Workshop on Public Realm, Retail, and Community Facilities Crowdsources Input, but Some Big Gaps
Would "signature open space" be "transformative," given boost in apartments? How long would it take? What about loading docks, parking issues, Site 5 retail (& LED lighting), and value of arena plaza?
On Nov. 18, the first workshop (of four) on the emerging Atlantic Yards project offered big news: developers Cirrus Workforce Housing and LCOR proposed to add new bulk and some 2,570 more apartments—leaving some 5,788 to build—while creating new open space and leaving the affordable housing commitments vague.
The workshop also steered attendees toward simple trade-offs: only larger towers, as proposed, would mean more affordable housing, the key element that won public support for the project nearly 20 years ago, during a heated community fight.
The failure by previous developer Greenland USA to deliver 876 of the promised 2,250 affordable housing units by a May 2025 deadline, and New York State’s unwillingness to enforce $1.75 million/month penalties for those missing apartments—instead negotiating $12 million from the new development team—has left lingering distrust.
Local input, market research, or both?
The workshop Dec. 8, on streetscape, the public realm, and retail and community facilities, offered less news and fewer dramatic images but welcomed broader input, perhaps a form of crowdsourcing market research.
A potential additional 1+ acre of green space, planned just east of Carlton Avenue, was described as a “signature open space” and “transformative amenity,” on top of the 8 acres already promised, of which 2.7 acres have been delivered.
The only hint of scale came in the image below, from hovercraft perspective looking northwest from the center of demapped Pacific Street toward the “signature open space,” aimed for the parcel previously designated B8, with the B7 tower in the background.
While open space flush to the curb improves on designs suggesting private courtyards, the failure to portray the thicket of towers planned—only the image above hinted at verticality—leaves the open space claims untested.
Yes, the way the buildings “meet the street” may be most important, but the scale increases the total number of people using the open space. Stay tuned for analysis of the impact of taller buildings on wind and shadows, which could diminish the value of the open space.
Moreover, that “transformative amenity” might take at least a decade—no timing was provided—and its initial value might be diminished by ongoing construction of towers directly to the east.1
Much discussion, some omissions
The event, after a presentation (again sans Q&A) from the developers, was diligently managed, at about 18 tables, by representatives of the consulting firm Karp Strategies and Empire State Development (ESD), the state authority that oversees/shepherds the project and evades any vote by local elected officials on project changes.
From one perspective, the effort was an earnest and well-resourced effort to tap public input. From another, it was a distraction from bigger issues like the developer’s desire for valuable public assistance, or a massive increase in apartments and population, placing new strain on the public realm.
The session did generate vigorous discussion, as the sticky notes in the image below suggest, about where to place retail or improve navigation on and around the 22-acre project site. But it offered no opportunity for the participants to hear from each other at the end and offer feedback.
(Here’s the presentation and here are the worksheets. See coverage by Hell Gate, Two Decades of Broken Promises at Atlantic Yards.)
The workshop, though, didn’t douse distrust.
Consider: as the photo above indicates, one lingering issue, highlighted on pages distributed by the housing and community development group Fifth Avenue Committee, part of the BrooklynSpeaks coalition, was: “Atlantic Yards housing must be permanently and deeply affordable.”
That’s in doubt, and was not part of the discussion. Still, it’s plausible that the developers and ESD might invoke that desire to request additional housing subsidies.
That would be beyond other public resources sought, such as additional buildable square footage (free land) and financial help (direct subsidies? tax breaks?) to construct the crucial platform over the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) Vanderbilt Yard, needed to support towers and provide open space.
Some people think the open space should be publicly controlled, overseen by the city Parks Department, rather than the nonprofit Pacific Park Conservancy, which is controlled by the building owners (and has no public presence). “Do you have an opinion on it?” I asked Cirrus Managing Partner Joseph McDonnell separately during the meeting.
“Useful feedback,” he responded. “We’re inheriting both a set of broken relationships and a broken development. We want to know what’s most and least important to people to try to move in one direction.”
Nor was there discussion—at least not from the podium, nor in the worksheet prompts—about some of the issues raised by BrooklynSpeaks before the meeting:
Restoration of promised indoor public gathering space
Completion of promised Times Plaza improvements, nearby
Enforcement of traffic and parking regulations (including NYPD and FDNY sidewalk parking) near Barclays Center
Creating a residential permit parking program
The crowd included some longtime Atlantic Yards advocates—and was the first arena visit for some (see below)—as well as longer-term neighbors and relative newcomers. A smaller number of union construction workers (allied with Cirrus) compared to the first workshop perhaps accounted for a lower level of overall enthusiasm.
The arena benefit
No one publicly discussed—though perhaps it came up at some tables—the enormous benefit to the Barclays Center operators by shifting the bulk from the B1 tower, once slated to loom over the arena, to Site 5, across Flatbush Avenue.
That would create a giant, two-tower project on a parcel long occupied by P.C. Richard and the now-closed Modell’s, which is temporarily the Brooklyn Basketball Training Center.
It also would make the arena plaza, now known as Ticketmaster Plaza, permanent, enabling arena crowds to gather, as well as advertising and promotion.
BrooklynSpeaks has suggested that, in exchange, the arena company should fund monitors for arena-related quality-of-life violations. I think they could be asked for much more.
Setting the stage
About 150 people—my rough estimate, including facilitators—gathered around tables in the practice court of the Barclays Center. ESD’s Joel Kolkmann (see videos at bottom) led off by providing a quick project history and outline of the remaining approved project scope.
“A lot has happened,” Kolkmann said, noting the arena, eight towers, and transit and infrastructure upgrades, “but we also want to acknowledge” frustration regarding what hasn’t been built. After all, the Vanderbilt Yard, dubiously deemed blighted as a justification for eminent domain, remains a two-block sunken barrier between neighborhoods.2
Cirrus’s McDonnell again cited the significant investment by predecessor Greenland, which installed foundations needed for the platform, allowing Cirrus, a “mission-driven developer,”3 to build faster and address the housing crisis.
Their development principles—more continuity of open space, union labor to build faster, housing for “various income levels”—seem admirable but vague.
That said, a promise of “abundant” green space seems overblown, given that the additional promised open space—created by eliminating B8 and narrowing towers—likely would be outpaced by the growth in apartments, from 6,430 to perhaps 9,000, and thus population, for a total of perhaps 19,260.
“We inherited an imperfect project from a very imperfect developer,” he cautioned, adding that they could try to make the most of it.
Note that they’re using the original name Atlantic Yards, not Pacific Park (the name applied by previous developer Greenland USA). I asked if they were committed to either name, or perhaps a third. “We’ve thought about it,” McDonnell told me. “It’s not the highest thing on our list of priorities.” Understandable.
Changes, not final
LCOR’s Anthony Tortora, after describing his company’s significant experience in complex urban projects and public-private partnerships, said they on Nov. 18 had unveiled a “feasible plan,” not a final one.
That may be because developers typically request more than they need, leaving room for perceived compromise in response to public pushback.
Tortora said they’d shift the design of towers B6 and B7 on the first railyard block, between Sixth and Carlton Avenues, narrowing their footprints to focus construction on terra firma, speeding the process. That also would expand the amount of open space, making a more continuous path.
They’d eliminate the B8 tower to deliver more open space, while re-allocating that density. (Unmentioned: they also seek 1.6 million additional square feet of bulk, which means, by my estimate, a 71% increase in bulk in towers B5 through B10.)
Getting to work
After a presentation by McDonnell on the evening’s main topics—more on that below—attendees were asked to fill out questionnaires and also place stickers on a project site map, below.
Along with the proposed five towers over the railyard, between Pacific Street and Atlantic Avenue, the developers propose a two-tower project at Site 5, catercorner to the arena and long home to the big-box stores P.C. Richard and the now-closed Modell’s.
Regarding the public realm, they were asked what areas they found challenging to navigate and what might improve things, like seating, greenery, and lighting.
Regarding “Community-Serving Retail and Facilities,” they were asked about current options and unmet needs, with a checklist for things like bakeries and cafes, department stores, restaurants, and local services, or arts center, day care, and social services.
Respondents were asked to qualify their answer: would this improve things for families, seniors, people with limited mobility, and residents at different income levels. (Yoga was not welcomed by some, as Hell Gate reported.)4
How much such responses would modify already percolating plans, or just shape them at the edges, remains to be seen. After all, the somewhat random group of attendees—a relative few with deep knowledge of the project—and survey respondents can’t be expected to collectively reach definitive conclusions.
What was missing
Some omissions, beyond the BrooklynSpeaks list, were clear. Why not, for example, mention the need for a dog run, given that the dog run on the site is already well-used and the noise has plagued some neighbors?
Why offer attendees the opportunity to comment on an “intergenerational community facility” without informing them that such a facility is promised in the 2009 Modified General Project Plan, a guiding state document, with space for publicly funded child care and youth and senior activities.
It also was promised in the much-hyped (and unenforceable) Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement signed by original developer Forest City Ratner. (The space was supposed to be provided at “reasonable rent.”) The counterpart was the Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance (DBNA), an outgrowth of the Rev. Herbert Daughtry’s House of the Lord Church.5
Principles and practicalities
The developers’s public realm principles, which partly duplicate their general principles, also sound admirable but vague: “abundant public green spaces,” a variety of uses, thoughtful programming, and a continuous and activated ground floor.
Still, they omitted some things.
If public art, widened sidewalks, and improved street lighting might enhance the streetscape around Site 5, well, what about the loading dock long planned for Pacific Street, across from low-rise housing? BrooklynSpeaks had advised: “Mitigating effects of the Site 5 tower on Pacific Street neighbors.”
(What about the loading docks for any of the buildings, as neighborhood activist Raul Rothblatt pointed out, noted below?)
What about the “dynamic LED signage” at Site 5 that ESD approved in an October 2021 Interim Lease with previous developer Greenland? (Presumably that lease would be updated, but why would the leaseholder give up such a revenue-producing activity?)
Interestingly enough, the Site 5 map shown to attendees omitted mention of retail, though that Interim Lease permits below-grade retail, not counting toward the building’s gross square footage.
A previous Site 5 planner once envisioned retail on the lines of the Time Warner Center, and a previous proposal estimated 188,000 square feet of retail, nearly half the size of a mall. (Proposed “rain gardens & bioswales” can only go so far.)6 Presumably an updated Site 5 map might show more.
The Site 5 Interim Lease also allows for a 550-room hotel, which also wasn’t discussed.
At the railyard sites
McDonnell, in his presentation on open space and the public realm, said they wanted to serve not just people living in the new buildings, but the broader community, hence the redesign of buildings, while providing some separation from busy Atlantic Avenue.
He showed images of the overall plan and their “signature open space,” saying they sought a wide path, with various forms of seating, some permanent, some movable.
The image above right suggests space for a relatively small community facility or retail space, aimed at pedestrians, while Atlantic Avenue would be “more appropriate for larger retail users.”
A central lawn could support yoga, a movie screening, or “people playing baseball.” (The latter seems unlikely, given liability issues.)
McDonnell suggested they were inspired by, among other spaces, Bryant Park, given its placement bounded by busy streets and large buildings, and Battery Park City, given the mix of residential and retail/community facility spaces integrated into the park.
I thought that was a bit of a stretch. After all, the large buildings bordering Bryant Park are separated by wide streets and Battery Park City has far more open space per capita.
Here are the source links (Bryant Park, Battery Park City) for the images above.
Entering the buildings
One slide suggested where the building lobbies might be—avoiding Atlantic Avenue for the most part—and locations for retail space and community facilities.
Some retail space would line Atlantic Avenue, while some would face the open space. One precedent, McDonnell suggested, was McCarren ParkHouse in Greenpoint, which is in a public park.
“The bottom two pictures [of the slide above] I think are very interesting, because they’re community facility spaces,” he said, that “look quite similar,” though they serve “two very different populations. One is an early childhood center and another a senior center. (Well, with Atlantic Yards, they’re supposed to be together.)
Both, noted McDonnell, “have abundant natural light.” That reflects their principles: “How do we get the most out of what we have? How do we make the space dynamic enough that it can serve all the different needs of the community?”
Shortly after that, he turned it over to the facilitators.
Missing perspectives
The presentation was heavy on views from above, showing the shape of project footprints but not the scale of the buildings.
As seen in the image above, the currently approved B7 tower would be 460 feet and contain 733,810 square feet, more than 90% as much as the current bulkiest building, the 511-foot B4 (18 Sixth Ave., aka Brooklyn Crossing), seen in the photo below.
As proposed, the building would be an estimated 680 feet, a 48% increase. With a potential 71% increase in bulk, as I projected, at the five railyard sites, the B7 tower could contain more than 1.2 million square feet. That seems unrealistic. Is the current Atlantic Yards proposal just a gambit for future negotiations?
More from FAC
Beyond the “permanently and deeply affordable” request, the Fifth Avenue Committee (FAC) pages distributed said:
Collect the $1.7M PER MONTH affordable housing damages
130% AMI = $4,000 1 BR [Income-targeted “affordable housing” at 130% of Area Median Income, as the developers envision their ceiling, this year could have a maximum rent of $3,948, though that that ceiling will rise.]
Public open space managed for the public
Get the cars off the sidewalks! [that’s a NYPD issue, and is up to the mayor]
No more illegal arena parking! [ditto]
Real affordability, real local accountability = new governance structure
Putting aside the housing and governance issues, which weren’t part of the workshop but surely will recur, I’d note that parking, sidewalks, and open space management were not part of the developers’ presentations, but surely were discussed at the tables.
“I think it’s off to a bumpy start,” Michelle de la Uz, executive director of FAC, told Jessy Edwards of Hell Gate. “I think it’s well-intentioned, but I think that people would like more opportunity to ask questions.”
I saw two elected officials taking part: Council Member Crystal Hudson and Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon.
More concerns
As shown in the screenshot below from Facebook, longtime Prospect Heights activist Raul Rothblatt said the developer “didn’t mention loading, parking or building access.”
I thought loading was the biggest omission. They actually did mention, albeit preliminarily, building access. No additional parking is planned at the railyard sites, while ESD in 2021 agreed to eliminate parking at Site 5.
That said, those visiting local retail might want to park, and there will be delivery vans.
Rothblatt noted that it was his first time at the arena. (With him were Patti Hagan, who started the Atlantic Yards resistance, and Gib Veconi and Danae Orotowski of the Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council.)
What next?
This was the second of four workshops before ESD and the developer negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), presumably regarding public resources like additional bulk, subsidies, and other financial assistance, as well as new contours of affordability. (Those weren’t on the table at the workshops.)
That MOU comes before the formal public process, including public hearings, to amend the project plan, which could take until 2028.
Coming in January is another workshop, to be held virtually, to cover issues that hadn’t previously come up or had gotten too little time. (There are a lot!) In February will be another workshop, discussing the preliminary Community Engagement Report, which will be released later in the month. The dates will be announced here.
The survey is open through January 16.
Video: Joel Kolkmann of Empire State Development
Video: Joseph McDonnell of Cirrus first presentation)
Video: Anthony Tortora of LCOR
By contrast, the Domino Sugar megaproject in Williamsburg was advantaged by its waterfront location, allowing developer Two Trees to build “Domino Park,” the project’s open space, before any towers, providing a needed neighborhood amenity.
The third block of the railyard, west of Sixth Avenue, was incorporated into the base of (the north half) of the Barclays Center, and offered a site for the B4 tower, 18 Sixth Ave.
Cirrus Workforce Housing, which includes support from various construction labor union pension funds and the Communication Workers of America, aims to build union to create “workforce housing” for moderate- and middle-income (but not necessarily low-income units below 80% of Area Median Income) households, and disclaims a need for the financial returns typical developers seek. That said, it’s also an affiliate of Cirrus Real Estate Partners, which seeks “investments that offer asymmetric risk-return profiles and significant downside protection.”
I listened in briefly at some tables, but didn’t want to insert myself in the discussion.
The DBNA still runs the Community Tickets Program, distributing free tickets to arena events to nonprofit groups, though it’s unclear to me how it works today. In past years, the DBNA distributed tickets at public meetings and via livestreams and even posts on social media, though there’s no evidence of that today.
The tip of Site 5 is occupied by the Pacific Bear’s Community Garden. It surely would be disrupted by construction at Site 5. Developer McDonnell told me he had met garden representatives. “We’re going to be working with these folks. Nobody is going to be moving Bear’s Garden. That’s not what we’re trying to do.” That’s admirable, and prudent, but it’s hard to imagine that construction of towers at Site 5 wouldn’t affect the garden.