Competing Atlantic Yards Bid

Subject: its never too late to get off your arse!

its never too late to get off your arse!

;-)

come join, give an hour, give a dollar (or more), get involved however you are able and with whatever time and abilities you can offer.

what was supposedly a "done deal" looks a lot more like a "dumb deal"

www.dddb.net

Can a scaled-down development proposal really compete with FCR in competitive bidding for the Yards?

In my opinion the scaled down project is much more appropriate and much more in line with similar projects in other large cities. Two projects I learned about recently are the Mission Bay North Redevelopment project in San Francisco and the Midtown Miami redevlopment project in, well, Miami.

The MBRP in SF is quite similar to Atlantic Yards. It is a 25 acre parcel just a stone's throw from the new SF Giants ballpark. The area is currently industrial warehouse and what looks like (from the google satelite picture) a large railyard. Despite the similar sized acreage of the project it will consist of only 1,488 condominium units, 859 apartments and 71,000 sf of office space and 93,300 sf of retail.

The MTM project is twice the size of AY's (56 acres) yet consists of about the same number of buildings as Ratner wants to build (15 - including parking structures). The project will have 8 condominium towers with a total of 2,600 condos to be sold, 397 live/work apartments (not sure what that means), 1 mixed use building (office / apartment) of 120,000 sf, 1 office tower with 150,000 sf and about 700,000 sf of retail. The condo towers will be about 25-30 stories tall each. The retail buildings are going to be more in the nature of shopping centers, 2-3 storie each. Again, like the AY's this was an old rail yard which more recently has been used for light industrial. The project is bordered by low rise residential communities to the west (if I remember right).

Compare the scale of these projects to Ratners:
22 acres
1.9 Million sf of office
6,000 apartments / condos
227,000 sf of retail
850,000 sf arena.

If developers in these other cities can make a money in these other cities with smaller sale developments why can't Ratner or some other developer do it in the AY's.

The bottom line for me is that this project is just totally out of scale for the space, the neighborhood and all of Brooklyn. (Consider that almost all of Ratners buildings will be taller the the Williamsburg Savings Bank with at least one being twice as high.) Think about what the skyline will look like as you look out your window towrds Manhattan, walk down Vanderbilt, sit in Prospect Park or even driving down Eastern Parkway or the BQE. Buildings of this size will dominate. Annother aspect is the construction period (although true for any development there). A project this size does not go up overnight. Figure about 10 years of dump trucks, cement tructs, cranes, noise, dirt and dust, and general traffic mahem before it is even finished.

For some reason all of the politicians seem to think bigger is better, that Brooklyn should become another Manhattan (lets not forget Bloombergs big waterfront development also). But the reason I live here, and I think most people live here is precisely because its NOT Manhattan. Who needs it.

In terms of the arena, I don't like the idea simply because of the influx of people into the neighborhood but I'm actually much more oposed to the rest of the project than the arena. Remember, Ratner only bought the Nets and pushed for the arena so he could get the rest of his project pushed trough easier - sort of a lost leader - and quite a brilliant move. He's not likely to make any money from operating the Nets and he knows it. That's why he's already bringing on partners in the ownership of the Nets (well that and the fact that these famous partners will continue to push for the basketball aspect; again a brilliant marketing move) - but not bringing in any partners for the rest of the development where the real money is going to be made.

I agree that the AY's need to be developed. I like the idea of creating jobs and low income apartments (although nobody has yet explained to me exactly what "low income" apartments mean. i.e. low rent? or specifically for people at a certain % of the poverty level? people who work in retail in the project?...I just don't know). But what's needed is a sensible plan that takes into account the space and it's best use in conjunction with the surrounding area. I hope that this will at least be part of the discussion as everyone reviews the Extell plan.

Sorry for the long post but this is an important topic.

aha:

First: its not the DDDB plan
Second: the Extell plan starts at 31% "affordable (after ULURP that could go up)
Third: The Ratner plan is....30% "affordable"
Fourth: Extell has something like 1,300 luxury
Fifth: Ratner will have someting like 5,000 luxury
(an influx of that much luxury in about 4 square blocks is insane)

Extell builds over the yards (8.4 acres)
Ratner builds over the yards, streets, homes and businesses (about 13 acres)
Ratner will always have more units, becaue he is grabbing so much land.

But can 4 square blocks or so in brooklyn be asked to solve ny's longstanding housing problems, without destroying the fabric of our community? is it sensible? is it sensible to create a low quality of life for low income people? it it sensible to pour extraordinary amounts of housing subsidies into one project and for one developer who has NEVER built any housing let alone "affordable" housing?

What's not clear to me about Ratner's CBA how long is he comitted to having affordable housing? What's to stop him from moving low income units on to the market at some future date?

Subject: where?

Where can I see some info on the Extell plan? Anyone know? I'm not that good with these internets here, please help.

http://www.theslatinreport.com/top_story.jsp?StoryName=0708yards3.txt

NYC 07 08 05
YARD FIGHT
Peter Slatin

Leveraging community displeasure over the unruly scope of Forest City Ratner's $3.5 billion, 21-acre plan for the Atlantic Rail Yards in Brooklyn, Gary Barnett's Extell Development Co. submitted a rival, 11th-hour bid for the site to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Although Barnett's is proposing to build one-third of the housing that Forest City Ratner envisions, sources close to Extell claim that their bid price may exceed that of the more firmly entrenched opposing bid. No confirmation of that was available from the MTA, which, unlike its actions on the Hudson Rail Yards, declined to reveal the bids for this public land.

The competing proposals reflect starkly contrasting development philosophies and divergent approaches to the Brooklyn neighborhoods in question. Extell, which developed its plan over a few weeks in response to an inquiry from a community group, Develop Don‘t Destroy Brooklyn, proposes a complex of 11 buildings ranging from 4 to 28 stories – a height on par with the borough's signature Williamsburg Bank Building. Unlike the Forest City plan, Extell's development scope is restricted entirely to the Atlantic Yards site, and so does not impinge on existing property or require seizure of private land under eminent domain. "This is an opportunity to develop a gaping hole and solidify the Fort Greene and Prospect Heights neighborhoods," Barnett told The Slatin Report in an exclusive interview. The plan was designed by Cetra/Ruddy, a firm known as a residential production shop. Cetra/Ruddy is the architect of Barnett's Orion, a 60-story residential tower now under construction at 42nd Street. They have also designed one of two 30-story towers that Extell is planning to develop at Broadway and 100th Street, which have met resentment by some on the prickly Upper West Side.

Barnett calls the Vanderbilt Rail Yards "an attractive piece of real estate, in a good and geting better location." Extell is proposing between 2.5 and 3 million square feet of development, about 4 percent of which will be comprised of ground floor retail, with roughly 8 acres of park space, says Barnet.

"Our perspective is about doing a responsible real estate transaction," declares Barnett.

Explaining the more modest scope of Extell's nonetheless large-scale Brooklyn proposal, Barnett says, "We can only do what makes sense to us." He adds confidently that, because of longstanding partnerships with investors and banks, he expects to have no trouble getting financing should Extell emerge as the winning bidder. "The MTA put out an RFP, and we made a substantial proposal." He hopes that the decision will be reached on "an open, level playing field, with respect for community desires. If that's the case, we'll have a shot. Our proposal is good and viable and worlthwhile. It stands on its own,"

Ratner‘s plan, by contrast, offers plenty of sizzle – enough to have made it a flash point for those concerned about both its scale and its appetite for pieces of the surrounding neighborhoods. It is anchored by a proposed arena for the New Jersey Nets, and is being designed by international architecture darling Frank Gehry. Its 21-acre scope includes some 6,000 apartment units spread over 17 buildings ranging up to 60 stories in height, thrusting a dense urban mountain range into the low-scale Brooklyn cityscape. An additional 1.9 million square feet of commercial space may be reduced by nearly three-quarters in favor of a small hotel and another 1,300 residential units. The prospect of the arena tugs at many a Brooklyn heartstring still sagging from the departure nearly a half-century ago of the Dodgers, the borough's last major league sports franchise. It's the arena that has brought politicians such as Borough President Marty Markowitz into the Ratner fold.

Both developers say they the only public financing they are seeking are the as-of-right $200 million in state and city funding for the construction of the platform on which the project will rise. However, available subsidies and tax credits for affordable housing would likely push that total much higher.

Perhaps looking to prove their commitment to community-friendly design, the Extell project‘s proponents say they will undergo the city‘s rigorous, seven-month ULURP process, even though it's not required because the land in question is state-owned. For their part, Forest City is apparently eschewing ULURP. Either group will face environmental review, require zoning changes and approval from the state‘s Public Authorities Control Board, which recently quashed the Jets stadium bid.

Sources have told The Slatin Report that the scale of Ratner's project is being driven not by the requirements of the district nor by a compelling urban vision, but rather by the high price being paid for the sports franchise and the need to create additional revenue streams. indeed, the sources say that the project ballooned in size under pressure from Ratner‘s co-investors on the Nets, who are increasingly concerned that their investment pay off. Whether or not this is the case, it goes to the heart of the development tug-of-war over the rail yards. The Nets' $300 million pricetag provides serious incentive for Ratner to make his investors happy, but it also adds to the development burden as he seeks to have his sports-team buy pencil out as part of the real estate package. As the project has grown, community members have responded more urgently to the perceived threat of a new superblock. Meanwhile, Ratner has been engaged in hand-to-hand, house-to-house real estate combat as he has moved to acquire the properties he will need to move forward should he succeed in securing the rail yards.

The community has an odd choice: Ratner, who brought Class A office buildings to downtown Brooklyn with his Metrotech project, has made a strong career out of partnering with public agencies to get seemingly favored treatment in the sourcing of important public development rights. Although he has not historically been known as a patron of major architecture, he has stepped up to the plate on this project to deliver Gehry, who has in turn delivered his own master-planning extravaganza, a home run in terms of sheer hubris. Fans of the urban density that the plan offers must also grapple with an intervention that appears to have gallons of insensitivity to the existing fabric layered into it. Fans of great architecture must also be extremely wary of the changes that developers seeking great scale and building under investor pressure can wreak upon their own proposed progeny.

With Barnett and Extell, what you see is what you get: well-executed, entirely self-referential buildings that typically make no attempt to succor their neighborhood. In this case, however, Extell has gone out of its way to be a good – if unexciting – neighbor. Asked about design, Barnett defends his choice of architects, noting that the husband-wife team Cetra/Ruddy lives in Brooklyn. And while, perhaps alluding to the lush Gehry images presented by Forest City Ratner, he notes that "it's wonderful to have beautiful images," but adds that, "One has to take a realistic viewpoint of what we're going to build."

While there are parallels between this rail yard fight and the one that saw the proposed Jets stadium vanish in June, there are important differences. Unlike the Cablevision bid that responded to some community concerns on the West Side, Extell's bid is not motivated by a desire to stifle competition. On the other hand, it's not being driven by a white-knight syndrome to save endangered Brooklyn neighborhoods. But one parallel is worth highlighting: what has created the opportunity for Extell to acquire and develop a unique parcel of public land has been Ratner's apparent overreaching vision, an insistent belief in its absolute rightness and a connection to political power that feels like entitlement and brushes aside community. Extell relying on decent planning and sound financing rather than on good-buddy politics, is exploiting the knee-jerk community opposition to development plans that is a given in just about any New York neighborhood. Of his high-visibility high-rise projects on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Barnett says, "It's certainly not pleasant to be a target." In Brooklyn, however, he is the one taking aim.