Dump this plan ASAP.
STOP IT with these give-aways already.
It's the 21st Century, for criminy sakes :mad:
Dump this plan ASAP.
STOP IT with these give-aways already.
It's the 21st Century, for criminy sakes :mad:
we're talking about my opinion right? re HY, i didn't regard that project the same as i regard AY. nonsensical. entirely different value propositions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
commercial component is not out. project has just been fragmented into phases in light of tight funding climate. arena first, then some resi, then ...
as an aside, i'm really enjoying this back and forth - very refreshing.
Value propositions are not the reason I gave for the similarities. Besides, the relative value is a wash. While HY has more potential for total return than AY, the cost is higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynLove
And to correct you, I didn't state that the two projects were similar, but how the two sites were regarded for development.
HY was thought of as a wasteland that would never be developed unless the "unique opportunity"presented by the Jets was acted upon. Same as AY.
MTA property was severely undervalued. Same for AY
The main component of HY revenue was a sports stadium, which studies have consistently shown is a poor choice for public investment. Same as AY.
I never said it was out. Go back to the original project that Ratner proposed and was accepted; it had much more office space. Ratner himself reduced the office space when the commercial market temporarily got soft.Quote:
commercial component is not out.
I neglected to clarify earlier that, while I believe that AY would be developed even if Ratner left the scene, your comparison-to- nothing rationale for public funding would still be invalid if Ay was not developed. The city has alternate venues for revenue generation.
Using your example of the greater upside at HY, the funds to Ratner could be used to insure that the #7 subway is funded to completion, maybe including the 2nd station.
On top of all the money being thrown at this arena, Ratner is now saying that there may be a shortfall, and more funding may be needed.
It's funny that when there's an economic downturn, municipal budgets get slashed, people do without services, but developers want to remain fully-funded and take minimal risk.
This puts all the risk on public funding of the arena. Rater will be de-facto owner of an arena he didn't pay for, with no pressure to complete the project. The state would be held hostage to give him whatever his "evaluation" decides is necessary, to justify the funding of the arena.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynLove
A political trap.
oy, while sitting at the kitchen table in my skivs this morn, i composed such a lovely response, which apparently was tragically lost in the vastness of the internets. :(
i will summarize - i can't speak for how others regarded HY, i can only speak for how i did, just as i can only speak for my opinion of AY. HY is entierly different value proposition than AY, in my opinion, due to HY's midtown manahattan location. as such, a developer for HY would need less incentives than one would for AY, and a developer for AY would need higher cash gen develpment than one would for HY. in other words the HY location yields more bang for buck. analogy - borrow money from a bank, and invest in 10% return stock or 20% return stock - in order to justify the 10 over the 20 you'll need contribution on the borrowing costs and/or the purchase price of the stock.
re use of ratner funds for 7 train - i view this scenario as unrealistic b/c too large an unknown to assume that an AY development deal would happen without similar % fund diversion than in the present deal (% = % of funds generated by development being abated/put back into the deal). huge initial infrastructural costs at AY necessitate large scale cash gen development to justify initial costs, and shallow return curve on massive investment requires large incentives. you can't escape this framework at AY.
of course plans for a project of this scale and nature will change over time - to expect otherwise would be unrealisitc. and of course a developer wants to have his/her cake and eat it too - this is capitalism.
i'm not trying to argue that ratner's plan/deal is flawless, but i don't think it so flawed that it shouldn't move forward. IMHO this development is a net positive for bk and nyc, and any realistic alternative deal here would raise insignificantly different concerns and objections.
Again, you're misinterpreting my HY example. The similarity is with [your] impression of the marketability of AY, not a direct comparison of revenue potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynLove
The HY Jets Stadium plan was "marketed" to the public as a wasteland that, unless the Jets offer was accepted, would never be developed. Under pressure, the MTA changed its position and called for open bidding. That's not my opinion; that's what happened.
The rest of your post is basically a disagreement with me over the potential of AY. So let's boil it down into what AY already has, and what it still needs to be attractive for development.
What I see:
Positives
1. LIRR
2. Subways - D, M, N, R, B, Q, 2, 3, 4, 5. A, C, and G close by.
4. Major thoroughfares - Flatbush, Atlantic, 4th Aves.
5. Short commute to Manhattan.
6. Fully developed neighborhoods surrounding the site, with a resident density second only to Manhattan.
7. Atlantic Terminal mall.
8. Brooklyn's landmark tower across the street.
9. Nearby cultural institutions - Brooklyn Museum, Central Library, BAM, Botanic Garden.
10. Prospect Park.
Negatives
1. No deck
So instead of throwing $1 billion (or $2 billion and climbing) at a developer who's having trouble getting one building going in higher-rate-of-return Manhattan, and in my opinion, has taken on more than he can handle - use the funds to finance the deck, and make the site attractive to development.
Then if Ratner wants to move his Nets into Brooklyn, he can build his arena, own it, and forgo the $1 a year rent.
My opinion has nothing to do with the urban qualities (or lack thereof) of the design.
Forest City Ratner has 6+ years to build the arena
The six-year arena timetable surfaced in December 2006
Atlantic Yards Report Blogspot
April 18, 2008
I can't believe I and others missed it, but the news that Forest City Ratner
has 6+ years to build the arena -- six years after the end of litigation
and delivery of the project site via eminent domain -- wasn't exactly new.
http://bp0.blogger.com/_mJPzxRaCL64/.../ishot-370.jpg
It was on page 28 of the Modified General Project Plan (Part 2), issued and
approved by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) on 12/8/06.
(Click to enlarge.) It was not, however, in the General Project Plan issued in
July 2006, which got a lot more scrutiny.
However, the other parts of the timetable -- that the developer has 12+ years
to build Phase 1 and an unspecified time to build Phase 2 -- were, indeed, first
revealed in the recently-surfaced AY State Funding Agreement.
Delays from the start
This much is clear: the ESDC, even while approving a plan "anticipated" to be
completed in ten years, allowed for six years -- including four years of delay
resulting from force majeure events or significant financing snags -- to build
the arena.
So former FCR executive Jim Stuckey's affidavit filed on 4/27/07 in the
environmental lawsuit, now on appeal, should be taken with a grain of salt.
The petitioners had challenged the project's ten-year timetable, saying the
state's environmental review lowballed the impacts of a much longer project.
Delays a "theory"?
Stuckey scoffed at the petitioners' argument, saying that they "primarily
base their theory" on a statement made by Forest City Enterprises CEO
Chuck Ratner, who told investment analysts the project would take 15 years
to build and assented to a statement that the arena would open in 2010.
Stuckey pointed out that Ratner two days later clarified his statement,
insisting that the 15-year timetable referred to the elapsed time between
project conception and project completion, and that the developer was
"committed" (a word with built-in flexibility) to opening the arena in time for
the 2009-10 basketball season.
I found Ratner's clarification not so credible. A year later, that timetable is
in tatters. Forest City Ratner must be thankful it negotiated some slack.
As the case challenging the environmental review is on appeal, it'll be
interesting to see if the ESDC is challenged on harmonizing its prediction of a
ten-year buildout for 17 buildings with the slack it granted the arena (and, by
implication, the rest of the project). It may be legal. But it certainly wasn't
very transparent.
you really think the city could pull off approval of a plan whereby decking over is funded w/o any immeidate or definite plans for further development post decking? effectively you're soliciting bids for infrastructural work only and rasing funding for that work with only theoretical justification of the development to follow. might sound nice on paper but aint gonna happen in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
Why do you think if the state funds the decking (which it's already doing anyway by giving the money to Ratner), developers won't be induced to bid? I listed what the site offers, and a solution for what it lacks. So what else is wrong with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynLove
My entire neighborhood was built that way.Quote:
effectively you're soliciting bids for infrastructural work only and rasing funding for that work with only theoretical justification of the development to follow.
And you haven't said one word about Ratner's arena deal.
you can't take the two in isolation - the funding for decking is wrapped into the agreed development to follow. where do you live - battery park city? totally different scenario. nothing really to say about the arena deal that we haven't already said regarding the deal as a whole.
Who said isolation? My question was simple:Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynLove
You seem to be avoiding stating what is wrong with the site other than a missing deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
How is it different?Quote:
where do you live - battery park city? totally different scenario.
i don't think that there could be funding for the decking w/o plans for the development wrapped in b/c you'd need both in order to get the political support needed to drive the funding for the decking. see, e.g., failed/stalled sunnyside yards efforts.
BPC - manhattan, immediate area with not so distant history of strong financial health, immediate surrounding area one of the most wealthiest commercial centers in the entire world.
It's a sad state of affairs to see this development languishing. My only worry is that it could have been further along without all the legal hurdles/lawsuit-related delays.
Interesting discussion here. I agree that arena-based developments rarely work as well as they're touted. But I really liked the plan here because of how it seemed Gehry figured out how to make an urban arena work. In other words, I wanted to see this built pretty much as advertised.
If this ends up in an arena and one or two buildings constructed within 10 years, I will be disappointed. It's been a while since I read about the financing deals with the city (and some of the posts have me confused about it) but Ratner should not get a free arena here. Period. He needs to live up to the plan and develop the entire yards, or see to it that others do if he can't.
There should be a new way of setting up these contracts that splits the risks and rewards equally between city and developer. I generally don't like to see the city get involved in development, but if it's providing financing, it deserves a chance to profit if the developer does well. Otherwise, it's a risk for the city too, and if things fall apart, it's the city's fault for getting involved.
It was the late 1970s...Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynLove
City lost 10% of its population during the decade.
It hovered near bankruptcy.
The crime rate and the sense that the city was out of control and ungovernable were at a peak for the century.
Hardy anyone lived in the financial district, and there was little desire to do so.
The biggest growth in population in the area was IPN - and it was Mitchell Lama.
BPC was not conceived as an upscale neighborhood. Its first and still biggest development was Gateway Plaza - also Mitchell Lama.
It was financed with a $200 million bond issue.
The differences you bring up between Manhattan and Brooklyn (specifically the two railyards) don't include the cost of the real estate. The two yards are roughly equal in size. The MTA sold the rights to HY for $1 billion; Ratner paid $100 million for the rights to AY.
-------------------------
As far as support for AY, that would not be too difficult. Ratner is poison, and now vulnerable. Any initiative that remove him from the picture would get political cover.
not really. area of BPC used to be a major center for commerce, and financial district was the undisputed center of big money biz in nyc. wtc injected fresh money into the scene. i never said anything about resi in that area. initial deal bpc proposals came from private sources - in fact, the city stepped in and took over the plans. total opposite from AY and HY. fiscal crisis didn't hit until development was well under way - 5-10 years in by the time work slogged. initial development was affordable (gateway plaza) but that's it.
ratner is poison to anti-AY crowd, and those who are impatient re his beekman tower school. that's about it. many more people support him and his work in bk. unfortunately it's only his haters that make the effort to scream and rant. definitely not vulnearble either - in fact stronger relatively b/c he avoids leverage (unlike macklowe, mcsam, etc). and he's doing just fine - financing landed for beekman tower, almost complete for dekalb tower, plugging away on AY.
Don't want to get into a BPC debate with you, but you have this all wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynLove
Doesn't matter if you meant residential or not. The point was how BPC was developed, and you said:Quote:
i never said anything about resi in that area.
We were talking about AY in comparison, remember?Quote:
battery park city? totally different scenario.
Not relevant. It was early 60s, and it never got off the ground. The landfill and staged infrastructure were financed with bonds.Quote:
initial deal bpc proposals came from private sources
Backwards. The city transferred the land to the state (BPCA) in 1979.Quote:
in fact, the city stepped in and took over the plans.
Were you in NYC in the early 70s? Landfill complete 1976, building construction began 1980.Quote:
fiscal crisis didn't hit until development was well under way - 5-10 years in by the time work slogged.
Incorrect, and also distorted. I think there are about 2800 residents in GP, and for at least a decade, the majority of the total. Even today, it's 25%. And again, the point is that it was the first development in the neighborhood - an indication that it was not planned as "Manhattan luxe."Quote:
initial development was affordable (gateway plaza) but that's it.
----------------------------------
They're the one's making the noise, and we were talking about politics.Quote:
ratner is poison to anti-AY crowd, and those who are impatient re his beekman tower school.
Who needs leverage when you can ask Albany for a billion or two.Quote:
he avoids leverage (unlike macklowe, mcsam, etc).
Throughout this debate, you've dismissed the concept of breaking the site up into several developers, stating that a full plan is needed up front.
So what full plan do we have? An arena, a few buildings, and an evaluation [your word]. What if that evaluation determines that he needs more money (not to be confused with the more-money he says he needs now), and won't complete the project without it?
He can sit on his no-rent cash-cow arena, and wait out the state. We'll have a combo of Dolan and Joe Sitt on our hands.
The next time we groan at more bad news for Fulton transit, take note that AY rights were sold to Ratner for $114 million below the accessed value. Even Extell outbid him by 50%. The least he can do is stick his neck out a little, and put his name on a piece of paper guaranteeing the entire project.