reporters who don't work for the Times--in essence, a freelance contractor like the Public Editor. I found an example in Seattle, where the Seattle Times had hired a well-respected freelancer to report on its efforts to end the Joint Operating Agreement--shared business arrangements but separate editorial functions--between the the Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

However, that three-year arrangement has come to an end, apparently because the reporter turned out to be a little too aggressive. It came down to a judgment call about the scope of his duties--an issue that should intrigue New York Times readers.

In a 12/17/05 article headlined 'Seattle Times' Won't Extend Contract of JOA Freelancer, the trade magazine Editor & Publisher reported that the memo from Managing Editor David Boardman regarding the nonrenewal of Bill Richards' contract was vague: "We have decided to take that coverage in-house moving forward."

Reason: tough coverage?

Richards had an innovative arrangment. He was paid without any required quota of stories, and could cover any angle of his choosing--and the Times would have to publish it. Were there a disagreement, they could go to a mediator, but neither side did so. In fact, paper had nominated Richards for a Pulitzer Prize.

Still Richards wrote that one deal appeared to have violated anti-trust laws and also questioned the newspaper's accounting practices. The story is very much alive, with upcoming hearings in a lawsuit. "It is easier for an outsider to cover," Richards told E&P. "The business has gotten tougher and tougher to cover yourself. It's like getting your left fielder to cover your baseball team."

Richards told the Seattle Weekly, in a 1/11/06 article headlined Conflicted Disinterest that he was not told why his contract wasn't renewed, but offered some speculation: "Reading between the lines, I could sort of guess they were not happy with the aggressiveness of the coverage." Richards added that he was "stonewalled" by the Times's publisher, a key source.

Times Managing Editor David Boardman described it as a dispute over scope, which he distinguished from aggressiveness: "We valued that [aggressive coverage]. Where we sometimes differed with Bill was on what information was truly relevant to this ongoing struggle [over the future of the JOA] and what wasn't," he told the Seattle Weekly. "It was just a whole combination of issues, and we made the decision that, moving forward, we would try a different approach."

What would the NY Times do?

Imagine for a moment that the New York Times hired a respected freelancer to cover the Times Tower, to catch up with articles in the Voice and the Observer, and even recent coverage by the New York Sun. Would the freelancer stop at the legal battle brewing over the exercise of eminent domain to assemble land for the Times Tower? Would the reporter follow his/her journalistic curiosity and look into other development projects involving Forest City Ratner and/or the exercise of eminent domain? Would the heightened consciousness ensure that the Times acknowledged, in a national survey of the eminent domain dispute like the 1/18/06 article Developers Can't Imagine a World Without Eminent Domain, that its parent company has also benefited from eminent domain? (It didn't.)

I'm not suggesting that the Times Tower project and the Atlantic Yards project are equivalent; in the former, the newspaper is challenged to ensure that its coverage does not appear self-serving. The challenge regarding Atlantic Yards--a project regarding the parent company's business partner but not Times itself--is more indirect. Public Editor Calame wrote his 6/29/05 Web Journal: The Times's most important obligation, of course, is to make sure there's no bias in any articles it does publish about Mr. Ratner. But avoiding the perception of any tilt toward Mr. Ratner in its pages is also essential.

Because of that, he offered a recommendation: The New York Times, I believe, has an obligation to alert readers when they are reading substantive articles about a company or individual with whom the newspaper has some business or professional relationship.

That same recommendation would seem to apply to the Times's coverage of eminent domain in general. To adapt Calame's language: The New York Times, I believe, has an obligation to alert readers when they are reading substantive articles about a controversial issue that has been crucial to the newspaper's business strategy.

More subtle than bias

Calame was dealing with disclosure, a threshold issue, but the issue is more subtle than bias. I doubt it was bias, for example, that led the Times to ignore the 5/26/05 City Council hearing on Atlantic Yards, where Forest City Ratner officials announced significant changes in the plan, subtracting office space (jobs) and adding condos. (See Chapter 6 of my report.) It was neglect; editors and reporters were not taking the project seriously enough.

In that case, the Times had made a decision, either actively or passively, that the hearing wasn't important. It was a judgment call. Had there been a heightened consciousness about the Times Tower (thanks to someone on staff or, following the Seattle experiment, an independent freelancer), that might have led to heightened consciousness about the Atlantic Yards project.

I'm not saying the Times should hire a freelancer to cover all Forest City Ratner projects or even Atlantic Yards; the case is stronger when it comes to the Times Tower, and coverage of the other issues would like be too broad for one person. It's just that, as in Seattle, where the newspaper official said they "sometimes differed... on what information was truly relevant," outsiders may approach coverage more aggressively (or define 'scope' differently) than in-house staff.

Then again, as the Seattle experience shows, outsiders may not last. In New York, the Times's Public Editor, by constrast, has a fixed term and editorial independence. He doesn't cover a beat but writes every two weeks, usually analyzing the coverage of a complicated or charged issue. Many readers are still wondering when and if he'll address the Times's coverage of Atlantic Yards and Forest City Ratner.

Jobs at Atlantic Yards: overpromised from the start (and here's another reason)

2006-01-17T07:45:00.000-05:00

A key element of Forest City Ratner's "Jobs, Housing, and Hoops" slogan was the 10,000 office jobs the developer promised to provide at the Atlantic Yards development. But that figure has always been questionable--and for more reasons than previously discussed.

First, the company calculated more jobs than would be standard for the available space. But there's another piece of evidence, one I haven't seen cited elsewhere: two weeks before the developer announced the project on 12/10/03, a city report on the rezoning of Downtown Brooklyn cautioned that only about two-thirds of the projected new office space might be filled--which meant that the additional space planned for the nearby Atlantic Yards project likely would add to a glut.

Had the press and public officials raised this issue, they might have questioned the "jobs" projections for Atlantic Yards. Today, as the New York Observer has recently reported, it's questionable that even the smaller amount of projected office space will be built in Downtown Brooklyn.

Trading office space for housing

Most of those projected jobs at Atlantic Yards have since vanished, as office space was traded for market-rate condos, a better economic bet for the developer. Forest City Ratner VP Jim Stuckey has fudged the latter explanation. At an 11/22/05 American Institute of Architects panel discussion, he said that, "As part of our meetings with the community, it’s become very clear, for a number of reasons, that we needed to do more housing, and less office." But the additional housing was 2,800 luxury condos, certainly not part of a request by ACORN, the low-income group that signed the affordable housing agreement. (Photo of Stuckey from FCR bio.)

Stuckey later in that session gave a more accurate explanation: "We took... what was planned to be office development, and we converted it to condominiums. And it’s a very simple reason why: because condominium development is… a higher land value, which then allows us to do the cross-subsidization" of the affordable housing." (I recently listened to a tape of the session.)

Routine changes?

Stuckey also explained changes in the plan, in an 11/6/05 New York Times article headlined Routine changes or 'Bait and Switch'?:
"Projects change, markets change," said Forest City Ratner's executive vice president for development, James P. Stuckey. "When you do a project over a long period of time, it's very difficult -- unless you're Nostradamus -- to figure out what the market changes and land changes and all those things are going to be."

That explanation deserves challenge, because of the developer's initial calculations as well as the Downtown Brooklyn plan.

First, Forest City Ratner promised 10,000 jobs repeatedly, such as in this flier issued in May 2004, touting "10,000 new, permanent jobs." But the developer could promise that many jobs only by neglecting to factor in a vacancy rate and calculating 200 square feet per worker, while the industry standard is 250 square feet. (Stuckey told a 5/26/05 City Council hearing that "we use [200] based upon what we know to be the case of MetroTech.")

By contrast, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), hardly a project critic, projected 7,100 jobs for the same space. NYCEDC, in its report, used the industry standard and also calculated a vacancy rate. Moreover, NYCEDC estimated that only 30% of the jobs would be new to New York, rather than moved from Manhattan, a pattern with the developer's other projects, such as the office space at MetroTech or at Atlantic Terminal.

The NYCEDC document, released 6/27/05, reflects calculations made more than a year earlier and stated in part at a May 2004 City Council meeting. But anyone could have done the math. Despite the example of MetroTech, the industry standard was even used by Andrew Zimbalist, the Smith College economics professor who produced a report for Forest City Ratner projecting economic benefits from Atlantic Yards.

Looking at Downtown Brooklyn

Also worth noting is a city report on rezoning for Downtown Brooklyn Redevelopment, completed in November 2003. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is not online, but the hard copy I saw contains the same relevant text that appears in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, issued in April 2004. Notably, the Executive Summary states (page S-4):
The proposed actions are projected to stimulate approximately 6.7 million square feet of new development, including 4.6 million square feet of office space.
(This also appears on page S-4 of the DEIS. The Final EIS (p. 14) gives the timeline: A DEIS was prepared for the proposed actions, and a notice of completion for the DEIS was issued on November 28, 2003. The hard copy of the DEIS I have is dated simply November 2003.))

On page S-17, the FEIS explains that the figure of 4.6 million square feet derives from careful estimates:
Together, the projected and potential development sites could total approximately 6.7 million square feet of office development. However, the appeal of these sites is primarily for back-office operations, particularly for those that require larger floorplates. This segment of the market is more limited. Therefore, although it is theoretically possible to develop 6.7 million square feet within the project area by 2013, this is not considered likely....Based on the screening criteria, it is reasonable to assume that approximately 4.6 million square feet of office development would occur in the next 10 years on sites identified by the City...
(This also appears on page S-14 of the DEIS.)

In other words, the city was saying that, even though an extra 2.1 million square feet of office space could be built in the next decade, the market for it was unlikely. And this was before the Atlantic Yards announcement added an additional 2.1 million square feet to the mix. No press coverage I found compared the two projects. Part of that may be attributed to balkanization; at the New York Times, for example, the rezoning issue was covered by Brooklyn bureau reporter, while the Atlantic Yards announcement was covered by the metro real estate reporter.

Economic estimates ignore office glut

Six months later, the amount of projected office space had declined only slightly. Zimbalist, in his May 2004 report, Estimated Fiscal Impact of the Atlantic Yards Project on the New York City and New York State Treasuries, writes that the project would eventually create 1.9 million square feet of first-class office space to be added in equal increments in 2007, 2009, and 2011. He cites a "housing and commercial office space shortage in Brooklyn and New York City" and offers some questionable statistics:
Since 1988, downtown Brooklyn has absorbed an average of 600,000 square feet of new office space per year. As of early April 2004, the vacancy rate of class A office space built in Brooklyn since 1985 was less than one percent.

Zimbalist makes no mention of the Downtown Brooklyn Final EIS issued a month earlier. His report reads as if the office space at Atlantic Yards would be brought to a borough that desperately needed such office space, and as if no potential for similar space might be in the offing.

In a June 2004 critique of Zimbalist's report, ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT OF FOREST CITY RATNER’S BROOKLYN ARENA AND 17 HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENT ON NYC AND NYS TREASURIES, Gustav Peebles and Jung Kim pinpoint problems in Zimbalist's assumptions. For one thing, as they write in section 5.3, Zimbalist did not calculate a vacancy rate. Also, they note that Zimbalist's observation regarding the vacancy rate requires a huge caveat. Most of the Class A office space in Brooklyn is at Forest City Ratner's MetroTech development, which has relied heavily on subsidies and government tenants to fill the space.

The authors calculate that at least 55% of the Class A office space in Brooklyn was filled by the public sector or with the help of incentives to private companies. "The vacancy rate used by Dr. Zimbalist to generate 7,600 jobs is an artificial rate, inflated by government expenditures and nothing to do with what economists would call a 'market,'" they write. Because of that, they recommend lowering Zimbalist’s projections for new commercial income and sales tax revenue by up to ten percent.

Peebles and Kim could have further questioned Zimbalist's vacancy rate projections had they factored in the recently-released Downtown Brooklyn Final EIS. It cast doubt not just on the prospects for filling such a large amount of office space at the "less than one percent" vacancy rate, but also on the wisdom of building that much office space in the first place.

Responding to the market

Apparently Forest City Ratner questioned its own projections as well. By 2005, the company revised its plans, and at a City Council hearing on 5/26/05 announced a reduction in office space as part of two potential reconfigurations. Zimbalist, in a June 2005 update to his report, acknowledges those potential changes:
The FCRC Atlantic Yards General Project Plan will eventually create 1.2 million square feet of first-class office space. The Alternative Plan will create 259,078 square feet of new commercial space. Since 1988, downtown Brooklyn has absorbed an average of 600,000 square feet of new office space per year. As of early April 2004, the vacancy rate of class A office space built in Brooklyn since 1985 was less than one percent.

Even though Forest City Ratner had reacted to a potential downturn in the market--reducing an original estimate of 2.1 million square feet to a potential 259,078 square feet--Zimbalist remains nonplused. He repeats the same decontextualized citation regarding Brooklyn's "less than one percent" vacancy rate even though the developer by then was planning to cut 43% to 88% from the originally announced space. Again, he doesn't acknowledge any competing supply of office space, not from Lower Manhattan, nor from the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning.

Downtown Brooklyn today: housing

Today, even the estimates of 4.6 million square feet of office space in Downtown Brooklyn seem overoptimistic, since housing is a better bet. In a 1/16/2006 article headlined Office Builders Balking At Downtown Brooklyn, the New York Observer noted:
When city planners rezoned much of downtown Brooklyn 17 months ago, it was meant to make the city’s third-largest business district even larger. Now it is looking more and more like a bedroom community.
It is not just the half-dozen condo projects sprouting up around the edge of downtown, transforming weed-strewn parking lots into glassy towers.
Even the 10-block area envisioned as the “commercial core” of the new downtown is leaning residential. The developers of the two sites furthest along in the planning process are suggesting that as few as 200,000 square feet of office space might go up where two million square feet were once envisioned, with the balance going for hotel rooms and apartments. A third property owner wants to erect a hotel right in the middle of a site where a 20-story office tower was supposed to be built. An existing office tower in that central core—7 MetroTech Center, the 1930 Verizon building—was purchased last April to be converted into condos.
In other words, Brooklyn’s booming residential market has overtaken the supply of office space—making it harder for roughly 19,000 jobs that were originally seen as the fruit of the rezoning to find their way into the new downtown.

There's a silver lining, Brooklyn’s boosters told the Observer: Downtown Brooklyn (especially Forest City Ratner's MetroTech) has been called dead at night, but the area will gain much new life. Still, the rezoning was supposed to spur jobs more than housing:
In order to promote commercial construction in a borough that many still consider to be an unacceptable business address, commercial buildings in the core could rise 20 percent higher than apartment buildings. Yet the residential market is so strong—or the commercial market so weak—that that incentive has not tempted anyone to gamble on offices.

The difference is a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 12 for office space and 10 for residential space at certain parcels that have been rezoned to C-6.45. See p. 7 of the Executive Summary of the Downtown Brooklyn Redevelopment Final EIS.

Did Ratner just learn this?

The switch to housing led the Observer to cite a similar example, at Atlantic Yards:
Bruce Ratner, Forest City Ratner’s president and C.E.O., recently came to a similar conclusion. He originally proposed 2.1 million square feet of office space to be included in his Atlantic Yards complex, which lays adjacent to the boundaries of the downtown rezoning to the southeast. Then, last summer, he reduced that amount to 628,000 square feet and made up the difference with market-rate condos.

It wasn't a zero-sum trade, though, given that the project increased from an initial 7.7 million square feet to 9.1 million square feet this year, thanks in part to the addition of Site 5 across Flatbush Avenue. On that site, P.C. Richard and Modell's currently occupy a low-slung cinderblock complex; a 430-foot tower is planned.

But the bigger question is: did Bruce Ratner recently "come to a similar conclusion"? The company may have announced the changes recently, but, as noted, the addition of condos on top of the rental apartments came only a week after the affordable housing agreement was signed, which suggests the switch from office space had been in the cards for a while.

Could the switch had been considered from the start? That November 2003 Draft Environmental Impact Statement suggests that Forest City Ratner should have known that the market for additional office space was questionable, even office space well-located at a transit hub, as at the proposed Atlantic Yards. But the slogan "(Temporary Construction) Jobs, Housing, and Hoops" wouldn't work as well.

[Graphic from NoLandGrab.org]

The Kings (Martin Luther & Albert) highlighted in Ratner-sponsored Brooklyn hoops tourney

2006-01-16T07:31:00.000-05:00

There was a lot of high school basketball in New York City yesterday, but likely most hoops fans chose Madison Square Garden for the Nike Super Six or even Baruch College for the Big Apple Basketball H.S. Invitational.

In Brooklyn, attendance was light as Long Island University hosted the Seventh Annual Brooklyn Basketball Challenge, a three-game event sponsored by Forest City Ratner. The program, using smaller type than that used to highlight the sponsorship, reminded us that the event was "In Celebration of the Birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr."

Despite some local teams and at least one excellent game, I'd estimate that about 60 people were in the bleachers for the second game (Brooklyn's Canarsie blew out Long Island's Valley Stream) and maybe double that for the hard-fought third game, featuring two schools from adjacent Fort Greene, Benjamin Banneker and Bishop Loughlin. (I missed the first game.)

Ratner promotions

It was also an opportunity for Forest City Ratner to promote its connection to basketball. Programs and a banner featured the company's name, and all attendees were given keychains that said "Brooklyn" on one side and "Nets" on the other. Former NBA player Albert King, who grew up in Fort Greene, was on hand to present trophies to winning teams and MVPs.

Albert King, though a Net for six years, was not as successful a hoopster as his older brother Bernard, a three-year Net and four-time All-Star, who initially was a key part of the Atlantic Yards promotion. Then again, Albert doesn't have Bernard's baggage, as the latter was dropped by Forest City Ratner as a spokesman after he was accused of beating his wife. (He avoided jail time and battery charges by agreeing to counseling.)

From what I can tell, Forest City Ratner also sponsored the 2005 version of the Basketball Challenge, but did not do so previously. The real estate developer had no real interest in basketball, understandably, before announcing the Atlantic Yards project in December 2003. For more on the company's efforts regarding amateur basketball in Brooklyn, see the 11/26/05 Daily News story headlined Jump ball: Brooklyn groups still up in air over Ratner proposal.

So expect some photos and articles about this event in Forest City Ratner promotional materials--maybe even the next edition of the Brooklyn Standard. Proceeds from the event benefit the youth development programs of Youth America, which operates educational, cultural, recreational, and health programs, and the Right Bounce, which helps student athletes seeking college scholarships. Note that Youth America has its office in Forest City Ratner's MetroTech complex; such nonprofits likely get a break on rent.

MLK's legacy

There were few references to the man ostensibly honored by the event beyond the text in the program program, which reminded us that "Dr. King gave his life for the principles he believed in: peace, dignity, and equal opportunity." (Then again, I did miss the first game.)

At one point, though, a public address announcer encouraged all attendees to go home and read something about the martyred civil rights hero. I took a look at his 1967 "Beyond Vietnam" speech:
"I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such."

Now I'm not going to debate the costs and morality of the war in Iraq. But I will say this: Absent the issues of terrorism and war, this country would much more likely have begun serious discussions about poverty, and the best ways to create jobs and affordable housing for those not sharing in the country's prosperity.

The Observer inflates a Gehry reference, invents "Atlantic Yards terminal"

2006-01-15T07:39:00.000-05:00

In a 1/16/06 New York Observer article headlined Life Getting Hot For Architect Rafael Viñoly, an offhand reference to architect Frank Gehry and the Atlantic Yards project contained two mistakes.

The article stated: The case sheds light on an issue that has dogged architecture firms that attempt massive and politically difficult urban projects, while at the same time attempting to deliver state-of-the-art design.
Witness Mr. Libeskind’s increasing marginalization at Ground Zero, or the recent shouting match from which architect Frank Gehry absented himself over the weekend over his plans for the Atlantic Yards terminal.

Shouting match?

There was no "shouting match" at the 1/7/06 Times Talk session; Gehry was faced with some respectful but persistent questioners about the Atlantic Yards project, and at one point cut off the questions.

Another Observer reporter, who actually attended the session and wrote it up for The Real Estate blog, described "a handful of jeers" in response to a Gehry statement. Ok, but I think it was more like a spontaneous correction. The reporter also stated that Brooklynites "hurled questions" at Gehry; again, that's somewhat overstated, but even at that, no shouting match.

Atlantic Yards terminal?

More significantly, there's no such thing as "the Atlantic Yards terminal." There's the Atlantic Terminal, which refers to a mall, a transit hub for subways and the Long Island Railroad, and a longstanding urban renewal area. The 8.3-acre railyard just east of that is called the Vanderbilt Yard by the MTA. Atlantic Yards does not exist; it is the name of Forest City Ratner's proposed (and evolving) 22-acre project that would include the railyard and adjacent streets, industrial buildings, vacant lots, homes, and businesses.

Errors like this may spread when reporters work outside their range of expertise. The reporter on the Viñoly story works on the Observer's politics desk, not the real estate desk, whose reporters have provided more solid coverage of the project.

On insufficient open space, the question of shadows, and the role of historic buildings

2006-01-12T07:40:00.000-05:00

Will there be enough open space at the proposed Atlantic Yards development? Will tall buildings cast debilitating shadows? Will valuable historic buildings be razed? Those questions must be addressed in the pending Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the state Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC). Based on some preliminary discussion yesterday at a meeting of the Brooklyn Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee, much remains unanswered--but there's reason for concern, especially about open space.

It's clear that the proposed seven acres of public open space (plus one acre of private space) doesn't represent the simple bounty promised by developer Forest City Ratner. Yes, the developer has hired Laurie Olin, a noted landscape architect, to try to make the space welcoming--a gesture, like the hiring of architect Frank Gehry to design the project, that represents a step up from past Forest City Ratner project like the Atlantic Center mall or the MetroTech office complex.

But the project wouldn't meet either the ambitious state standards for open space or even the more modest city average. State standards call for 2.5 acres of open space for every 1,000 residents--"an ideal set by the state," according to Joshual Laird, Director of Planning for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, who said the city average is 1.5 acre per 1,000 residents. (Two of the three Community Boards around the project site don't even reach the city average.) To meet the city average, 7,300 apartments housing 15,000 people (a conservative estimate) would require 22.5 acres of open space, and if they housed 18,000 people, that would require 27 acres of open space.

"Many communities are below the [2.5-acre] ratio," observed Micaela Birmingham, Planning Director of New Yorkers for Parks. "We could maybe revisit this ratio and consider that it should be higher."

What if the commentators on the EIS can't influence the developer and the state to change the current proposal? "The burden is not to bring them up to 1.5 or 2.5 acres [per 1,000 people]," Laird said. Still, he said, "If this ultimately reveals that the number of people will lower that ratio, something has to happen."

Jerry Armer, Chair of Community Board 6, did some preliminary math, observing, "My concern is that the addition of residents will take that ratio and make it more negative."

The arena roof

The roof of the arena, once billed as a home for a running track and ice rink, now would be available only to the residents of the surrounding towers, a change that Borough President Marty Markowitz has criticized. Panelists spoke cautiously about it. Laird said, "Rooftop [space] can work, but it has to be programmed." Birmingham backed that up, stressing, "If rooftop open spaces are not very carefully programmed, they can be very desolate spots." She added that she hoped "it would be analyzed with the hope at some point it could be made public."

Armer asked if there were other good examples of rooftop use. Laird cited the heavily-used Riverbank State Park at 145th Street in Manhattan, but Armer noted that "that has a direct connection to the community. It's not like you have to take an elevator or an escalator."

Asked how more open space might be created in the area, Birmingham suggested that the Atlantic Center mall "has a lot of roofs, and could be made more green." She said the entrance to the mall, where Pathmark is located, could be redesigned. Laird said his agency had been looking at schoolyards, which could be expanded to serve as open space.

Losing streets?

Laird was asked whether the city calculated the loss of city streets in its assessment of open space. "We haven't assessed it," he said. "We wouldn't typically look at demapped streets as lost."

What about sidewalks? "We do not typically calculate the area of sidewalks," he said, noting that doing so would increase the amount of open space for all communities. True, streets do not equal open space, but the taking of streets is an integral part of the project. Later, Laird was observed in discussion with architect and blogger Jonathan Cohn, who has argued that Forest City Ratner can afford to provide the open space it plans only by using city streets, writing: So almost half of what the project is 'providing' in open space is space that was already supposed to be open in perpetuity, according to the city plan.

Exemplary private space?

Is there a good example of privately-owned public space, panelists were asked, that board members could consider? Birmingham pointed to a study published by the city and the Municipal Art Society and noted that the use of elements like spikes or bollards can deter people. "Many times the public doesn't know they're allowed to enter," she said. "When you have large towers [as at Atlantic Yards]... the orientation might lead people to believe that [the open space] are the backyards of residents."

"You're right to be concerned," said Winston Von Engel, of the Department of City Planning Brooklyn Office, who noted that the city now requires plaques at such open space that spell out open hours and other amenities. "Joshua [Laird] reminds me that [Forest City Ratner's] MetroTech is also privately-owned public space."

Birmingham commented, "Maybe that's not a good example." She was part of the group that accompanied Danish urban planner Jan Gehl during his critical walk through MetroTech and nearby areas in November.

The effect of shadows

Von Engel, while acknowledging he's not an expert on shadows, observed that building shadows can "have a very negative effect" and that "a shadow analysis is absolutely critical." When the analysis is done, said Laird of the Parks Department, "We'll look at the impacts to our facilities."

What about the effect on the Brooklyn Bears community garden, next to a low-rise building slated to be replaced by a 430-foot tower. "I don't know yet," Von Engel told Markowitz. "We need to see what the analysis says. Once the EIS comes out, we all need to take a look and see if we agree. It's up to you and others to give opinions on whether it's OK or not OK to put shadows on the Brooklyn Bears garden." (Those at the garden, as the photo suggests, have already come to a conclusion.)

Would the state analysis include the impact of shadows in denying access by those at nearby buildings to solar energy? "That's not one of the categories I'm aware of," Von Engel said. Birmingham picked that up: "These are innovative ideas that should be acknowledged by SEQRA." SEQRA is the State Environmental Quality Act, which governs the process.

Historic buildings?

At a second panel, on Historic Resources, Lisa Kersavage of the Municipal Arts Society handed out a map detailing the nearby historic districts, landmarks, National Register Buildings (like the Atlantic Avenue Control House on the triangle between the Atlantic Terminal mall and Site 5), and "potential historic resources." Four of the latter are within the proposed site footprint: the Underberg Building, slated for demolition; the closed Ward Bakery at 800 Pacific Street; and two buildings restored into condos: the Spalding building (right) at 24 Sixth Avenue, and the Atlantic Arts Building at 636 Pacific Street. (Forest City Ratner has bought out all but three apartments at the two.)

Kersavage noted that the buildings had been identified by community groups, but the Municipal Art Society has not yet taken a stand on them. "The real way to save the buildings is to have them identified by [the city] Landmarks [Commission], outside the EIS," she said. Still, she said, her organization would look at whether the buildings could be incorporated into the project. Kathleen Howe, a Historic Preservation Specialist for the state, called the Ward Bakery "a very interesting building with wonderful terra cotta." She noted that a landmark designation could provide a 20% federal tax credit to help a property owner preserve and renovate it.

The building, later owned by the Pechter-Field (also known as Pechter) Baking company, closed in 1995 after losing a $12 million contract with the city's Board of Education. An 8/20/95 New York Times article (400 Jobless as Bakery Closes) cited "diminishing prices for baked goods, high labor costs and greater competition." The article appeared under the rubric "Neighborhood Report: Bedford-Stuyvesant." A 12/27/80 New York Times article ($750,000 TAKEN IN TRUCK ROBBERY) about a robbery of an armored truck outside the bakery described the location as Crown Heights.

Forest City Ratner last year agreed to pay owner Leviev Boymelgreen $44 million for the bakery and another property at 546 Vanderbilt Avenue, the Brooklyn Papers reported in a 4/9/05 article headlined $24M arena jackpot. Developer Shaya Boymelgreen, who had paid $20 million for buildings, had announced plans to build a hotel. The contract indicates that the transaction must be consummated by March 31, 2006--which suggests that there may be a renewable option to buy.

What about the Atlantic Art building? "It's got terra cotta," Howe said, but the question is the building's integrity. "That building has been converted to residential, which is great, but changes to the interior and windows" have altered it. "So our call was it did not meet our criteria."

"Isn't it possible for historic buildings to be documented" rather than preserved, asked Greg Atkins, Markowitz's chief of staff. Responded Ruth Pierpoint of the New York State Historic Preservation Office, "I think that's probably the last alternative."

Marty Markowitz faces the questions: "process" inevitably involves substance, like unresolved issues of scale

2006-01-11T10:07:00.000-05:00

Borough President Marty Markowitz, appearing last night before a monthly meeting of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN), maintained his public posture on the proposed Atlantic Yards project: an enthusiastic supporter who recognizes community concerns but remains confident it will all work out well. Markowitz was alternately conciliatory, jovial, thoughtful, and feisty, but became tense, if not testy, at times when pressed. Though several member organizations of the group may criticize or oppose the project, the CBN takes no position beyond its role as a community conduit to the environmental review conducted by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC). "You will not hear opposition or support for the project," cochair Candace Carponter told Markowitz. "This group is here to talk about process." (Photo at right from Borough President's web site.)

Funding a planner

Will Markowitz provide financial support for an planning expert to help the CBN respond to the state review process regarding Atlantic Yards? "I'm sorry to say we don't have the funding," Markowitz said. "I happen to agree [that an expert should be hired]." He said he had raised the issue twice to Charles Gargano, chair of the ESDC, but Gargano said no.

What about asking Forest City Ratner for the money? "I don't know if it's appropriate for me to ask," Markowitz said, noting that if the report comes out in a certain way, it could be considered tainted. "It has to be independent money." Carponter said that that "we believe" it's ESDC's job to ask the developer to fund the expert. Markowitz added that a lot of people had asked him to ask Ratner for money, "and I've asked for nothing." (Then again, Markowitz did ask Bruce Ratner to buy the New Jersey Nets and move the team to Brooklyn, and Ratner conceived of a much larger project than an arena, according to a New Yorker report.)

City Council Member Letitia James, an Atlantic Yards opponent and the only elected official among the 30 or so people in the audience, asked Markowitz if he'd join the Brooklyn delegation of City Council in asking the Council Speaker for funding. Markowitz said yes.

Demolition questions

Markowitz was asked if he'd help to stop the developer's plans to demolish six buildings an engineer has determined are "an immediate threat to the preservation of life, health, and property"--a conclusion in some dispute. He said, "I don't know that he's prohibited from demolishing buildings that he totally owns and they say are a threat to the safety of the community."

Carponter observed that, under the state review, demolition could proceed only if the buildings were hazardous to life or safety. When pressed why his office wouldn't step in, Markowitz responded, "Because I choose not to. He has a certified engineering company say these buildings are a danger to the public."

Deb Howard of the Pratt Area Community Council observed that the Atlantic Terminal area had been fallow for 20 years while development was pending: "You want to make sure that, when building are demolished, you have the approval and the financing [for the larger project]."

Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn asked, "If they are a public safety hazard, the developer has owned three of them for a year and a half. If they're truly a public safety hazard, why is he not protecting us with sidewalk sheds or why didn't he demolish them a year ago?"

Goldstein, who has not been willing to sell his condo to the developer and is threatened by eminent domain, added, "And it's very good for me to hear you so adamant about private property rights."

Markowitz shot back, "I'll take it as a compliment."

Goldstein continued, "If it's a public safety issue, and I doubt that it is, why is he not moving faster, or why did he not do something sooner?"

Markowitz responded, "Why he didn't do it a year ago, I really don't know." (One answer might be that the engineering review hadn't been completed. Another question might be why the developer waited five weeks after the engineering report was completed.)

Questions of scale

Markowitz maintained his stance that the project should be scaled down, but didn't offer specifics: "I see this as very beneficial to the future of Brooklyn but there are adjustments that can be made to fit more in the tapestry of the community."

Markowitz expressed confidence the project would work out. "I'd be thrilled to live a block or two away from there, even with this project...Maybe one or two of you can buy me a handyman special." After endorsing the idea of a charrette involving architect Frank Gehry and community representatives, Markowitz, acknowledging that he's not an architect, allowed that he'd tossed in his two cents on project design: "I like the idea of stoops--a stoop feeling" and other elements, like brick, that evoke the surrounding area.

He told the CBN that their input was helping find the right balance. "If you don't think the state and the developer are hearing you, they are hearing you. This plan has changed a couple of times--"

"It's gotten bigger," interjected Patti Hagan of the Prospect Heights Action Coalition.

"--and I wouldn't be surprised if it changes some more as we move ahead," Markowitz continued.

Hagan asked whether Forest City Ratner representatives had responded to Markowitz's public--and, presumably, private--call that the project should be scaled down, given that the project has grown in acreage and density. The Borough President replied, "My private conversations are my private conversations... I'm sure they are reviewing all parts of this."

How should we think about the scale of the project, given that it bypasses zoning and there's been no public discussion of the appropriate scale and a variety of surroundings? "You get one part [bordering the project] that's relatively low-rise, one part that's relatively high-rise," Markowitz said. "It's kind of hard for me to give you an answer." He added that he was more concerned now with issues like traffic mitigation, infrastructure, and parking.

Because of growth in Brooklyn's population and the decline of available land, "the way it appears to be going is vertically, not horizontally," he said. Indeed, density takes advantage of public transit and saves energy, but the appropriate level remains a question. "The city planners and city mothers and fathers in the days ahead will have to look at what policies will have to be implemented to somehow solve this challenge," Markowitz said. "I don't have any answers for that right now. I'm taking it project by project." As for Atlantic Yards, he seemed to be saying, it's too late--at least for anything more than an ad hoc responses involving community members like the ones he was meeting with--since the process has bypassed city review.

PACB and beyond

James asked him if he'd express concerns to the state Public Authorities Control Board (PACB), which has yet to vote on $100 million in state subsidies and is controlled by Governor George Pataki, State Senate leader Joe Bruno, and State Assembly leader Sheldon Silver. Markowitz resisted: "I can assure you I'll read every word you write. I want it to happen. I share many of the concerns, so that's where that gray area comes in." Silver's opposition to the West Side Stadium project, in part because it contained office space that would compete with his Lower Manhattan district, helped kill that project.

Asked why the public couldn't ask questions of the experts who have been appearing at the Borough Board meetings on Atlantic Yards, Markowitz said that the process was not uncommon, that all members of the board had approved the process, and that City Council Member James, an Atlantic Yards opponent on the board, is free to bring up the issue. He did note that the process is only "information gathering;" indeed, because the project is under state auspices, the Borough Board meetings are outside the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) process. Another meeting is today.

FCR's Stuckey: no under-arena parking, Gehry's (sort of) a free agent

2006-01-11T08:10:00.000-05:00

There wasn't much news during the session "Real Estate Development in the 21st Century: Revisiting Opportunities for Minority Developers," held yesterday part of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's 9th Annual Rainbow PUSH Wall Street Project Conference, though it did give the 60 or so attendees, many of them new to New York, some information (and misinformation) about the Atlantic Yards project and the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). The Rev. Herbert Daughtry described the CBA signatories as "a group of community organizations widely representative of the community," even though, as the New York Observer reported, Just two of the eight signatories to the agreement... existed as incorporated entities before the negotiations.

But afterward, panelist Jim Stuckey, executive VP, Forest City Ratner, was cordial enough to answer some questions lingering in the minds of Atlantic Yards-watchers after last weekend. (Photo from Forest City Ratner bio of Stuckey.)

Parking aboveground?

Is Forest City Ratner still planning an under-arena parking garage, which could pose a security risk? No, said Stuckey, clarifying an issue that's caused concern, though his answer raises further questions about how parking would fit into a revised design for the site. (I initially thought it indicated aboveground parking, but others have commented that it suggests use of underground parking across the street, as well as parking at other sites.) The question wasn't answered in the New York Times article Sunday on traffic, and a Forest City Ratner PR rep previously didn't respond to questions. Stuckey said yesterday that there would be 1,100 parking spaces for the arena but "there will not be any parking under the arena itself." He said that, under the arena, there would be a loading area and small amount of secured parking for team officials, referees, and other insiders.

Stuckey said there would be parking "part on the arena block, part across the street, part down on Block 1129, and dispersed throughout a number of different areas." (Does "part on the arena block" mean anything more than the small amount of secured parking? Unclear. Any unsecured parking facility near the arena raises security questions.) The left section of the graphic (at right, from the New York Times) shows parking in the black-bordered sections of the arena block, across 6th Avenue and in Block 1129, between Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues and Pacific and Dean streets, though it's unclear where the "dispersed" parking would be. Forest City Ratner hasn't officially announced that there wouldn't be an under-arena garage, as the 9/15/05 draft scope issued by the Empire State Development Corporation, was vague about the precise location of the parking.

There would be 4,000 indoor spaces for both residential and spectator parking for the project; as it has increased in size, from 4,500 to 7,300 residential units, as the Times noted, the developer was required to add parking spaces. FCR announced 3,000 underground parking spaces in the December 2003 architectural sketches. The 2/18/05 Memorandum of Understanding between the developer and city/state agencies is unclear about whether parking would be underground (though it might be inferred from p. 18 of the PDF). It describes how tax-exempt bonds would finance both the arena and "the on-site Arena garage" (see p. 6 of the PDF).

Gehry unleashed?

Will Forest City Ratner let architect Frank Gehry meet with community groups? After a public interview session last Saturday, Gehry told Peter Krashes of the Dean Street Block Association that any request would have to go through his client's office, saying he'd be willing to meet "as soon as the guys let me," adding "talk to Stuckey." (Photo of Gehry from interview at Columbia University.)

Questioned yesterday, Stuckey demurred, saying, "I don't schedule for Frank" and "I'm not Frank's scheduling secretary." That suggests that Gehry assumed too tight a leash, or perhaps--to get a little Jesuitical--it means someone else at Forest City Ratner has that responsibility. The conversation, also involving Patti Hagan of the Prospect Heights Action Coalition, quickly turned into a discussion of whether community critics of the Atlantic Yards plan had returned Stuckey's calls to set up a meeting. Stuckey said they hadn't; Hagan said she had.

So the Gehry issue remains unclear, but others may pursue a meeting, as well. Last night, at a meeting of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, Borough President Marty Markowitz endorsed the idea of a community charrette, or collaborative session, with Gehry, saying "I think it would be a fabulous idea--why not?" Commented CBN co-chair Candace Carponter, "I think it would be something we should consider doing, and doing soon."

More coverage of the Times Tower eminent domain battle: from the NY Sun

2006-01-09T08:54:00.000-05:00

The New York Sun has followed up on coverage in the Village Voice and the New York Observer regarding the battle by those ousted for the Times Tower across from the Port Authority to gain what they consider proper compensation. This is another article that could be linked to by the New York Times, if it followed the Public Editor's cue and provided links to others' coverage "about a news-making development at The Times."

In a 1/9/06 article headlined Owners Ousted From Times Site Awaiting Payout, the Sun stated:
More than three years after the New York Times and the state of New York used the power of eminent domain to clear the way for a 52-story new headquarters for the newspaper, nearly all the property owners and more than half the tenants who were displaced have not settled with the state over the amount of compensation they are due.
Lawyers representing displaced tenants and owners and state officials say that the recent designation of two additional judges in the New York Supreme Court to review condemnation cases will likely speed up the processing of the remaining claims. The state pays 9% interest per year on the difference between its offer and the court's final judgment.
Nevertheless, in a series of interviews with The New York Sun, the displaced tenants and owners said their experience over the last three and a half years serves as a warning to those who may be ousted by condemnation in the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, the planned expansion of Columbia University in Harlem, or other projects that might now surface as a reaction to last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, which allows a city to invoke eminent domain for the sake of private economic development.
...Citing increased tax revenues and more jobs, the city gave the Times about $26 million in tax breaks. The Times and Forest City Ratner are responsible for about $85 million to acquire the site. Should the owners and tenants prevail in court and the acquisition costs prove to be higher, the city and state would be responsible for the overrun.

Here's one example:
Building owner Maurice Laboz said he earned more than $1.1 million in rent a year from his former building. Before he received word of the condemnation, Mr. Laboz said he turned down an $8 million offer for the building. Later, the state offered him $1.8 million. He says he had the building independently appraised twice at $11 million.
As he awaits a court date, Mr. Laboz has received the $1.8 million from the state, which paid off the remaining $1.3 million of his mortgage and left him with $300,000

And here's a sketch of the dispute:
The lawyer representing most of the property owners and the tenants with outstanding claims, Michael Rikon, said the state commonly low balls condemned owners and tenants because judges will often decide on a settlement figure that falls between the state's assessment and the owners' or tenants' assessment.
"This is as low ball as it gets, and there are a horde of lawyers feeding off these proceedings," Mr. Rikon said.
The attorney says the total independent appraisals of the remaining cases he represents amount to $129 million, and the state's appraisals add up to $45 million.
A spokeswoman for the Empire State Development Corporation, Deborah Wetzel, said the state "promptly completed independent appraisals of the properties as required by law."
Ms. Wetzel said the state "has paid to each claimant the value of its property" as determined by the state's independent appraisals.

The Times on traffic: a "nightmare" intersection or "not that bad when it's functioning"?

2006-01-08T10:56:00.000-05:00

When it comes to adding a basketball arena and 16 towers (nearly all residential) at the proposed Atlantic Yards project, the problem of traffic seems obvious. Though the problem is relatively noncontroversial compared to other issues, there is significant dispute about its scope, the costs of fixing it, and the responsibility for doing so. A 1/8/06 article fronting the Metro section of the New York Times, headlined A Traffic Knot, Pulling Tighter, sketched the issue, ventilated some conflicting views, but still--partly a function of space--missed some important aspects of the issue, including the costs, the responsibilities of public agencies, and some innovative strategies.

The article began (graphic at right from the Times):
"This is what traffic engineers consider a nightmare," said Samuel I. Schwartz, surveying the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues in Brooklyn on a cold night shortly before Thanksgiving.
Around Mr. Schwartz - a former deputy transportation commissioner who has been credited with helping to coin the term gridlock in the 1980's - was a sea of steel and chrome and brake lights winking angrily in the night.
Waves of pedestrians ignored the long diagonal crosswalks, swarming past the cars and trucks inching home. Buses lumbered around the corner like whales in an aquarium, blocking off two lanes at a time.
During the commuter rush, as many as 4,600 vehicles pass through the intersection every hour, according to the city's Department of Transportation. Hundreds more join the flow toward the intersection from Fourth Avenue, which cuts across Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues to the west, servicing South Brooklyn's docks and residential neighborhoods.
A few feet below lies a major transit hub - the Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Street subway stations, which handle 10 lines, and a Long Island Rail Road station - that serves about 50,000 riders a day. And on the intersection's north side sits the Atlantic Terminal, a mall that houses, among other things, one of the busiest Target stores in the Northern Hemisphere. But in the coming years, drivers, pedestrians and those who live nearby may remember these days as a time when traffic was not really so bad after all.
Over the next four years, if the developer Forest City Ratner Companies gains state approval, an 18,000-seat basketball arena for the Nets is scheduled to rise on the southeast corner of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, the centerpiece of the company's proposed Atlantic Yards project, the biggest in Brooklyn history.
If the Atlantic Yards development is built as scheduled, 7,300 apartments housing about 18,000 residents would join the arena on the 22-acre site, as well as space for some 2,500 office workers and retail to draw shoppers.
"If you slow things up on Flatbush, you're backed up to Prospect Park," noted Mr. Schwartz, who has been hired by Forest City Ratner to consult on the project. "If you slow up Fourth Avenue, you're backed up to Park Slope. And if you slow down Atlantic, you're backed up to Central Brooklyn."

True, but it's worse: as relevant community boards and transportation engineer Brian Ketcham (quoted lower in the story) have commented as part of the environmental review of the project, traffic on those arteries also affects the Brooklyn Queens Expressway and the Brooklyn Bridge. A signal fault of the draft scope for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being conducted by the state Empire State Development Corporation, they say, is that it sets boundaries of a quarter-mile for the primary review area and a half-mile for secondary impacts, while the likely impact would extend much farther.

The Times article continued:
Though the project has spurred heated debates over eminent domain, the use of public subsidies, gentrification and other issues, those with worries about Mr. Ratner's plans most commonly worry about traffic. Last fall, the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, an umbrella group of block associations and other local groups, distributed questionnaires about the project. Almost a quarter of those who responded cited traffic as a specific concern they had about the project, by far the most frequently cited issue.
"They are primarily worried that that intersection is already close to gridlock on a daily basis, that there is already no parking, and that there is already a substantial and increasing danger to pedestrians," said Candace Carponter, the co-chairwoman of the council and an opponent of Atlantic Yards. "And there is no way that adding tens of thousands of people to that intersection on event nights isn't going to radically exacerbate the problem."
But James P. Stuckey, the developer's executive vice president for development, questioned whether the group's questionnaire was statistically sound and said that the intersection "is not that bad when it's functioning."
He added: "It can be improved. What I think is realistic, is that traffic is a major issue to be dealt with."

Well, maybe it is "not that bad when it's functioning," but that's irrelevant, since it would be functioning differently if the Atlantic Yards project is built--and even if it isn't, given the other development in the northwest section of Brooklyn.

As for whether the questionnaire was statistically sound, well, it wasn't a poll of residents, so it doesn't have that level of validity. But it certainly establishes a threshold of concern. Is Stuckey trying to say that a lot of people aren't worried about traffic? Their elected representatives are.

Keep in mind that the statistical soundness of many of the developer's statements could be questioned. As noted, the latest issue of Forest City Ratner's Brooklyn Standard contains some dubious numbers regarding the expenditure of public money, the number of construction jobs, and the value of the railyard bid.

In the Standard's "Frequently Asked Questions About Atlantic Yards," the fourth question asks if the project will "bring in more traffic than the area can handle?" The short answer: "No." That's rather conclusory, since local and state officials are studying the issue. The answer continues: "While FCRC recognizes the potential for traffic congestion at various intersections during certain peak hours of the day, they are committed to working with city and state agencies to implement any mitigation measures that may be necessary."

The Times continued:
With three major thoroughfares converging, the area is considered by many traffic engineers to be among the most congested in the city. Both Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues are major commuter routes to the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges, in part because Brooklyn - unlike Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx - has no cross-borough highways. Atlantic Avenue is also one of two preferred routes through Brooklyn for commercial traffic; the other is Linden Boulevard.
There are few options for avoiding the intersection. There is no alternative route to Flatbush, which cuts diagonally across the street grid. Part of Fulton Street, which is north of Atlantic and runs parallel to it, is reserved for buses. South of Atlantic Avenue, parallel streets like Dean are largely residential.
"People will seek shortcuts through that area," noted Mr. Schwartz, citing a major concern held by residents. "You have this maze. And drivers will try to find a way to get out."
The city has tried for years to improve the intersection. During the 1990's, when Forest City Ratner was building the Atlantic Center mall, a lane was added to Flatbush Avenue on the northbound side, and the pedestrian concourse beneath the intersection was improved.
To accommodate the opening of the adjoining Atlantic Terminal mall in 2004, Atlantic Avenue was widened as it approaches the intersection from the west, with the addition of a right-turn lane. The mall was also set back from Flatbush Avenue to allow for the addition of a bus-stop lane.
The Atlantic Yards project would lead to 40,000 new vehicle trips through the area each weekday, according to an independent study by Community Consulting Services, a transportation and environmental consulting firm advocating better traffic planning in Brooklyn.
Forest City Ratner officials disputed that study, saying that it overstated the vehicle trip increase by 40 percent to 50 percent, in part by failing to subtract trips generated by homes and businesses that would be replaced by the project.

What? Is Forest City Ratner saying that the residents and businesses within the Atlantic Yards footprint recently generated tens of thousands of trips daily? I doubt it. There are relatively few businesses--a dozen?--and only a few hundred residents--an estimate generated by the anti-Ratner Prospect Heights Action Coalition was 863, but that number included 400 homeless people, who aren't doing much driving. I'd like to see the other reasons to dispute Ketcham's study explained, and that's an unfortunate constraint in a story that needs to cover a lot of ground.

Also missing--a significant omission from this article--was any reference to the cost of fixing the problem. Regarding the development in downtown Brooklyn and environs, including Atlantic Yards, Ketcham has predicted an annual cost of $100 million to the city and state. Again, that number may be worthy of debate, but it should be on the table, since it should be factored into cost-benefit estimates from new developments, and a study by Forest City Ratner consultant Andrew Zimbalist, relied on for optimistic assumptions about future revenues, says nothing about traffic.

The article continued:
In an interview, Mr. Stuckey acknowledged that managing the additional traffic around Atlantic Yards was a challenge, but one that his company was ready to handle.
"It's very easy to say, this is a problem, and not have to show it," he said. "We have the added responsibility of analyzing the problem and then showing how we're going to solve it. And we and the government agencies take that very seriously."

Why is Stuckey speaking for the government agencies? The issue is much bigger than Forest City Ratner--and the city Department of Transportation has been criticized for not being proactive enough.

The article continued:
The company's decision to substitute additional residential units for most of the office space originally planned for the project, he said, will alleviate some potential traffic problems, because residential tenants usually drive after the evening rush.
The developer predicts that only a small fraction of the roughly 18,000 tenants would drive to work. (The project includes about 2,800 on-site parking spots reserved for residential tenants, as mandated by city regulations.) Based on the company's experience with the nearby MetroTech office development, only 5 percent or 6 percent of the 2,500 office workers traveling to the project will commute by car, Mr. Stuckey said.

That's confusing--if only "5 percent or 6 percent" of office workers would commute by car, how much does the switch to residential help? Note that one of the original arguments for building office space was that the site was close to a major transit hub.

The article continued:
Studies by Forest City Ratner found the worst congestion on eastbound lanes of Atlantic Avenue during the commuter rush: As Atlantic crosses Flatbush, four lanes merge into two, one of which is often blocked by stopped buses. Mr. Stuckey said the plan provided space to expand Atlantic Avenue by one lane, with a fourth lane in front of the bus stop to draw buses out of the traffic flow when stopped for passengers. The project calls for a similar expansion on Flatbush Avenue south of the intersection.
The project would be built in stages over a decade, Mr. Stuckey said, allowing for adjustments as problems emerge.
Since basketball games usually start at 7:30 p.m., the developer expects the arena portion to generate most of its evening traffic after the commuter rush, and no morning traffic at all. Mr. Stuckey also disagreed with critics who said the area lacked enough garage space. The firm's own survey, he said, indicates that there are about 1,500 parking garage spaces - most of which service office commuters and lie empty after the work day - reachable by foot or shuttle bus. By relying largely on remote parking for sports events, the developer hopes to keep much of the arena traffic away from the Flatbush-Atlantic intersection.

If basketball games start at 7:30 p.m., wouldn't about half of the evening traffic occur during the commuter rush? (Note that the TLC considers the weekday rush hour from 4-8 p.m., though in Manhattan the peak travel period is considered 4-7 p.m.) Also, why wasn't Stuckey asked whether the company still plans to build an under-arena garage, which could present security risks? The graphic accompanying the article cites 4,000 parking spots, which suggests that 1,200 spots would be located at a garage facility connected to the arena--but Stuckey didn't affirm that in the article.

Note that critics do question the availability of parking. But, taking Stuckey's numbers, let me try some math: 1,500 parking spaces, at a (generous) average of three people per vehicle, suggests 4,500 visitors. Add in 1,200 spots at the arena (?), and still well over half the attendees at an arena even drawing 18,000 attendees would have to walk or travel by public transportation and--as noted below in the article--some 40 percent of Madison Square Garden attendees drive. (And if there is no arena garage, well, that makes the challenge even greater, so Forest City Ratner should be challenged to describe its onsite parking plan.) So why didn't the article talk about some innovative ways to reduce traffic like congestion pricing, residential parking permits, and event tickets tied to use of public transportation?

Late in the article, the EIS process was finally cited, as was the impact of traffic beyond Atlantic Yards:
Much of the proposed arena's impact depends on what means of travel people choose to get there. Known as "modal split," it is one of the issues under consideration by the Empire State Development Corporation, the state agency charged with supervising the project's environmental review. At Madison Square Garden, which, like the proposed Atlantic Yards arena, sits on top of a transit hub and is surrounded by heavily trafficked streets, half of all visitors come by mass transit. Forty percent drive. The rest walk.
"Your first goal is to get as many people into mass transit as possible," said Mr. Schwartz. He said that could require a significant rehabilitation of the notoriously unwelcoming Atlantic Avenue station, a greater police presence there and more trains scheduled for late evening, when games end.
But also at issue is the broader development of greater Downtown Brooklyn, set into motion last year when the City Council approved a landmark rezoning of the area.
"The biggest issue is not Atlantic Yards, it's all the other developments that are going to come before it," cautioned Brian Ketcham, the executive director of Community Consulting Services, who has criticized the state agency's methods for measuring traffic in the area.
That includes the new Brooklyn Bridge Park, and an expanded cultural district anchored by the Brooklyn Academy of Music. A May 2005 report commissioned by the Department of Transportation estimated that office space in and around the business district would nearly double in the next two decades. The city also predicts a boom in retail, cultural institutions and new housing in the area, including 7,300 units from Atlantic Yards.
Yet the same report noted that the major thoroughfares were "already overloaded" and that additional traffic "would not be accommodated" without significant improvement. Mr. Ketcham's own study indicates that the overall traffic - vehicle, public transit or pedestrian - will more than double.
"If you can't get there, nobody's going to come," he said, "and all of this investment is going to go down the tubes."

Note that the city itself said the major thoroughfares were "already overloaded" and that major changes are needed. Here's where an estimate of cost would have been appropriate. Also note that the project would close off streets, which also affects traffic flow.

Still, in contrast to previous long stories in the Times about the developer's community relations strategy and changes in the project, a supporter of the development, or the developer's spokesperson, did not get the last word. (Who should get the last word? With a finite amount of space in print, it's a judgment call.) In this case, Ketcham, a Cassandra on the issue, finally gets a hearing. Note that, though Ketcham has been commenting forcefully about Brooklyn traffic issues for years, he hadn't been quoted in the Times since 1998. He's an important part of the debate, but this issue also requires questions of city officials and the MTA.

Gehry, in Manhattan, hit with Atlantic Yards questions: “I didn’t expect this to be a thing about Brooklyn"

2006-01-08T07:19:00.000-05:00

Architect Frank Gehry should’ve expected it, given that Brooklynites were out in force at the last public appearance he made in New York, in November, at a session of the American Institute of Architects. But Gehry seemed perturbed yesterday when three Brooklynites peppered him with questions about the proposed Atlantic Yards project he is designing for Forest City Ratner—including a challenge regarding eminent domain--and at one point he even cut off the questioning. And, whether misinformed or evasive, Gehry suggested that building a mixed-use project to accompany the arena was driven by a desire to create a harmonious urban fabric rather than--as evidence suggests--to generate revenue.

"I didn’t expect this to be a thing about Brooklyn--I guess I should’ve known better," Gehry said during the Q&A segment of his appearance at a Times Talk segment of the New York Times Arts & Leisure Weekend. Peter Krashes, president of the Dean Street Block Association, pressed on, but Gehry continued, "It’s not fair to nail me on this here. Let’s do it some other time." Most in the audience--Gehry aficionados and/or area residents unworried about Atlantic Yards--offered sustained applause, and Krashes withdrew. (Photo is from a previous interview at Columbia.)

Maybe it was the time for such questions, given that attendees had spent $35 ($30 + service charge) for tickets to the 80-minute event at the CUNY Graduate Center in Manhattan, and that Gehry has not yet responded to invitations to meet with concerned citizens who live in or around the proposed project footprint. After the event, Krashes--who in his respectful public question noted that he had no position on the arena--got on the long line behind those seeking Gehry autographs and waited his turn. When he approached Gehry, Krashes mentioned that his group had previously sent a letter inviting the architect to a meeting.

Gehry said he would, "as soon as the guys let me," adding "talk to Stuckey"--a reference to Forest City Ratner VP Jim Stuckey.

At this point, handlers for the event ushered Gehry’s interlocutors along.

Eminent domain

During the session, Gehry had said of his projects, "If I think it got out of whack with my own principles, I’d walk away." Patti Hagan of the Prospect Heights Action Coalition, wearing a "Welcome to Ratnerville" t-shirt and a sticker saying "Eminent Domain Abuse," picked up on that. She asked, "Have any of your previous projects involved the use of eminent domain or eminent domain abuse? Does that square with your principles? And would that be enough to make you walk away from the Ratner project?"

"No comment," Gehry responded, to applause, though not as much as he received previously. (Gehry fans had to perform a quick calculation: it’s one thing to admire the architect, but another to endorse eminent domain.) OK, Hagan’s set of questions was loaded, but wouldn't it be worth learning Gehry’s record with eminent domain? (Photo of Gehry and Hagan meeting at the AIA session in November by Genevieve Christy, as appearing in the Brooklyn Papers article. Note another take on that article.)

Gehry, interviewed by Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff, began the wide-ranging session (billed under the rubric "Free Form") by narrating a slide show of his buildings from around the world. The last slide was from New York: the headquarters for InterActive on 11th Avenue in Chelsea that is "nearly topped out" and is expected to open at the end of the year. There were no renderings of the Atlantic Yards project, where construction may start later this year, though a new design is expected. (Ouroussoff photo from Charlie Rose interview.)

Questions of scale

Later, when Ouroussoff brought up the Brooklyn project, he observed, "It’s the first time you’ve worked on that scale... unless you go back to really early on, when you’re talking about Rouse"—the ill-fated Santa Monica Place mall (1980) that Gehry designed, just before he broke with developer The Rouse Company, laid off nearly all his staff, and reconceptualized his career.

Gehry responded, "I did a lot of housing for FHA [Federal Housing Administration], and that kind of stuff."

Ouroussoff said, "But not quite on this scale, not at this point in your career. You're also working--"

Gehry continued, "But I’m a do-gooder, lefty type, still, so it was manna from heaven, to get that project." [Some people I spoke to thought this was a reference to Atlantic Yards and its affordable housing component; I think Gehry was still referring to the FHA work.]

Ouroussoff went on to note that Gehry is working more with developers these days and suggested, "One of the things that I think keeps your creative clock ticking is trying to put yourself in places where you don’t feel safe. Working on that scale is not a place where I assume you feel as comfortable as with some of the other projects you've been doing now for a long time."

"I’m very uncomfortable," said Gehry.

"What are the challenges there?" Ouroussoff asked.

"Well, the challenges are kind of obvious," Gehry replied. "First of all it’s an empty site, it's got rail lines and all that stuff." [The New York Observer report said he "blurted" his response, but I thought it was routine.]

"No, it’s not," a few in the crowd shot back--and the audience seemed a bit startled. Note that the proposed site is 22 acres, including an 8.3-acre railyard. (Photo above of Dean Street row at 6th Avenue from Forgotten NY. Graphic below from Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn.)

"It’s an existing neighborhood," Gehry amended, compliant if not full of conviction. "There’s an arena, a big arena, it's like the ostrich swallowing the basketball. A lot of people want this arena, on that spot, and the company hired me to put it there. The idea of just putting an arena on that spot, in a neighborhood like that, without trying to make it part of the fabric somewhat, didn't appeal to me. And so there was a program for housing and offices and other things that had to be built for the arena to happen."

Actually, Gehry had it backwards: the mixed-use complex was not driven by his esthetic response. As noted in Chapter 1 of my report, Bruce Ratner told the New York Times (A Grand Plan in Brooklyn For the Nets’ Arena Complex, 12/11/03) that the issue was economic: "This started with basketball,a Brooklyn sport," Mr. Ratner said. "This was always the site. But it became clear it was not economically viable without a real estate component."

Gehry, as he has said previously, indicated that the project would shrink: "We've been playing with the scale. The pictures you saw in the New York Times [7/5/05], the way it looked--it's not that big. It’s big, but not that big. It’s coming way back, in a lot of areas, and I guess something will go public in the next few months." He didn’t offer specifics. The project was initially seen as out of scale at 7.7 million square feet and has since grown to 9.1 million square feet, so the amount of reduction must be seen in context. (Image of previously-released sketches, which should change, from New York Times via NoLandGrab.)

"We've tried to break down the scale as much as possible. There is a piece of
Flatbush at the corner of Atlantic where it's pretty big in relation to what's across the street. But it's the arena, and what's on the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush is in scale with the Williamsburg [Bank]."
(To be specific, the 1929 bank is 512 feet tall, while the "Miss Brooklyn" tower, as proposed, would be 620 feet.) "If you go toward that way, contextually, it’s going to work. If you go this way, contextually, it’s a problem." It wasn't clear exactly where he was pointing, but note that the Pacific Street branch of the Brooklyn Public Library, the first Carnegie Library in Brooklyn, is just across Pacific Street from Site 5, currently the home of P.C. Richard/Modell's, where a 430-foot tower is planned. (Image from Brooklyn Public Library.)

Twenty buildings?

Gehry, who had previously said that he had asked Ratner to let other architects design parts of the project, didn’t complain yesterday but simply related that "there are some 20 buildings to be built, and the client insisted that I do them all. When he came to me, he said, 'I know you're going to try and bring all your friends in to do all the buildings, cause that's a cop-out.'... And he didn't want me to do that, he wanted me to really solve the problem, and put me on the hot seat." Twenty buildings? As of now, the project would involve an arena and 16 towers. Was Gehry simply being vague, or was he possibly referring to plans to build a new development complex, which could include new towers, on the site of Ratner’s Atlantic Center mall?

Given the challenge of building such a large project, Gehry mused, "Then you start looking at how much of this should be background, which elements should have an iconic presence, which should be in between background and iconic, and how do you orchestrate a skyline that somehow makes sense?... We’re trying, I am trying, and you’ll still hate what I do, anyway." (At this point, no questions had been asked, and the only pushback Gehry had gotten was from the few people in the crowd who knew that the proposed site isn’t empty.)

Gehry said that the site "would use a variety of materials so they don’t look like they've all been done by one person, they don't look like a project, they look like they grew over time. Then the public spaces, how to orchestrate those. And then the issue of--an arena needs bells and whistles and whoop-de-do, and then you are in a residential district and how do you orchestrate that so that the people in those apartments that we're going to build aren't plagued? If a guy comes home from work and wants to cool out, he's not barraged with imagery and bright lights. And so there's a whole bunch of sensitivities. How do you do that, how do you make it come alive for the game and solve the problem of identity for this basketball team and I hope someday a hockey team." (The Toronto-reared Gehry’s a hockey fan.)

Ouroussoff asked, "What are the limits, when you're working with a developer on that scale? What are you not allowed to do? You talked a lot about scale, about massing, about surfaces, about materials and things like that. All of those things you can do really well."

Gehry responded, "All of those things the client so far is complicit in. Up to this point, Bruce Ratner and his people have been very understanding and complicit and on board, they want that." He noted that there were then decisions on cost that are part of the development process and value engineering. "The fear or the unease for me in this, which I've talked to you about before, is: 'What is it we’re doing?' To me, when I look at my models now, it looks like a 19th century model, and that bothers me, but I don't know where to go, to be a 21st century model in this context. I got some ideas. My friends and I agonize: what would Rem [Koolhaas] do? What Zaha [Hadid] would do would look like a freeway interchange. And I haven't gone there. So if I've been holding back--'Is it right; is it wrong?"--these are the self-doubts that I have."

Ouroussoff suggested that part of that had to do with the expectations of an architect post-Bilbao. Gehry responded, "There's an expectation of what I do: 'This doesn't look like Bilbao; why are you doing this stuff that looks ordinary?' I've gotten some of that already."

Ouroussoff asked, "Is there a model beyond Jane Jacobs in terms of urban planning?" Would Ratner let Gehry work on the 'internal social organism' of the project? "Will the developer let you play with those things, the way you were able to with your own house?"

"No," Gehry said, citing in-house marketing people and architects at Forest City Ratner. "They do apartment layouts. We tweak them, but we can't really make a big architectural statement... We can influence them, make sure they are in the right places with the right views... but it’s fairly conventional...Like I read in the paper today, [Santiago] Calatrava is doing with his townhouse. You can’t go there. Not with this--at this level. But, you can make the experience from arrival, the front door, all the way through it, the way the elevator's designed, the lighting in the halls, it doesn’t have to be like going into the, um, the morgue. So it can be humanized. And I try to do that."

Urban design in question

When the Q&A began, Michael Decker praised Bilbao and said he cheered for Gehry when he got an honorary degree at Brandeis--"and now I live in Brooklyn."

"Here we go," Gehry said ruefully.

Decker observed, "I don't think changing the massing is going to disguise the massing of the project. I'm interested in what you were talking about, about being a do-gooder leftist, and how you square that with the superblock, with the towers, the shrouded park...?"

Gehry responded, "Bruce Ratner is also politically like me. We’ve discussed that a lot. We’re trying to live within our own principles on those issues. I think the scale issue is the only problem, we're out of whack with that."

Decker followed up, citing broken street walls, "the buildings plunked down and separated from the neighborhood in a very non-Jane Jacobs way, that it's towers in a park all over again."

"It isn't," Gehry said.

Ouroussoff clarified, "It's not a superblock, first of all. There are two parts of the project... there's a part at Flatbush and Atlantic, which is the arena, which is surrounded by a grouping of either three or four towers. Then if you go back from there, there's a series of apartment buildings along Atlantic. Those are broken up into a series of different masses, different pieces--as opposed to a superblock that would be either 'here are the towers at the center of the project,' or it would be a long continuous building."

Decker responded by citing "the street demapping." Indeed, while the project--as Ouroussoff pointed out--would not be one monolithic set of towers, a superblock has more to do with closing streets. A superblock, according to the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus, "[d]esignates very large, usually residential, city blocks often formed by consolidating several smaller blocks and often barred to through traffic and crossed by pedestrian walks." Note that Pacific Street would be closed between Vanderbilt and Carlton avenues, and between Sixth and Flatbush avenues. Fifth Avenue would be closed between Flatbush and Atlantic avenue. Architect Jonathan Cohn comments on his blog, "No amount of open views in the interior of a superblock will make the ground plane function like a watched public street. A real street functions not only for access to adjacent built form but connects and integrates the immediate area into the circulation systems of adjacent areas."

Gehry asked Decker, "How would you do it, ideally?"

Decker responded, "In my ideal world, you would build only on the railyards. There would be no eminent domain. It would be three 25-, 35-story tall buildings, a central courtyard, New York typology... and I think you'd have a vibrant, active place." (Left unsaid was that an arena cannot be built solely on the railyard, and the scale of the project has been driven in part by the need to include affordable housing, which itself was needed to gain political support.)

Gehry continued, "That's what we're doing, one building after another along the avenue, with a ground floor that's culturally..." .

"They're certainly not continuous," Decker responded. "They're separate buildings."

Ouroussoff interjected, perhaps sensing dismay in the audience that the session had tilted toward Brooklyn, "It raises an interesting question. What is your role as an architect, because developments of that same scale are going to happen, and the architect has no control over that. That's not the architect's job."

"He can turn it down," Gehry observed.

Ouroussoff continued, "You either walk away from it, or you see if there's something actually you can bring to the project."

"I try to do that, but I think if it got out of whack with my own principles, I would walk away," Gehry said. "It's not there yet, but maybe you think I should be there." Several in the crowd chuckled.

Then Krashes, announcing himself as representative of the block association on Dean Street, which forms the southern boundary of the project, observed that a lot of the discussion had been about housing as sculpture, form and mass. "We don't want you to turn your back on us, as an architect. What we want you to do is explain your role as a planner," Krashes said. He noted that five city blocks would be turned into one project and streets would be demapped for the arena, "which is logical, from one point of view, if you want the arena," and also "to create open space for very large buildings that do ring the open space. And the justification for removing that street is to provide open space for the public, it's not a park. It's open space that's privately owned. It's going to be at the service, really, of the buildings ringing the project."

"It’s designed as publicly accessible on all sides," Gehry replied.

Krashes continued, noting that the demapping of streets has implications for traffic. Gehry responded, "There are--I've got engineers and traffic experts and city planning, and we've been working with all of those people in the development of this. None of this has been done willfully, without being vetted by the experts."

Krashes tried to follow up, but Gehry, and the applauding crowd, cut off the discussion. (Several people asked non-Brooklyn questions during the Q&A, and Hagan's question did come after Krashes' question.)

Early in the program, when showing a slide of the acclaimed Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, Gehry observed wryly, "The only problem with this building is: I use it. Usually my buildings are far enough away that I don’t have to live with them. Every time I go to a concert I see everything I would do and change." From the questions voiced at this forum, some Brooklynites are hoping he’ll at least give them face time.

After the CBA, will Ratner negotiate a Neighborhood Benefits Agreement?

2006-01-06T07:45:00.000-05:00

Forest City Ratner seems willing to meet and negotiate with representatives of Brownstone Brooklyn neighborhoods around the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint over issues like traffic and urban space. Still, it's unclear whether the company would hire an urban designer to facilitate a community planning process and doubtful that it would agree to not use eminent domain. Those are some conclusions from a meeting last night of the Park Slope Civic Council (PSCC), which sent a delegation to meet with the developer five weeks ago.

First came the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), an innovative (for New York) but controversial effort to ensure that local residents and minorities get access to jobs, job training, and housing, among other things. But the CBA was signed with only eight groups, and it's hardly clear that they represent "the community." So when the PSCC representatives met with Forest City Ratner, they asked that the CBA "be reopened and expanded to include Neighborhood agreements," to include input from the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the project.

The answer: not quite. The developer won't reopen the CBA, reported Council President Lydia Denworth at the group's monthly meeting, but it would consider a neighborhood agreement with groups representing Brownstone Brooklyn neighborhoods. And what did the group ask for? "[A]greements between FCR and local government community groups on issues including: traffic, transportation, and parking; building size and urban design; city services; and public space"--in other words, the issues already raised to the Empire State Development Corporation. (More testimony.)

Does that mean that Forest City Ratner will downsize the project and do more to "repect and connect with" adjoining neighborhoods? "They didn't make any real commitment [at the meeting], but I think were ready to negotiate," reported Trustee Louise Finney, who chairs PSCC's Atlantic Yards Committee (and co-chairs the CB6 Transportation Committee). But FCR wants to meet first with groups from neighborhoods like Boerum Hill and Fort Greene, Denworth said, noting that "a Neighborhood Benefits Agreement with just one neighborhood isn't the point." Note that the Park Slope Civic Council--whose board represents a diversity of opinions--has not taken a public position for or against Atlantic Yards, but has expressed community concerns about the project's potential impact. The meeting with Forest City Ratner was initiated by Borough President Marty Markowitz.

Denworth at one point responded to a board member who thought the PSCC's posture was too confrontational. One tactic is opposition, she said, but another is, "whether you like it, or are in the middle [and may object to certain aspects], or you think it's going to happen, is to try to negotiate change and mitigation. It's the view of the Executive Committee and the Atlantic Yards Committee that that's what we should do. The big question is: 'are they operating in good faith?' and we have no idea. We are operating in good faith."

Trustee Lumi Rolley, who also runs the NoLandGrab portal for Atlantic Yards-related news (and apparently had been respecting a news blackout), pointed out, "If he [Forest City Ratner VP Jim Stuckey] reopens the CBA, it's an admission that the CBA is incomplete." She said a Neighborhood Benefits Agreement could cut both ways: on the one hand, neighborhoods could complain that they weren't considered "good enough to be part of the community"; on the other hand, groups like the PSCC don't want to revisit the jobs and housing issues that have already been negotiated in the CBA. (Unmentioned was the implication in the CBA, as local African-American activist Bob Law has pointed out, that black Brooklynites care only about benefits, but not about issues like scale and neighborhood character. Note that some 175 entities have been said to have "affirmed" the agreement since its signing, but they include elected officials, restaurants and real-estate agencies, according to the New York Observer's The Real Estate, as well as groups from Queens and Manhattan. The definition of "community" is a contentious issue.)

Denworth described the effort to negotiate a neighborhood agreement as separate from the role of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN), which is providing community input for the state process of environmental review. The PSCC board authorized its Atlantic Yards Committee to continue discussions and to reach out to other neighborhood organizations to further the idea of a Neighborhood Benefits Agreement.

More challenging requests

In the meeting with Forest City Ratner, along with asking for neighborhood negotiations, the PSCC delegation also asked the developer "to withdraw the threat of eminent domain and limit the project to the property that you already control." There was no indication of assent, and Forest City Ratner, while saying that it aims to minimize the use of eminent domain, likely will have to seek it, as some property owners have said they won't sell their land.

Also, the PSCC group asked the developer--with the help of city, state and borough funds--to hire an urban designer "to engage in a full-fledged community planning process." What kind of designer? "A widely recognized expert, such as Peter Calthorpe, who is designing the Stapleton, Colorado project for Forest City Enterprises, or Jan Gehl, the renowned Danish city planner." Those are interesting choices, since Calthorpe--who focuses on "diverse, mixed-use, and pedestrian friendly" communities--is already working for the corporate parent of Forest City Ratner, and Gehl recently visited Brooklyn and criticized Forest City Ratner's Metro Tech and expressed misgivings over the plan for Atlantic Yards.

"I get mine and they get theirs": hard truths on development deals from playwright August Wilson

2006-01-05T14:35:00.000-05:00

Supporters say the Community Benefits Agreement Forest City Ratner signed with eight local groups gives black Brooklynites, including black businesses and professionals, a seat at the table regarding Atlantic Yards. They call it an important step, even if it's "not the best CBA we could have". Critics, however, say the CBA isn't legitimate, noting that only two of the signatories were incorporated at the time, and the low-income group ACORN has recently been severely criticized by some progressives. But behind the support is calculation, and historical anguish, often not vented publicly.

Or you can go to August Wilson, the great American playwright (1945-2005), who finished his one-a-decade cycle of plays set in Pittsburgh's African-American Hill District with his 1990s play, Radio Golf, which debuted earlier this year.

The Hill District is just minutes from downtown; in this play, some black entrepreneurs are planning a federally-funded redevelopment project that will proceed as long as the city determines the neighborhood "blighted" and agrees to knock down houses blocking a new apartment building and national chain stores.Now that's not a direct parallel to Atlantic Yards--residents in the proposed Brooklyn project footprint range from rent-stabilized to much better off, of various ethnicities; Prospect Heights has been gentrifying on its own; developer Forest City Ratner says that, unlike in its malls, chain stores won't be the priority for the project's relatively small retail component. Still, emotional and conceptual resonances remain, especially since several signatories of the Community Benefits Agreement stand to benefit themselves from the project, and some have already done so.

Setting the scene

In one scene early in the play (which appears in the November 2005 issue of American Theatre), real estate developer Harmond Wilks, a candidate for mayor, and his friend and business partner, bank VP Roosevelt Hicks, discuss local powerbroker Bernie Smith's invitation to Roosevelt to join in buying in a local radio station. (The image above is from the production at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles; the one below is from the Seattle Rep production.) Consider Smith a local version of Forest City Ratner president Bruce Ratner.

Harmond: Why's Bernie want to partner with you? What's he get out of this?

Roosevelt: We'll be able to buy the radio station for two-thirds of what it's worth. We buy it at that undervalued price and right out of the gate we're ahead making money.

Harmond: That doesn't make any sense. Why would the owner of the station sellit to you for less than he knows that it's worth. Is the station in debt?

Roosevelt: The seller of the station gets to defer a large portion of his capital-gains taxes by taking advantage of the FCC's Minority Tax Certificate. It's an advantage for him and an advantage for us.

Harmond: So you're the black face? You're just the front?

Roosevelt: Naw, Harmond. Naw. I get to get in the door. Remember in school we used to say we wanted to be in the room when they count the money? You're there already. This is my shot.

Harmond: You'll get in the room. All it takes is some time. You can't let Bernie Smith use you like this.

Roosevelt: This is how you do it! This is how everybody does it. You don't think Mellon has ever been used? We're talking about an eight million dollar radio station! This is the game! I'm at the table! There was a time they didn't let any blacks at the table. You opened the door. You shined the shoes. You served the drinks. And they went in the room and made the deal. I'm in the room! Them motherfuckers who bought and traded them railroads... how do you think they did it? This is business. This is the way it's done in America. I get to walk away with a piece of an asset worth eight million dollars. I don't care if somebody else makes some money 'cause of a tax break. I get mine and they get theirs. I pull this off and next time I'm on the other side of the deal, sitting at the head of the table. Right now I'm sitting here. I'd rather that than to be sitting on the other side of the door. Harmond, I have to take this. This is not going to come along again. The window of opportunity is already starting to close. If I don't do this Bernie will get somebody else.

Hard truths

The key line here is: I don't care if somebody else makes some money 'cause of a tax break. I get mine and they get theirs. That's the question facing local leaders, especially black leaders, and it's not an easy one. Some, like state Assemblyman Roger Green, have chosen to endorse the Forest City Ratner project, calculating that the jobs and affordable housing, however few in comparison to the total project cost and original promises, are still worth delivering to his constituency. (Likely this would be an accomplishment cited in his putative Congressional candicacy.) Columnist Errol Louis, without attempting to assess the public costs of the project, attacks opponents of Atlantic Yards [for having] demonstrated that they couldn’t care less about black businesses or black economic empowerment in Brooklyn or anywhere else.

Others may look at the broader public interest and, like City Council Member Letitia James, declare themselves "unbought and unbossed", quoting the late Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman elected to Congress. Similar calculations likely have been made by the Revs. Herbert Daughtry and Al Sharpton, who support the project, while a larger group led by local clergy, the Downtown Brooklyn Leadership Coalition, opposes the project. Note that Daughtry asserted to the Brooklyn Papers that the DBLC rejected a "good faith" effort by Ratner.

Playwright Suzan-Lori Parks interviewed Wilson in the November 2005 edition of American Theatre magazine. Parks asked Wilson about a metaphor in the play, concerning an old house that would have to be demolished for the project, that also speaks to his playwriting.

Parks: I wonder about the architecture, the renovation in the Hill District in Radio Golf, and the structure of the play. Were they ever at odds? Like, you've got the architecture of the play which has certain demands—and then there's that moment about bread pudding. It's this beautiful digression. That's not part of the traditional structure of a play, kind of like the house on Wylie Avenue, the remnant of something old and powerful. But somehow you have found a place for it. Was the subject matter of Radio Golf ever at odds with what the play has to do?

Wilson: I hope not. I certainly don't think so. For me it had to have a certain smoothness, a different kind of language, like that of my characters Harmond and Roosevelt—but at the same time, we're talking about a 100-year history. So the bread pudding is simply representative of some of those houses that are still standing—the old way, the parts of the community that we're giving up. Miss Harriet, the fried chicken—these are all the things that were part of this Pittsburgh community that are being changed because of this slickness with the new building and Barnes & Noble and Whole Foods and Starbucks, simply to entice middle-class people to move back to the Hill, which is only a four-minute walk from downtown. That's prime real estate, and now what you've got is this slum sitting here. Now if we can get black and white people to move back into this area, we will have reclaimed this prime real estate for a better use. But the bread pudding is saying, "Wait a minute, there's a history here and it doesn't fit in with you guys' stuff." The bread pudding is not part of the traditional structure of the play, but it's part of the structure of this particular community backed up against change.

The New York Times didn't love the play (as produced in New Haven), but in a review published 4/30/05 suggested that it might evolve in future productions. The Los Angeles production got more praise, though Wilson, ill with cancer, probably couldn't tweak the play much. (He died on 10/2/05.)

For those visiting Seattle, it's playing there from January 19 to February 18 of 2006. It likely will come to New York. Even if it does play on Broadway, perhaps the Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM)--just around the corner from the proposed Atlantic Yards--could also host a production. (By the way, Bruce Ratner has been a BAM Trustee since 1989 and was the Chairman from 1992 until 2001.) It certainly would have both local and national resonance.

Errol Louis responds to "smear," but still fudges the issue

2006-01-05T14:30:00.000-05:00

In his latest column in the black-oriented Our Time Press, headlined Atlantic Yards and Black Business Development, Errol Louis attacks me for a "smear" in a recent posting. However, as noted below, he ignores the contradictions in his own writing.

Louis writes:
Oder complains that "the minority-owned engineering firm that will oversee air monitoring and safety requirements during asbestos abatement at several buildings is based in Staten Island, and the minority-owned plumbing company that will disconnect water and sewer lines to the buildings is based in Queens."...Oder is pretending to be concerned that the minority businesses getting in on Atlantic Yards happen not to be based in Brooklyn. In reality, opponents of Atlantic Yards have demonstrated that they couldn’t care less about black businesses or black economic empowerment in Brooklyn or anywhere else.
Last year, for instance, on the busiest shopping day of the year, a group of misguided ministers joined Councilwoman Tish James in an attempted one-day boycott of stores in Atlantic Terminal Mall, which is run by the same developer behind the Atlantic Yards Project. The boycott flopped, but if it had succeeded it might have harmed local residents: of the 1,688 employees who worked in the mall at the time, 81% lived within 5 miles of Atlantic Terminal and 48% within 2 miles.
The pro-boycott people didn’t mind putting other people’s jobs at risk. Today, in much the same way, opponents of Atlantic Yards like Oder seem perfectly willing to attack the idea of development dollars going to black and Latino firms in Queens, Manhattan and Philadelphia. We should all recognize this divide-and-conquer tactic for what it is.
Like most true advocates of black business empowerment, I would be overjoyed to see any minority- or women-owned businesses — from any borough or city — secure contracts and subcontracts as Atlantic Yards develops. Those who truly want to see more development dollars go to local companies should quit complaining, quit trying to hinder the project and put their favorite firms in touch with Forest City Ratner, the project developer.
But don’t expect the antidevelopment complainers to lift a finger to help.

Louis, however, contradicts himself. Here he says he'd "be overjoyed to see any minority- or women-owned businesses — from any borough or city — secure contracts and subcontracts." But in the previous column, he wrote, "At this stage of the game the question should be how and when the dollars will begin flowing into central Brooklyn."

And he seems unwilling to confront an important issue raised in my previous posting. I pointed out that the Community Benefits Agreement was signed by Brooklyn-based groups but seems to benefit many outside Brooklyn. The CBA process raises the question of how to define the “community”: the geographical area? minority groups? African-Americans? And who speaks for that community?

Maybe he needs to go see August Wilson's Radio Golf.

Also note that Louis's figure of 1,688 jobs--which comes from an 11/23/04 Daily News editorial that he likely wrote--seems contradicted by a news story in the 11/9/04 Daily News, in which company spokesman Joe DePlasco, said that the mall "has created a thousand jobs."

As to Louis's calling me "anti-development," let me say that taking a critical stance on the Atlantic Yards project doesn't mean I'm against development; rather, it means that I'm pro-transparency and pro-democracy. Long before I got involved in studying this project (July 2005), I wrote a letter that the Brooklyn Papers published in its 6/19/04 issue (p. 4), which noted: Many of us may welcome a project such as Atlantic Yards, but not on the terms Forest City Ratner has at this point presented.

Toward transparency: where's the Atlantic Yards web site and the latest Brooklyn Standard?

2006-01-03T11:10:00.000-05:00

"Here we are opening ourselves up - tremendous transparency, for two years," Forest City Ratner VP Jim Stuckey told the New York Times in an article published 11/6/05. Then again, the company hasn't been willing to appear at forums where it would face significant criticism.

But there are more basic questions of transparency: when will the company update its Atlantic Yards web site and also post the latest edition of its Brooklyn Standard p.r. sheet? The former has been down for two months. The June/July issue of the Brooklyn Standard is available, but not the Fall issue. (Short answer: I don't know, since a Forest City Ratner PR representative did not respond to my query.)

The web site, at Bball.net, launched in December 2003, is headlined Bring Basketball to Brooklyn, though the Atlantic Yards project is about much more than an arena.It was due for an update. Until an "under construction" notice appeared about two months ago, in early November, the site continued to maintain the December 2003 press releases that promised 10,000 jobs and 4,500 housing units, numbers that have changed dramatically. (For the original web site, go to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. Start with the Dec. 17, 2003 iteration, but note that many but not all attached documents are available.)

It also contained architectural sketches from Frank Gehry's office, including this:

They remained on the web site but were made obsolete last July after designs were released to the New York Times (addenda courtesy of Naparstek.com):

New designs are in the works--maybe we'll see them when the web site is revived--as Gehry recently said, "[W]e’ve taken chunks of it away, actually, to bring it down into scale, to integrate it with whatever the existing fabric is there and then finding a way, in brick and metal and glass, maybe precast, a language that can work in that area that’ll feel like a very special place."

As for the Brooklyn Standard, it was launched in mid-June, according to a Forest City Ratner press release, "to keep borough informed about Atlantic Yards project." But again, the project has changed dramatically since June, and the second issue, released in October, contained updated (though, as I noted, incomplete and misleading) information about the project.

But where's the web version of that second issue? Here's a glimpse:
It's not technically difficult to put the issue up on the web. Is it that Forest City Ratner and publisher Manhattan Media are unwilling to post a version with the corrections requested by a contributor whose name was attached to stories he didn't write? It's a lingering question.

Two errors in one sentence: the Times cites "rezoning ... at the Atlantic Yards"

2006-01-02T08:55:00.000-05:00

It was just part of one sentence in a long news analysis about Mayor Bloomberg's second term, but a New York Times article today contained two errors regarding the Atlantic Yards plan. The 1/2/06 article, headlined A Mayor With Lofty Goals, and Better Than Average Odds of Reaching Them, stated: the fruits of his huge rezoning initiatives along the Brooklyn waterfront and at the Atlantic Yards will not all be realized within four years.

First, there's been no rezoning regarding the Atlantic Yards project and, if the state Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) approves the project, the state would be overriding existing city zoning and allowing the developer to build much higher than previously permitted. As noted in Slam Dunk or Airball? A Preliminary Planning Analysis of the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Project, a March 2005 by the Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development (PICCED), the project would avoid city land use rules. The PICCED study (p. 17) describes three sites, from west to east, that would make up the Atlantic Yards project:
The area above the railyards (Site 2), and much of the adjacent land in Prospect Heights is zoned M1-1 (manufacturing). The exceptions lie on lots fronting on Flatbush Avenue and Vanderbilt Avenue. At the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenue, on Site 1, the corner lots are zoned for commercial development (C6-1). Site 1 also contains a few lots along Flatbush Avenue that are zoned R7-A, for residential use. Residential uses are also permitted along Vanderbilt Avenue, in Site 3, where lots are currently zoned R7-A (see Map 3). Arenas are a special permit use for manufacturing districts, and would require a City Planning Commission review, if built subject to the current zoning (rather than through the authority of the Empire State Development Corporation).

Urban affairs expert Tom Angotti has described the planning process as "all backwards." The three affected community boards have asked, unsuccessfully, that the project be considered under the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP. As the Brooklyn Papers reported in an 3/27/04 article headlined Ratner tower won’t play by city rules:
If the Ratner plan does, as expected, get sponsored by the Empire State Development Corp., it would be held up to much less stringent public review than under the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. Rather than have its merits debated in at least four public hearings, a state review would only require Ratner’s plan to be publicly scrutinized at an environmental impact hearing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

Second, the phrase "at the Atlantic Yards" suggests that it is the name of the railyard that is the single largest piece of Forest City Ratner's planned development--or perhaps the name of some already-existing development parcel. Not so. The proposed development is called "Atlantic Yards," which implies that the 22-acre project would be built solely on the 8.3-acre MTA railyard, without the messy need to turn city streets into controversial superblocks, buy out property owners (as in the Dean Street buildings at right, courtesy of Forgotten NY), and exercise eminent domain. The MTA calls the railyard the Vanderbilt Yard.

Version of this error--"at Atlantic Yards," "in Atlantic Yards," etc.--have appeared in reports from several different newspapers. But it's sloppy shorthand. The press would better describe it as "at the proposed Atlantic Yards" or "the Atlantic Yards project" or "the Brooklyn railyard that would be part of Atlantic Yards" or "the MTA's Brooklyn railyard," etc.

Also, note that the paragraph containing that long sentence is a bit confusing. While it states that "many of [Bloomberg's] goals may not be realized for a decade or more," it also states that "the fruits... at the Atlantic Yards will not all be realized within four years." The latter phrasing could be read to suggest that most in fact would be realized. Given that the project has not yet been approved, and may be subject to litigation that would delay the process, the 2009 opening date for the arena and adjacent towers remains in question. Also, given that the project would be constructed in stages, with a large portion of it finished only by 2016 (according to the current schedule), a majority of the "fruits" may not have appeared by the end of Bloomberg's term.

The far west edge of the proposed Atlantic Yards site was rezoned as part of the Downtown Brooklyn development plan, and then taken out of the Downtown Brooklyn plan since that plan went through the city's Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP). As the Brooklyn Papers reported, in a 5/1/04 story headlined Downtown Plan overhaul: Other changes announced by the planning commission Monday included cutting out a portion of the plan area that overlaps with developer Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards development, a triangular lot at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic avenues where Ratner would build the tallest of his Frank Gehry-designed towers, a 620-foot-tall skyscraper that would be the tallest building in the borough.

"Struggling" Gehry on "out of scale" project: "If it turns out great, that's what's right"

2005-12-31T14:26:00.000-05:00

Internationally acclaimed architect Frank Gehry told an audience at Columbia University two months ago that the Atlantic Yards project, which he called "out of scale with the existing area," is such a struggle that he sometimes wants to "jump off the Brooklyn Bridge." A guest on the 10/31/05 "Citizen: The Campus Talk Show," Gehry also revealed that developer Forest City Ratner has in fact agreed to his requests to scale down the project--something FCR has not publicly disclosed, and something unclear in the Columbia News Service report on the talk--though he didn't describe the amount of the reduction, which is a contentious issue.

Gehry acknowledged that Forest City Ratner's history is that "they haven't" been "interested in doing something special," but now "they have been very fastidious in supporting the things that I think are important." He acknowledged that the scale was driven by the developer, but said, "the developers have been very accepting of my pushback. And so we’ve taken chunks of it away, actually, to bring it down into scale." Gehry also observed that he normally would've brought in five other architects to ensure that the complex "doesn’t look like a project," but the client said no.

Gehry, who described himself as "a do-gooder, liberal," said he was trying to design the project "within a very open dialogue with the people who are involved," but acknowledged that success on the project was subjective: "What’s right is, if it turns out great, that’s what’s right." Indeed, though Gehry comes off as an earnest, well-meaning fellow, it's apparently not his role to be worried about a planning process that urban affairs expert Tom Angotti calls "all backwards." Note that Gehry also characterized Ratner as a fellow "liberal, do-gooder" in the 7/25/05 New York Observer; others, like Cooper Union's Fred Siegel, have called Ratner "master of the subsidy."

Despite Gehry's expressions of anxiety, he professed relatively little dismay that about the "not very many" buildings that would be razed, "because that was a given to me."He said that "when we started, there were a few buildings that were going to be kept, and we worked around them, and that felt better to me, to be able to do that, but they disappeared." It's unclear what he meant by that--did they disappear from the preservation effort (probably) or disappear because they were torn down? The project was in fact designed around the recently converted Newswalk condo, while two other buildings--the former Spalding factory (right, thanks to Forgotten NY) and the Atlantic Arts building--are slated to fall.

Gehry described the section of Prospect Heights--a name he didn't use--at issue as "a neighborhood that’s not very well-defined," which is not inaccurate, given that Pacific Street has a industrial buildings converted to condos, empty buildings, and a homeless shelter, while Dean Street (below, thanks to Forgotten NY) has both row houses and industrial buildings (and another homeless shelter). But Gehry characterized critics with a broad brush: "[T]here is a constituency of people that live there who fantasize this Brooklyn as brownstones and Court Street and Carroll Gardens and all that, which isn’t on this site." Well, for one thing, there are row houses in the proposed project footprint, so his "new neighborhood" would hardly be placed on a tabula rasa. Also, the community-developed Unity Plan for the Vanderbilt Yard envisions high-rise buildings, though not 40-60 stories, like some at Atlantic Yards. Why would Gehry mention Carroll Gardens and its major thoroughfare, Court Street, when project critics are far more likely to come from Prospect Heights and adjacent rowhouse neighborhoods like Fort Greene and Park Slope? Maybe because his daughter lives there.

The hour-long show covered a number of issues, and included slides shown to the audience of various projects. Notable is that Gehry himself brought up Atlantic Yards rather than follow the lead of host Kelvin Sealey. The issue was obviously fresh in his mind.

Early in the show (approximately 3:30) Sealey asked his guest about his early professional roots.

FG: I worked in a lot of offices in Europe and in L.A., and was interested in city planning. I’m a do-gooder, liberal, and I still am. I’m not a Bushie. I’m respectful, but… barely.

KS: Can we go to your design education?

FG: Architecture, as I developed as an architect, I considered a service. We were meeting with clients--you’re hired to do a project and you bring the best you can do the table and deliver the best that you can do.

A bit later in the show (at about 15:00), Sealey asked about the Gehry Residence, the architect's renovation of his Santa Monica home.

FG: This is a middle class neighborhood, and I think of myself as a member of that class, so to speak. And I was trying to find my identity in that neighborhood. I think it is pushy in the neighborhood, there was a backlash….Now it’s settled down and it’s probably worth more than any house on the block, and you can sell popcorn there on the weekends, students come around after all these years, so I guess something’s going on.

KS: Something’s going on. I want to go to one more slide before going to the film.

Here's where Gehry kept going.

FG: But it does bring up the issue, which I’m struggling with now in Brooklyn, a lot. We’re about to build, probably, an arena for the Nets, and a lot of housing. And everything we’re building is out of scale with the existing area. And the struggle is: It’s a neighborhood that’s not very well-defined, but there is a constituency of people that live there who fantasize this Brooklyn as brownstones and Court Street and Carroll Gardens and all that, which isn’t on this site. But in their mind, Brooklyn should continue to be like that. But this part of Brooklyn isn’t going to be like that. And so this developer’s is interested in doing something special. Their history is, they haven’t, but now they want to. I took them at their word, and they have been very fastidious in supporting the things that I think are important.

The struggle is, you end up with sort of a pseudo-19th century scheme—how do you take that into the 21st century, what makes it different, how do you make a complex that doesn’t look like a project even though one architect’s doing it? Normally I would’ve brought in five other architects, but one of the requirements of this client is that I do it. And so, how do you make buildings that fit, how do you make a new skyline, how do you develop a scale at the ground level, how do you create the opportunities, how do you fit an arena that at night brings a lot of people in, and is bright and sparky and a party, and the during the day what does that mean.

Those are all the issues, and they’re similar to the issues of my house, just at a bigger scale. I have a sense of responsibility to deliver something that’s a good neighbor. So I’m caught in this thing. And it’s a wonderful, scary place to be, I tell you. I have sleepless nights about it. I some days look at the project and think I can’t do it, I can’t, I go back and forth. I’m very insecure about it. I’ve brought all kinds of people in to criticize it, beat me up, do whatever, because I want to get it right. But it is that kind of issue.

KS: You bring up a number of issues… one in particularly concerns unbuilding. Some portion of the land that your structures will go on currently have buildings, is that correct?

FG: Not very many.

KS: Not very many. But to the extent of whatever is there, be they rail yards or a few brownstones or whatever is there, there’s a certain amount of unbuilding. I’m wondering if, when you think of your designs, you think about an unbuilding process?

FG: No, because that was a given to me, I had nothing to say or do about that about that process, it was given to me. I suppose some of the buildings--when we started, there were a few buildings that were going to be kept, and we worked around them, and that felt better to me, to be able to do that, but they disappeared.

During the Q&A session near the end of the show (at about 48:00), the subject returned to Brooklyn, and Gehry's second sentence, about "who's right," was a lot less clear than his conclusion.

Q: You mentioned in talking about your project in Brooklyn that you wanted to get it right. I wonder if you could tell us what you think it would mean to get it right in Brooklyn?

FG: God…Solomon, where are you now? [Solomon was the slide operator for the event] Getting it right is ephemeral, of course, because it’s who’s right is right. But I’m looking for something, I’m looking for something that makes a new neighborhood in a historic town that nee—that deserves something special for it. Because this is a big, an extraordinarily important project, and it’s all on my head, as they say. And a lot of responsibility, and a lot of anxiety, I must say, about it. There are days when I want to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, but--because a lot of people are watching.

And the scale of the project is bigger than anything around it. And that’s the driving—it has to be in order to be accomplished. I’ve been pushing back. The developers have been very accepting of my pushback. And so we’ve taken chunks of it away, actually, to bring it down into scale, to integrate it with whatever the existing fabric is there and then finding a way, in brick and metal and glass, maybe precast, a language that can work in that area that’ll feel like a very special place and since there’s so many buildings, the thought of finding a hierarchy was important to me, that there would be certain iconic pieces and a lot of background buildings, so there’s a lot of very just simple buildings, blocky. I look at it sometimes and I say, well, that looks like a lot of stuff that’s already there. And then I wonder, am I being too polite? So there’s an anxiety about that.

In the end, I have to be responsible for it and stand up and say, I believe this is the way we should do it. And it’s that kind of back-and-forth struggle with the people that are working on it with me and the client. It’s all out on the table. We talk about it, like I’m just talking about it. I’m not trying to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes. I’m trying to do it within a very open dialogue with the people who are involved. What’s right is, if it turns out great, that’s what’s right.

A five-week wait, a Times exclusive, and an unwelcome engineer: the strategy behind Forest City Ratner's demolition plans

2005-12-30T16:05:00.000-05:00

Remember this date: 11/7/05. It's key to the story of Forest City Ratner's plan to demolish six buildings in the footprint of the proposed Atlantic Yards complex. It's the date of the engineer's report to FCR that declared the buildings "an immediate threat to the preservation of life, health, and property." (The report describes sagging floors and water damage that threaten the integrity of the buildings, notwithstanding any apparent sturdiness from an outside view. Photos of the damaged interiors are contained in the report.) That means that Forest City Ratner, which announced its plan to the New York Times five weeks later, on 12/15/05 for coverage the next day, wasn't in the hugest hurry--though now the developer has nixed an independent review because it would "slow down the process."

Note that the report linked above was not initially released by Forest City Ratner when the story broke, but was provided only after requests by local elected officials and Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn. Photos below of the garage buildings at 620 and 622 Pacific Street were taken 12/18/05--it's not clear when or why windows were left open. Oddly, the Forest City Ratner press release said that 622 Pacific Street, the single-story building, was among "the six buildings which have been determined by LZA Technology to be unsafe." However, the report linked above doesn't mention 622 Pacific.

"The question is, God forbid that a building collapses, God forbid that a falling brick hits someone in the head, or that there's a fire," FCR's Bruce Bender told the Times. But if people were in imminent danger, why didn't the developer make an announcement immediately after the Nov. 7 report, or put more signs on the buildings? No press outlet has raised this question, but the timing of Forest City Ratner's announcement seems to have been tied less to the receipt of the report than the plans for asbestos abatement that were to begin a few days later. [Addendum 2/20/06: papers filed in the legal case show that Forest City Ratner's delayed its announcement only until the Empire State Development Corporation approved the demolition plans.]
Well, Forest City Ratner might say it had to get its asbestos abatement and demolition plans in place, including the identification of minority contractors, though apparently it has not yet applied for all the necessary permits. But the timing of the company's announcement deserves a closer look. FCR apparently gave the New York Times an exclusive, as it has done in the past, such as the 7/5/05 front-page article (Instant Skyline Added to Brooklyn Arena Plan) that introduced Frank Gehry's revised architectural sketches.

Why give the Times an exclusive? (A Forest City Ratner press release was dated 12/16/05, the date the Times story appeared.) Perhaps because the Times's audience, including policymakers, is the key audience as the Atlantic Yards plan makes its way through review by the Empire State Development Corporation. Perhaps because the Times has more space than the tabloids. Perhaps because a general public announcement might have led to more coverage, especially in the Brooklyn Papers, as noted below. Perhaps because the Times, while certainly providing more thorough coverage in recent months, has nonetheless given Forest City Ratner the benefit of the doubt in two long articles, on changes in the plan and the developer's community strategy.

Also, by announcing its decision to the Times on a Thursday (for Friday coverage), and by announcing it to the press at large a day later, Forest City Ratner could be sure that the story would not be covered immediately by the often-critical Brooklyn Paper weekly chain, which appears on Fridays (but has a Saturday publication date). [Addendum 2/20/06: The timing is more likely linked simply to the 12/15/05 decision by the Empire State Development Corporation.] And a Friday announcement would meet the deadline of the generally less-critical Courier-Life weekly chain, which appears on Saturdays (but has a Monday publication date). Indeed, the Courier-Life story included the Forest City Ratner press release, virtually verbatim, delivered just as the paper was going to press. (Note that the article is dated 12/16/05, which was apparently the day it was posted on the web, but the print issue is dated 12/19/05.)

The story continued to develop. On 12/19/05, a Daily News story headlined Plan to flatten 6 bldgs. ripped reported that City Council member Letitia James, along with fellow project critics state Senator Velmanette Montgomery and Representative Major Owens, would ask for a tour of the buildings with an independent engineer. (The building below, in two photos, is at 585 Dean Street--from the outside, it looks more stable than the Underberg building further below, though the engineer's report describes interior damage in both.) The Daily News reported a complicating fact not part of the Forest City Ratner press release or the Times story: the developer signed contracts regarding the buildings at issue from March to June 2004. (The Times described the properties as "newly acquired.") That leaves open the question of "developer's blight"--whether and how much the buildings deteriorated while under Forest City Ratner's control. The engineer's report cites water infiltration, the nature of the construction, and the age of the buildings. As Owens said in a press release issued on 12/22/05: "Ratner has owned many of these properties for over one year. Some of the damage sustained by these buildings took place after Ratner bought them. And we all know Ratner is trying to say this is a ‘blighted’ area so he can have the state seize properties for him using eminent domain. Simply put, the area is not 'blighted.' Real estate values in the footprint have risen at the same rate or faster than the rest of Brooklyn."

James also offered an unsupported quote to the Daily News: "I know these buildings, and some of them are as sound as the Empire State Building." But the bigger question is: would an outside engineer reach the same conclusions as the firm hired by Forest City Ratner?

We still don't know.

In a 12/22/05 article headlined RATNER 'RAZES' STAKES, the New York Post reported that James, Montgomery, and Owens decided not to tour the structures after the developer refused to allow the engineer to accompany them. After James's office issued a press release on 12/22/05, the Daily News, in a 12/23/05 article headlined Ratner nixes checks of Yards site bldgs., filled in the detail that Forest City Ratner had initially agreed to the request:
Originally, a Ratner executive approved a request from City Councilwoman Letitia James (WFP-Prospect Heights) to let her bring an independent engineer into the buildings on Dean St. and Atlantic Ave.
But in a reversal yesterday, another Ratner official barred the engineer - who had agreed to do the inspection for free - and said only elected officials could take the tour.
"It looks like they're trying to hide something," said James. "It looks like they're going forward with creating blight in the community."
James was more cautious in her comments: James conceded the Underberg Building [above, at 608-620 Atlantic Ave., photo from Forgotten NY] should be demolished, but said claims of decay at the Dean St. buildings are "questionable."

Architect Jonathan Cohn, in his Brooklyn Views blog, also raises questions about the buildings at 461 and 463 Dean Street, based on an outside view. (A photo from his 12/18/05 blog is at left.) James said of Forest City Ratner in a press release: "They told me that an independent review might 'slow down the process,'" said Council Member James. "I find this irresponsible, and overtly in contempt of the state environmental review process. We want to know what they are trying to hide by not letting us in. I have requested the Department of Buildings issue no permits until an analysis is done by someone not paid by Ratner."
Left unsaid is that the five week gap between the engineer's report and the Forest City Ratner announcement could have offered more time for such an independent review.

The press release apparently came too late for the article in the 12/24/05 Brooklyn Papers, headlined DEMOLITION MAN: Ratner preps Atlantic Yards site, which mentioned local officials' criticisms, but not the developer's denial of the request to have an engineer tour the buildings. The follow-up in the Courier-Life chain, headlined Ratner Itches to Level Buildings, did address the developer's denial of the request, but not the company's flip-flop. (The article is dated 12/23/05, but the issue is 12/26/05.) Rather, company spokesman Joe DePlasco criticized James for her "Empire State Building" comment, which suggested inconsistency on her part.

So what's next? According to the 12/31/05 edition of the Brooklyn Papers, in an article headlined James and Ratner: 2 heads ’a’ buttin’, James said she was asking the city to refuse to issue demolition permits, but Ratner’s spokesman Joe DePlasco said "the relevant agencies" have been convinced. DePlasco muddied the waters by saying that that James and the other critical elected officials "were invited to tour the structures with the licensed engineer who wrote the reports, but they said no." This seems like an example of DePlasco's "Changing the Subject" tactic, since the independent engineer could have come along and would not have delayed the process significantly. (The 11/7/05 LZA Technology report was based significantly on a field visit just a few days earlier, on 11/1/05.) As the Brooklyn Papers reported: DePlasco also pointed out that if the buildings were to collapse and injure someone, everyone would again be screaming for the head of Bruce Ratner.

Again, if the issue was public safety, why did that report wait five weeks?

"Unfamiliar territory": Times critic Ouroussoff on Gehry, Ratner, and the challenge in Brooklyn

2005-12-29T07:05:00.000-05:00

On the Charlie Rose show on PBS last night, the host interviewed New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff (below, photo from Charlie Rose web site) about a range of issues and, at one point, the talk turned to Brooklyn. The critic offered some cautionary words about the relationship between architects and developers, and wondered whether Bruce Ratner would give Gehry more autonomy.

Charlie Rose: Brooklyn. Frank Gehry has a chance to change a city, literally, of four million people, which is the fourth or fifth largest city in America. Will that happen? [Note: Brooklyn has about 2.5 million people.]

Nicolai Ouroussoff:This goes back to what we've been talking about. One of the things that's fascinating to me about Brooklyn, and all the projects that Frank and also Renzo Piano are doing for Bruce Ratner, because Piano's designing the New York Times Tower.

CR: On Times Square.

NO: On Times Square, yeah.

CR: 42nd is it, or where?

NO: 41st, across from Port Authority, on Eighth Avenue. You can see it, it's going up now.

But I think that one of the things that's happened, that's very important in the past few years, that all of a sudden, because of the cachet that architects can bring to projects, that you have a lot of developers that suddenly are interested in working with the kinds of architects they never would've touched four or five years ago. And the question then becomes: what are these architects allowed to do? Are they only there to be able to kind of decorate buildings, to make them more appealing to the public, or to raise their value basically and put more money in the pockets of their developers? Or are they actually there to rethink the way most of this work is done? And I think, if you look at Frank Gehry's project for example for Bruce Ratner in Brooklyn, where he's dealing with an arena and a lot of residential space. We all know that Frank Gehry can make very pretty forms. He has an incredible sense of scale, of massing, he'll make the buildings somehow relate to what's around them, he understands context.

[The original plan, announced in December 2003, albeit without a close-up of the arena and the buildings around it, which were the only ones fleshed out.]

The question is, for me, is he going to be able to deal with the things that traditionally developers might not let him play with. For example, the social organizations of the apartments inside. The relationship of the project to the context around it, in terms of the ground plan. I think Frank comes out of a tradition, in terms of urban planning, that in a lot of ways is very conservative. He's never built on this scale before. And I think he's now getting into a kind of unfamiliar territory, in terms of the scale he's working with. One of the things I think happens when you're working with developers is that, y'know, the kinds of architects they're used to working with--they come up with a scheme and what the developer does is, he takes a scheme, and then he builds it.

And a talented architect, all of the work happens between here and here. You start with an idea and then it's at that moment that you struggle with it, that you realize that you start turning it into something, then it takes on a life of its own, you have to kind of let it go where it's going to go. And the question is: can these architects operate that way in the context of a developer like Bruce Ratner, and to me that's really important, because if you're able to make that system work and change that system, then you start to really affect the world in a very important way.

Andersen on Gehry, Gehry on Brooklyn

In the 11/28/05 issue of New York magazine, in an article headlined Delirious New York, Kurt Andersen noted that the reason for hiring Gehry (right, photo from Columbia University web site) was in part political:
Ratner isn’t spending 15 percent extra on these new buildings simply because he wants to underwrite cool design. He understands that in Brooklyn, just as his quotas of apartments for poor people and construction jobs for women and minorities were ways of winning over key constituencies, hiring Gehry was politics by other means, sure to please the city’s BAM-loving chattering class. “The spirit of what you say,” Ratner agrees when I posit this theory, “is accurate.”

And Ratner acknowledged to Andersen the distinction Ouroussoff pointed out: "I have to blame myself [for the Atlantic Center mall]. I’ve been talking for ten years about trying to use ‘design architects’ instead of 'developer architects.'"

But would the buildings of Atlantic Yards project "somehow relate to what's around them," as Ourossoff suggested? Andersen suggested they might not, but it was worth it: The skewed, cartoony angles of the buildings, which range from 20 to 60 stories, would in one fell swoop create a second, sui generis Brooklyn skyline encompassing the familiar, phallic old Williamsburgh Bank Building. Note, however, that that July 2005 design below may be supplanted by a new one. [Addenda courtesy of Naparstek.com]

A couple of letter-writers to New York magazine, however, were more critical. Stuart Schrader wrote: Like Bruce Ratner’s previous developments in Brooklyn, the Atlantic Yards stadium complex is not going to seamlessly merge a new development with an existing and vital cityscape. It seems totally appropriate, then, that Bruce Ratner would choose an architect whose buildings are rootless, equally out of place wherever they are erected, always supplanting on-the-ground urban realities with whimsical promises of a future that never quite arrives.

And what does Gehry think? Speaking to an audience at Columbia University on October 31, he said he had succeeded in getting the developer to agree to scale back chunks of the project (note that I originally wrote, based on the Columbia News Service report below, that Gehry wanted the project scaled back but Ratner has not yet announced doing so); that Brooklynites expect only brownstone scale (not quite; the community-developed Unity Plan for the Vanderbilt Yard envisions high-rise buildings, though not 40-60 stories, like some at Atlantic Yards); and that he's "brought all kinds of people in" to help him get it right (that's admirable, but could some of those people be concerned locals?).

Columbia's news service reported:
While best known for his shimmering forms like the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, and the Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, the Toronto-born Gehry, now 76, views himself as an urban planner, whose buildings should enhance their surroundings. "I'm a do-gooder," he said. "I see architecture as a service."
But as people in Brooklyn expect the borough to be all "brownstones and tree-lined streets," Gehry's project has met with opposition from the community. "You can't do that with a project of this size," he said, adding that he had asked the developer, Bruce Ratner, to scale back the project several times.
Meanwhile, he hasn't convinced Ratner to do something else: bring in other architects to design parts of the project, to ensure a variety of styles. "He wanted to be able to deal with one person, so he refused," Gehry said.
Faced with the challenge of designing the entire project on his own, Gehry decided to develop a "design hierarchy," where several "iconic towers" will be surrounded by "background buildings."
But the dilemma, he said, is that the background buildings end up looking ordinary, like standard-issue housing projects. "Sometimes I think I should be less polite," he said -- implying that life would be easier if his buildings were all attention-getters.
"I'm very insecure about it," Gehry said of the Brooklyn project. "I've brought all kinds of people in to beat me up, because I want to get it right."

Atlantic Center mall vs. Atlantic Terminal mall: The Times can't tell (and why it matters)

2005-12-27T09:58:00.000-05:00

A roundup article on post-Christmas shopping on the front-page of the Business Day section of today's New York Times, The Day After Christmas, Shoppers Take a Holiday, doesn't otherwise mention Brooklyn, but the photo depicts a man with four shopping bags. The caption: "Keino Bennet leaving the Atlantic Center Mall in Brooklyn yesterday."

Except he's outside the brick-and-glass clad Atlantic Terminal mall next to the Atlantic Center mall and, at least in the picture in the print version, the cinderblock Site 5 of Atlantic Center is in the background, across Flatbush Avenue, with P.C. Richard and Modell's. (In the cropped, online version of the photo (right), there's no dispute: the only mall shown is the Atlantic Terminal. Note that in an earlier version of this post, I misidentified Site 5 as the Atlantic Center Mall. Both have similar coloring, quite distinct from the brick of Atlantic Terminal.)

Also, the man pictured is carrying at least two bags from Target, an anchor tenant of the Atlantic Terminal mall. Both malls are products of developer Forest City Ratner, but Atlantic Center (opened 1996) is much-reviled for disrespecting the urban fabric, while Atlantic Terminal (opened 2004) gets more mixed reviews.

As noted in Chapter 14 of my report, FCR head Bruce Ratner himself has criticized in Atlantic Center, telling the Times (Rethinking Atlantic Center With the Customer in Mind, 5/26/04): "Honestly, it isn’t beautiful. It’s not architecturally outstanding. It’s kept clean, and we do try and take care of it. It’s not as bad as a strip center in the burbs, I mean, but it’s not something that we would build again."
Others are harsher. Observed architectural historian and critic Francis Morrone in The New York Sun (ABROAD IN NEW YORK, 2/23/04): Atlantic Center Mall is the ugliest building in Brooklyn.

As for Atlantic Terminal mall, as noted in Chapter 10 of my report, a 5/22/05 Times Real Estate section article headlined The Underground Economy: Subway Retailing stated: The M.T.A. also worked with a private developer to turn Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn into an attractive mall with almost 400,000 square feet of retail space.

Now, Atlantic Terminal could not have been "turn[ed]... into an attractive mall" since it was built on empty land made vacant years ago after the historic Long Island Rail Road terminal was demolished. Atlantic Terminal more resembles the Manhattan Mall at Sixth Avenue and 33rd Street, which sits aboveground, with a subway concourse below. And The mall’s attractiveness is a matter of opinion. In a 4/25/05 New Yorker article, Rebecca Mead wrote (Mr. Brooklyn: Marty Markowitz—the man, the plan, the arena): The mall is an unlovely green-and-brown hulk bordering streets of brownstones, the shape of whose sloped roofs its own much taller roof grotesquely mimics.

The esthetic distinction between the two malls matters on another level as well, because the Atlantic Center mall may be torn down to build a new and higher-yielding development. It's not part of the Atlantic Yards plan, but it needs to be taken into consideration by urban planners. At the same time in February that city and state officials signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Atlantic Yards, they also signed an undisclosed MOU regarding two parcels of land. One parcel is Site 5 (now occupied by Modell's and P.C. Richard), to be replaced by a 430-foot tower as part of the Atlantic Yards project. The other is the Atlantic Center mall, which according to that second MOU--unveiled by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn in August--offers 1.586 million zoning square feet for a mixed-use development consisting of residential development, commercial office space, and retail space.

According to page 3 of the MOU, if the arena project does not occur, Forest City Ratner would develop up to "875,000 square feet of commercial office space and up to 711,000 square feet of residential space on the Atlantic Center site." If Atlantic Yards does go through, the developer would subtract "328,272 zoning square feet of office, retail, and/or residential space." That would mean 1.26 million square feet. Given that Atlantic Yards, currently slated to be 9.1 million square feet, has been criticized as too big by even supporters like Marty Markowitz, the proposed project at Atlantic Center should be factored into the public discussion.

[Correction: FCR all along has had the right to build at the Atlantic Center site; the MOU would transfer a portion of the development rights to Site 5.]

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, in its 10/28/05 response to the Empire State Development Corporation (a tenant at the Atlantic Center mall, by the way), commented that the upcoming Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding Atlantic Yards must take plans for Atlantic Center into account:
In March 2005, ESDC, the City and FCRC announced the Memorandum of Understanding dated February 18, 2005 governing this project and entitled “Brooklyn Arena/Mixed Use Development Project”. There was another Memorandum of Understanding dated that same day entitled “ATURA Development Project” which was not announced. That second MOU appears to contemplate the transfer of development rights from the Atlantic Center to Site 5 and further development of the Atlantic Center. While the project description for this project does include some development of Site 5, it does not include the planned expansion of Atlantic Center. The DEIS must accurately describe what is contemplated in the second MOU and include the development contemplated therein as part of the project or at the least the cumulative impacts of the further development of Atlantic Center with the current proposal.

The Times has yet to write about this. In fact, the only daily paper to write about the second MOU was the New York Sun, in an 8/18/05 article headlined PRIVATE MEMO GUARANTEES RATNER SPACE. In the article, Ratner spokesman Joe DePlasco said that plans for Site 5 were disclosed at a 5/26/05 public hearing and in some local newspapers--true--but he said nothing about previous disclosure of plans for Atlantic Center. The Sun reported: As for the memorandum, a spokeswoman for the Economic Development Corporation, Janel Patterson, said that although it was never distributed publicly, it "has been available to anyone that requested it."

Note: there was no particular reason for the Times to shoot a generic post-Christmas photo outside one of Ratner's Brooklyn malls. In fact, the Times did shoot a second picture at Macy's at Manhattan's Herald Square; that smaller photo accompanied the Contents box on the front page of the main section. I don't suspect there was any intention to burnish the image of Forest City Ratner. It was likely the most convenient shot logistically for the assigned photographer. But if Times staffers were reminded that the developer is partnering with the New York Times Company on the new Times Tower, they'd have a heightened awareness of Forest City Ratner properties--for example, that 5/22/05 story mentioned above that praised the Atlantic Terminal mall should have named the developer, but it didn't. And they might identify the malls correctly. Because it matters.