A New Development Paradigm?

dope on the slope

For anyone who believes engaging local residents up front can't be a win-win for developers and community activist groups:

May I Build Something In Your Neighborhood

To most people's minds, real estate developers and neighborhood activists are the Mars and Venus of urban politics, meant never to talk civilly with one another, nevertheless get along. And no question, the history of building new things in old neighborhoods is filled with tales of broken promises, end-runs, threats and screaming matches. But some developers are reaching across that reservoir of mistrust these days. What they're finding is, if not open arms, at least a willingness to listen, talk and, in time, even work together.

The Wall Street Journal recently profiled such a developer, Rick Caruso of Los Angeles, who has learned to do what others couldn't, which is include neighborhood associations in designing his projects. Caruso is no bleeding heart; he's a bottom-line guy, and there's a limit to how much he far he can go with neighborhood demands. "The question," he told the Journal, "is how many (neighborhood) benefits a project can support before it no longer makes sense."

The interesting thing about Caruso's patient approach (he might spend years working with neighborhood groups to gain their support for a particularly tough project) is that the difficulty he faces can actually be an asset. That is, Caruso's company can sometimes buy the land at a bargain because other developers have tried and failed at build a shopping center or mixed-used development there, usually due to furious neighborhood opposition.
What kinds of things does Caruso offer to get the neighbors' blessing? In past projects, he has promised (and delivered) an upscale grocery store and an ice skating rink to win support. For one instance, the Journal said, he let residents pick out the trees he planted. In a project he's trying to get approved in Albany, Calif., a San Francisco suburb, he's promising a YMCA and a park.

Caruso's secret seems to be working with the neighbors in the early design stages and not walking through the door with renderings in hand. This approach works not only in California but in cities around the country. Recently, a developer wanted to build a 40-story downtown condo tower in St. Paul, Minn., where people are sensitive about high-rise buildings overwhelming the city. The company met with neighborhood groups more than a dozen times and ran through 24 different designs before coming up with one that satisfied the neighbors and make sense financially.

Result: The project sailed through the city approval system. Mayor Chris Coleman told the St. Paul Pioneer Press he was "floored" when a group of residents showed up at his office to express their support for the project and demand the government approve it. The condo development, he went on, "is the classic example of when the community is brought into the discussion from the beginning and feels that they are part of that, then great things can happen."

Footnote: Watch for more developers learning to talk with activists in years to come, as builders see that the way to make money is with infill housing, not developments on the edge of town. The potential rewards are huge — a University of California study recently identified 38,000 parcels of land in San Diego County alone that could used for infill housing — but the politics are perilous. As a developer in Chicago told the Journal, "(Activists) understand they can stop projects. You either participate (with them) or you die on the vine."

ana.log

This is great - thanks for sharing. An excellent example is being set here.

escap

Agreed. It does seem like smart business from the developer's standpoint, to say the least.

friendlypitbull

You assume the 'community' knows the right way to develop, in terms of long term economic viability, enviromental effects., diversity etc...
For example if you ask a suburban community what type of design they want, odds they vote for more sprawl even if their community is overrun with traffic and congestion(see Atlanta).

Once on the 'inside' people fight to protect what is good for them - not what is neccesary for the broader community, state, region or country.

While you have made some of the most coherent points regarding AY - this is another example of what I am referring - Brooklyn and NYC are growing (for the 1st time in a long while) - people need places to live and work; the most enviromentally and economically soundest place to build high density is next to mass transit - the most enviromentally and economically viable place to build mass entertainment venues is next to mass transit - yet the nearby residents want to restrict development to that which they believe is in their best interest - low density - not which may be in the best interest of the boro or city as a whole - high density.

No one is saying that communities shouldn't have any say but ultimatley that is what representative government is all about - you elect people, they represent you and those representatives must balance certain consituencies vs. others and vs "the right thing to do' (rarely followed but generally called statesmanship when excercised against popular opposition)

ana.log

I think that the point being made here is that neither side should have ultimate power over the decision but that both sides work together in a spirit of cooperation and community for the overall good of all involved. Crazy isn't it? Yet that's exactly how successful businesses, people - and yes, communities -- make progress.

dope on the slope

You assume the 'community' knows the right way to develop, in terms of long term economic viability, enviromental effects., diversity etc...

And you assume the developer does. I don't find FCR's track record particularly impressive. We are still subsidizing Metrotech.

I am a professional facilitator and I've seen groups with diverse interests, backgrounds and technical competencies come up with superior solutions to complex problems. I've also seen very talented groups fail - but usually that's because they don't have a clear process for working together. If you have clear ground rules and good communication, you can achieve great results and usually speed up implementation. This happens because there are fewer surprises and change management is always easier when the people who will have to live with the change have some role in the design of that change.

Brooklyn deserves better than FCR, and that's reason enough to oppose this proposal in it's current form IMO. I think he'll actually dampen the revitalization that's already occurring.

Don't you think there are architects, business people, economists and planners opposed to this project on pragmatic and not emotional grounds? There have been thousands of signatures collected from people who either oppose or at least seriously question this project.

While you have made some of the most coherent points regarding AY - this is another example of what I am referring - Brooklyn and NYC are growing (for the 1st time in a long while) - people need places to live and work; the most enviromentally and economically soundest place to build high density is next to mass transit - the most enviromentally and economically viable place to build mass entertainment venues is next to mass transit - yet the nearby residents want to restrict development to that which they believe is in their best interest - low density - not which may be in the best interest of the boro or city as a whole - high density.

First, it's absolutely wrong to paint all of the opponents of this project with a single brush. I am 100% in favor of high density development. So are many of my friends within the grassroots activist community.

As for building next to mass transit, I say bravo again. Unfortunately, there has been nor real planning for how to accommodate the additional cars or straphangers. Our tranportation infrastructure is at or beyond capacity. This is a serious issue and it's been brushed under the rug every time the question has been raised. Why is FCR talking about plans to build a huge surface parking lot to serve event attendees for the first several months the arena is in operation. That doesn't sound like someone who believes in mass transit. Why not be bold and force the use of mass transit by constraining the available parking?

Once on the 'inside' people fight to protect what is good for them - not what is neccesary for the broader community, state, region or country.

There is no one more "inside" than Bruce Ratner or Mayor Bloomberg. FCR isn't doing this project because it's good for the state or the region. They are doing it because they can turn a quick profit, no matter what happens 3 years down the road. If the whole thing turns out to be a fiasco - empty office space, dysfunctional retail, a dampening effect on the restaurants and boutiques in the immediate area, it will not matter to FCR. They will have already made their money.

I suggest that anyone who is undecided or lukewarm about this project ask themselves the following question:

• 
  What performance metrics do I expect this project to improve?
  What evidence is there that the project could improve those metrics?
  Why is FCR qualified to achieve those performance goals?
  How will FCR be held accountable for meeting them?

These questions, though still interesting, would be irrelevant if no public land, public streets, tax breaks, zoning variances or infrastructure subsidies were being granted to the developer. When you buy property on the free market, it's up to you to make the most of it. Private risk, private losses, private profit. But when you accept public assistance, there needs to be accountability. The formula of private profit, public risk benefits no one but the developer. That should be abundantly clear to anyone with any business sense. The use of eminent domain raises the accountability bar even higher.

I have to disclose my biases here. About 5 years ago, while on sabbatical from work I discovered that a major developer was planning to build a "shoppertainment" complex in the slowly revitalizing downtown area of Knoxville, Tennessee. When I first heard about it, I thought it was a great idea. I had rented a loft from an architecture professor and, while it was a cool place, there was very little in the way of retail or restaurants nearby. Sure, P.F. Chang's and Starbucks might have been a little cheesy, but I was eager to have something, anything nearby.

I found out later that some of the merchants who did have small shops or restuarants in the area would have to have their property taken using eminent domain. This was like a bucket of cold water. It just offended my sensibilities that the very people who had catalyzed renewed interest in the area were going to be pushed out of the way without being consulted. Along with some friends who were planners, architects, and city council members, we worked to organize the merchants and come up with an alternative plan. We even raised enough funds to hire a retail expert to give talks on what the downtown really needed. He also convincingly dismissed the developer's economic projections for the planned downtown mall as a complete fantasy.

After getting some traction with some more public officials, the merchantes held a charette style public input session. There were lots of different opinions, but after we sorted throught the comments, some key themes emerged. The merchants association then put together their own development proposal based on those themes. It was fortunate that there was an attorney, a graphic designer and two architects in the group. The plan was hand carried to the mayor and delivered to the local media outlets as an alternative, even thought there was no RFP.

Of course the developers were pissed. They thought they had it wrapped up through back channels. We had never been called so many name. We were also treated to the amusing spectacle of the head of the chamber of commerce almost tearfully whining "these developers are not demons" at one of the city council meetings. No one had ever called them demons to my knowledge, we simply published a full page ad in the local alternative newspaper explaining point by point why they were full of shit. As an added bonus, the publisher of the paper was an ardent supporter of the project and had no knowledge that we had purchased the add. Fun times.


Eventually, the developers lost their backroom deal, but the municipal development corporation (like our ESDC) that was to handle the deal kept it alive and issued an RFP. There were a few respondents, and finally a developer was chosen to create a retail space that was more in keeping with the results of the charette that the merchants held. The original developers were not among the respondents. Apparently they didn't like to play when the game wasn't rigged.

After implementation began, some of the merchants were still dissatisfied, but they made a tidy profit when they sold their businesses to other entrepreneurs. There were some convenants and restrictions, and owners who did not restore the historic structure to agreed to standards would have their property condemned. However, in the end, no eminent domain was used, and the retail that developed their is considered to be an economic and cultural success.

As a footnote, one of the big drivers for wanting to accelerate retail development downtown was the fact that a mammoth convention center that had just been completed about a year earlier and it had failed to live up to its hype. It was frequently empty and the mayor wanted a "big" project to generate sales tax revenue to service the convention center debt. The fact that the taxpayers had already been burned by that white element probably had a lot to do with their skepticism of the developer's shoppertainment complex. Talk about unintended consequences.

Given my profession and my past experience with megadevelopers, I am inclined to distrust FCR and believe with all of my heart that the opposition to Atlantic Yards is not a case of preserving the status quo or resisting change.

The biggest change management problem we face if we want integrated, intelligent, economically viable, and yes, high density development for Brooklyn is not the sentimentality of entrepreneurs and homeowners in brownstone Brooklyn. I don't think Brooklynites are afraid of change. The folks who need their hands held and heads patted are the "public servants" and the developers themselves. We need to drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century. It is possible for diverse constituencies to work together. The first requirement, however, is suspension of disbelief.

As for me, I'm still waiting for Bruce Ratner's call.

escap

Just one thing--Mayor Bloomberg wants to turn a quick profit?? Err, I don't have to spell out what's wrong with that statement, do I?

Also, I'd just like to know what you actually propose, other than community input, etc., which is a means, not an end. You say you welcome large scale, high density development near mass transit. But you're concerned about the effects of all that. So where does that leave you? Would you be in favor of a nearly identical plan developed by "trustworthy" developers that didn't use eminent domain?

friendlypitbull

Dope on the Slope wrote:
And you assume the developer does. I don't find FCR's track record particularly impressive. We are still subsidizing Metrotech.

On any reasonable metric - Metrotech is a huge success, we are not "still subsidizing it"- Ratner is receiving tax reductions that were negotiated almost 20 years ago (when Brooklyn was much different) and considering virtually every new condo in this boro receives tax breaks Ratner is hardly alone.

Dope on the Slope wrote:
Don't you think there are architects, business people, economists and planners opposed to this project on pragmatic and not emotional grounds? There have been thousands of signatures collected from people who either oppose or at least seriously question this project.

pragmatic - yes, but mostly their personal pragmatism, not based on a citywide and regional look at approriate development based on economics and enviromental concerns

Dope on the Slope wrote:
First, it's absolutely wrong to paint all of the opponents of this project with a single brush. I am 100% in favor of high density development. So are many of my friends within the grassroots activist community.

Please show me one opposition group advocating High density - DDDB - and other like minded groups want c6 zoning MAXIMUM which is medium density.

Dope on the Slope wrote:
As for building next to mass transit, I say bravo again. Unfortunately, there has been nor real planning for how to accommodate the additional cars or straphangers. Our tranportation infrastructure is at or beyond capacity. This is a serious issue and it's been brushed under the rug every time the question has been raised.

Lets assume for 1min that mass transit is overcapacity (its not); this is entirely irrelevant - since again if you put the housing somewhere else you are either going to tax the mass transit system the same (or worse) or your going to put more people into surface transport (which is overtaxed)

Dope on the Slope wrote:
Why is FCR talking about plans to build a huge surface parking lot to serve event attendees for the first several months the arena is in operation. That doesn't sound like someone who believes in mass transit. Why not be bold and force the use of mass transit by constraining the available parking?

I agree, and certainly worth fighting for but does not justify scrapping the whole plan b/c Developer intends to use not yet built land for parking.

Dope on the Slope wrote: If the whole thing turns out to be a fiasco - empty office space, dysfunctional retail, a dampening effect on the restaurants and boutiques in the immediate area, it will not matter to FCR. They will have already made their money.

No - Ratner will have to rent and sell the property in order to realize returns - a 'fiasco' will result in a substantial loss. As for negative effect on the area,please explain how "empty offices" and "dysfunctional retail" could possible have a dampining effect on nearby restaurants and boutiques any worse than fallow land
- (anticipating your response)Urban retail does not (and should not) rely on auto based consumers, therefore even if the whole area turns into gridlock, the pedestrian based consumer which all nearby buisnesses rely will be unaffected. Considering the success of retail in Manhattan, London and SF (all auto unfriendly places) it defies logic that traffic will destroy Brooklyn's retail - now if you have some other theory let me know...

As for the rest of your post your experience in Knoxville TN (population 177,000) may not be directly relevant to Brooklyn NY (population 2.5 million)

dope on the slope

escap wrote:

Just one thing--Mayor Bloomberg wants to turn a quick profit?? Err, I don't have to spell out what's wrong with that statement, do I?

Not at all, considering I never made that statement.

FCR isn't doing this project because it's good for the state or the region. They are doing it because they can turn a quick profit, no matter what happens 3 years down the road.

The "they" in that sentence refers to FCR. I admit it might be ambiguous, but I usually refer to a corporation as "they."

Of course Bloomberg doesn't need to turn a quick profit, and I didn't mean to imply that. But he is an insider. I know it's probably purely emotional and irrational on my part, but I get the sense he doesn't really give a shit about public input. In fact, I get the sense that you don't either. Fine. We can disagree on the value of that input. My entire professional career has been based on getting numerous, often opposed interests to come up with solutions to complex problems and implement them. Usually it's business problems, but I see no reason why a similar approach wouldn't work for large public projects.

Also, I'd just like to know what you actually propose, other than community input, etc., which is a means, not an end. You say you welcome large scale, high density development near mass transit. But you're concerned about the effects of all that. So where does that leave you? Would you be in favor of a nearly identical plan developed by "trustworthy" developers that didn't use eminent domain?

Building Miss Brooklyn is also a means, not an end. The real end is the not the buildings, it is what they could mean to Brooklyn.

But enough airy fairy philosophizing. I propose the following process for ALL public/private partnerships:

1) Determine in advance the process for determining the goals for the site, selecting developers, involving the public in the design process and monitoring achievement of results.

2) Work with the public to determine the goals for the site and how achievement of those goals will be measured. This is the actual "ends," not the buildings themselves. Do people want to create new living wage jobs? Do they want additional housing? Do they want new greenspace? New transportation infrastructure? All of the above?

3) Using the public input as a guide, issue an RFP to the development community. Give adequate time for responses and insure there is a level playing field.

4) Select the best developers. This selection process should involve both elected officials and previously identified subject matter experts.

5) Once selected, hold a pre-determined number of public input sessions or charrettes to inform the design. This is not design by committee. It is more like requirements gathering for IT systems design. The urban planners, architects, transportation experts and other professionals will still make the technical decisions.

6) Begin implementation, but conduct occasional public session as phases of the project are implemented to inform them of status and get input on smaller aspects of the project that are still amenable to change without disrupting the overall design or schedule. Someone should also be monitoring the developer's performance throughtout construction and beyond. Apply incentives or penalties as agreed to in the contract with the developer.

A critical success factor is managing the public's expectations on just how much influence their input will have at various stages. Typically, they have a lot more influence early on, when goals are being set.

If we used that process for AY, and the exact same project from the exact same cast of characters resulted, I would support it. That is, as long as there was no eminent domain OR those whose property would be condemned had certain relocation guarantees and a payment that was significantly higher than market rates.

Is that clear?





friendlypitbull wrote:

Please show me one opposition group advocating High density - DDDB - and other like minded groups want c6 zoning MAXIMUM which is medium density.

Why is medium density bad? Where is the data showing the ticking timebomb of inflowing residents in need of housing? The population is increasing, but is it exploding? I wasn't aware of that. What jobs are people taking? Why are they coming here?

I'm not trying to challenge your assertion that we need high density development, but I'm curious as to what the trends actually are. Can you point me to some data?

pragmatic - yes, but mostly their personal pragmatism, not based on a citywide and regional look at approriate development based on economics and enviromental concerns

Do you have any empirical evidence that FCR or anyone in city government has based this project on "a citywide and regional look at appropriate development based on economics and environmental concerns." Gimme a friggin' break.

Maybe there's a master development strategy that I'm not aware of. Please point me to it. I would love to read it. Maybe it would increase my confidence in the powers that be and I could quit blogging about this shit and attending public meetings.

Lets assume for 1min that mass transit is overcapacity (its not); this is entirely irrelevant - since again if you put the housing somewhere else you are either going to tax the mass transit system the same (or worse) or your going to put more people into surface transport (which is overtaxed)

Note that I never wrote that our "mass transit is overcapacity." I wrote "our tranportation infrastructure is at or beyond capacity." Still I did mention straphangers in thes same sentence as cars, so I guess I should clarify my concerns:

1) The surface transport is overtaxed. The AY project will add several cars to this overtaxed infrastructure. Traffic will be a huge issue IMO.

2) I am not an expert on the subway system, so I'll defer to your statement that there is no problem at the Atlantic Avenue stop. However, is there any data to show how adding additional riders in a neighborhood might affect the stop itself? Is it possible to have localized affects even though system wide things are hunky dory? I don't own a car, and the performance of the local subways is very important to me. Both my wife and I absolutely rely on it during the workweek and the weekend. Sometime it "feels" like there aren't enough trains, but what the hell do I know?

Urban retail does not (and should not) rely on auto based consumers, therefore even if the whole area turns into gridlock, the pedestrian based consumer which all nearby buisnesses rely will be unaffected. Considering the success of retail in Manhattan, London and SF (all auto unfriendly places) it defies logic that traffic will destroy Brooklyn's retail - now if you have some other theory let me know...

Wow. Lot's of assumptions in that statement. I'll agree that the New York City urban environment does not rely on auto based consumers, foot traffic is the life's blood of Smith Street, Fifth Avenue, Seventh Avenue and all of our other "high streets."

I'm not sure I agree with your statement that gridlock will not affect nearby businesses. I think that's largely determined by the culture and lifestyle preferences of the clientele. Do you really want to do your shopping with your stroller when the streets are packed with noisy vehicles belching smoke into the air? Do you want to dine outside at that quaint cafe on the corner? I think as a general priniciple, people can learn to live with anything if they have to - or they'll move. My theory would be that the mix of merchants on brownstone Brooklyn's streets would change, perhaps significantly, if there was a substantial increase in traffic.

I think you might get a lot of argument on your contention that Manhattan is automobile unfriendly from the alternative transportion pundits.

As for the rest of your post your experience in Knoxville TN (population 177,000) may not be directly relevant to Brooklyn NY (population 2.5 million)

Why not? Other than the fact that I'm an ignernt hillbilly?

How does having more people change the dynamic of developer, politician and public?

Or maybe I'm misreading the intent of your comment.

Are you opposed in principle to a process that has more public involvement than one or two hearings limited to discussion of the EIS?

If not, what would your ideal process look like?

If so, why?

Do you believe the choice is really between the current AY proposal and no development at all?

If so why? What are the variables that would prevent someone else from developing the area?

whyfi

Dope on the Slope wrote:

As for the rest of your post your experience in Knoxville TN (population 177,000) may not be directly relevant to Brooklyn NY (population 2.5 million)

Why not? Other than the fact that I'm an ignernt hillbilly?

Right?! Brings back fond memories of the "Who here is a transplant?" thread. :roll: What, does this person just think that you send the Sherrif of Mayberry down there to settle the issue? Whatever - separate topic and ignorance on their part.

friendlypitbull

Population Growth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/nyregion/19population.html?ex=1298005200&en=c586d38abbd16541&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City


note NYC census showed a 9.4% growth in population from 1990-2000

Housing Shortage

http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/pr/vacancy.shtml
http://www.rpa.org/mint/pepper/orderedlist/downloads/download.php?file=http://www.rpa.org/pdf/outofbalance_paper.pdf
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/rdr_01.htm

Office Space crunch

http://therealestate.observer.com/2006/04/commercial-rents-going-up.html
http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/news.cms?newsId=13131&bt=Satow


Finally my comment on your experiences in TN was not to dismiss you as a transplant, but rather to say that the demographics, mass transit, economic and histroical differences between Knoxville and Brooklyn may make the relevance of your prior experience limited.

dope on the slope

note NYC census showed a 9.4% growth in population from 1990-2000

Housing Shortage

Thanks. I will read them. Still, I'm not yet convinced that these growth figures invalidate any of the opposition's concerns about the Atlantic Yards project.

If the housing shortage is both critical and urgent, we need a high level, strategic response. If that's currently occurring, the city decision makers sure are good at keeping it secret.

Finally my comment on your experiences in TN was not to dismiss you as a transplant, but rather to say that the demographics, mass transit, economic and histroical differences between Knoxville and Brooklyn may make the relevance of your prior experience limited.

I am the finest cat herder in creation.

Seriously, I don't think any of the variables you mentioned have anything to do with whether my experience facilitating public input sessions is transferrable. I've dealt with groups of over 100 people from every continent (except Antarctica). I see no reason why a well planned and competently managed public input process couldn't work in Brooklyn. Or is there something in the water that just prevents people from collaborating?

The things in my background that might not be relevant are what the parameters are for developing a particular site. But I never claimed to be an architect or urban planner (is anybody on this forum one of those?) My point was far more basic and centered on the right process. Getting and using public input to guide planning and development decisions is difficult, but richly rewarding if it's done correctly. And... it get's easier the more you do it. If it becomes the norm, things will happen faster with fewer legal skirmishes and maybe even increased trust.

Sometimes the easy way isn't the best way.

As for trust, part of the reason I'm so wary of this project is the way it's been conducted. If it was such a great thing for Brooklyn, why hasn't FCR reached out to the people in and around the footprint? Why not engage the opposition constructively as you have? We've seen what results when our leaders are secretive and dismissive of critics or even skeptics.

I would like to be optimistic, but I think this project will fail if something doesn't change on FCR's side soon. What won't change is the focus and persistence of the opposition. I'm sure people change sides in both directions on this issue, but, for now at least, I think that its far more likely that a weak supporter might be converted to a skeptic than vice versa. That's just my opinion of course, but all you get from the official project supporters is casual dismissal of the critics and "jobs, housing, hoops!" The critics are many and varied. There's something for everyone to hate or at least question.

I suppose I'll see you at the public input session for the EIS when they finally schedule it. Supposedly they plan to begin construction this fall. That means the hearing must be soon.

I'll buy the first round of beer if you're game.

dope on the slope

I would like to be optimistic, but I think this project will fail if something doesn't change on FCR's side soon.

By "fail" I mean either it will get built and fall far short of expectations OR it won't get built, and our leaders will be unprepared to keep the development ball rolling for the site.

Maybe that's what reinforces the intransigence. The longer you wait to address public concerns, the more likely it is that any delay or rework will be a deal killer.