Eminent Domain Is Density

Something struck us when we recently posted a piece about whether New York City is becoming too dense: The relationship between eminent domain and density. The piece we posted, Is NYC Becoming Too Dense? Who’s to Say? (Thursday, December 11, 2008), was about the Bryant Park area, including the new Durst Bank of America Tower exceeding livable density.

In essence, we find ourselves concluding that “eminent domain is density” or, put another way, that greater density is now coming upon us by way of eminent domain.

NYC’s Brave New World: Three Examples of Surpassing Density that Coincide With . . .

It does not seem to be an accident that density and the use of eminent domain coincide in the following examples of recent and proposed NYC development:

1. The Bank of America Tower, the second-tallest building in New York (6th Avenue and West 42nd Street. Year of completion 2009)

2. The New York Times Tower, which is tied with Chrysler Building for third place as the third-tallest building in New York (8th Avenue between West 41st Street and 40th Street. Year of completion 2007)

3. The proposed 22-acre Atlantic Yards megadevelopment which, calculated on a per square mile basis, would be twice as dense as the densest census tract in the country. (Though the 22 contiguous acres of the megadevelopment should certainly be considered as a whole, the 22 acres do not constitute a single census tract since the span of acreage partakes in four different districts. See: Ratner Will Bring Us Closer Together, by Matthew Schuerman in the Observer, October 5, 2006. The project area unto itself is substantial: Though the project design involves discredited superblocking, its footprint could readily constitute 10 city blocks if it were better laid out.)

. .The Modern Proclivity: New Use of Eminent Domain

It is not an accident that the use of eminent domain coincides with these three surpassing examples of density: Eminent domain is being used as the tool to shoehorn in density that would not be achievable under normal circumstances. The fact that these three examples are current era projects separated by only a few years bespeaks something of the new proclivity to use eminent domain to force private owners to transfer their property to other private owners. Often the transfers being forced involve the new, after-transfer owners making similar or identical use of the land as the original owners even though the original owners’ actual buildings might be torn down.

Adding to the List, a New Reason to be Wary of Eminent Domain

Some general wariness about eminent domain has already taken hold in society. The practice of using eminent domain to force transfers of property from one private owner to another is often criticized as easy-to-recognize abuse. (See: Saturday, June 28, 2008, Kelo case drew the line in the wrong place, Re: Pols Remain Masters of Domain.) We also know from what we repeatedly witness that resort to eminent domain frequently engenders blight even when “elimination of blight” is being invoked as a purported rationale for its use. What has yet rarely been talked about is the way that eminent domain is now being used to reach unusually high densities and how eminent domain rewrites the equation of the densities. Though this does not seem to be something people are talking about just yet it is something that should be raised at every public hearing where questions of appropriate density and use of eminent domain overlap. For instance, there is concern that by virtue of its recent rezoning, Downtown Brooklyn will soon become too dense, but because the plan is projected to use eminent domain, the density increase coming to Downtown Brooklyn will be more pronounced. (Not to mention that streets may be shut down, something you don’t want particularly when density is increased.) (see: Sunday, December 07, 2008, Some Place Like Home: FUREE's new film takes on Downtown Brooklyn rezoning).

Permitted Density vs. Achievable Density

As we discussed in Is NYC Becoming Too Dense? Who’s to Say? there is significant difference between permitted densities in the city and those achieved. The theoretical maximum densities permitted for different areas of the city under the zoning code are rarely achieved. In fact, only a fraction of the densities that are permitted in various areas are normally achieved. In essence, the maximum permitted density is a density toward which people are always building but which, on an overall basis, is not likely ever to be reached. What is achieved is somewhere in the middle between what has been the actual density and that permitted maximum. And, it is always possible to roll back permitted density to a lower density if it is perceived that the actual density people are building towards is in danger of becoming oppressive.

The Model in the Middle: Achievable Density

Therefore, whenever we are dealing with an area that is already relatively developed, maximum permitted density should not be perceived as a model toward which we as a city are building: The goal should be perceived to be that middle ground toward which building is heading. Actually it should be those middle grounds (plural) since achieving density is normally a gradual process. The equilibrium of what is achievable will change and increase over time. This is desirable. Respected urbanist Jane Jacobs prescribed that one aspect of making higher levels of density tolerable and successful is the achievement of density over time. (See: Saturday, November 29, 2008, Jane Jacobs Atlantic Yards Report Card #4: Appropriate Density? NO.)

The Experience of Density Relates to the Speed With Which it Materializes

It occurs to us that achieving an appropriate level of density is therefore a little bit like the macroeconomic formula prescriptions for achieving an appropriate size for the nation’s money supply: the question of the speed becomes important. In macroeconomics the size of the nation’s money supply (which affects inflation, or, these days, possibly deflation) is not just a question of the amount of currency in circulation plus the deposits available on demand in banks and financial institutions; it is also affected by the “velocity” of money, the rate at which money changes hands. The faster money changes hands between consumers, the greater the effective size of the money supply that influences the economy. Similarly, the effects of density in the city and whether it is beneficial or tolerable has to do not just with how much total density there is overall and whether there are streets, avenues and infrastructure to support it, but also how fast that density is being created: density created at greater speed will be experienced as more overwhelming in nature.

Permitted Density Should Exceed That Density Which Is Our Goal

Back to maximum permitted density: as we said, it should not be the goal. The goal, the desired density, should be somewhere in between what has existed and what under the maximum permitted can be built as a practical matter. Accordingly, maximum permitted density should be greater than what one expects will be achievable. How much greater permitted density is, will influence the speed with which new higher densities will be achieved. If higher density is intended to be achieved at a faster rate (which will increase the experience of inordinate density during that increase) then the permitted density should be all the more greater than the density which is the actual goal.

Problems with Using Eminent Domain to Attain Greater Density

The problems with using eminent domain to attain greater density are several fold. First off it should be noted that when it is used this way we are in uncharted territory. Eminent domain was not previously used to create density. When eminent domain was used to create roads, parks, police stations, court houses, fire houses, public schools, transportation centers, its goal was something else: Its goal was public use. The focus was on use and good design. The use of eminent domain to create density is an outgrowth of the use of eminent domain for “economic development” purposes, but even when it was first used for this new purpose the goal did not initially seem to be to maximize density. The impulse toward maximizing density seems to be a new fashion.

The following problems materialize:

1. Using eminent domain to boost density circumvents the normal practical constraints on the maximum levels of density that can be practically achieved. Notwithstanding that maximum permitted density was never the model or ideal and notwithstanding what we have said to the effect that the maximum permitted density should normally be substantially above the ideal, the maximum permitted density now becomes achievable. It becomes what is achieved or targeted. In ways that may not be immediately and transparently apparent to the public, it is now possible to shoehorn in every last little lick of permitted density. Ergo we get more density than is ideal and more than was truly planned for when the maximum density levels were established.

2. If developers are able to adhere to their desired schedules, the increase in density will be achieved too rapidly, thus aggravating the negative overwhelming impact of the growth in density.

3. Eminent domain is likely only to be made available as a tool to the politically favored. It therefore shifts substantial resources, as represented by the density that only the politically favored will be afforded, into the hands of what David Cay Johnston refers to as the “rigged economy.” Those resources are consequently shifted away from optimal free market resource allocation. (Listen to: The Leonard Lopate Show: Sick Economy, Wednesday, January 07, 2009) The result is getting less of what society actually wants and more of what is politically favored.

4. One of the reasons Jane Jacobs favored slow build-ups of density is that it allows for development of greater variety. The political favoring associated with building up through the use of eminent domain becomes a second element, in addition to speed, that makes the development of such desirable variety less likely. Slow build-ups of density also allow that variety to accrete interactively in a natural up from the ground way rather than being formulaically filled in.

5. With fast build-ups of density, society is less likely to be in a position where it can evaluate soon enough and respond by easing off on the creation new density if experience points to the value of doing so.

6. The developer bias toward density of development is blessed and often accentuated with modern-style, density-creating eminent domain. That is because today’s “economic development” eminent domain is so often developer-initiated and developer-driven. Atlantic Yards is clearly a case where the project was both developer-initiated and developer-driven. In the case of the Durst Bank of America Tower, the Durst organization had assembled most of its development site before it approached the state to use the threat of eminent domain to acquire the rest of the site. (See: Developers Can't Imagine a World Without Eminent Domain, by Terry Pristin, January 18, 2006.) The New York Times Tower has Forest City Ratner as one of its developers, the same developer responsible for the developer-initiated and -driven Atlantic Yards megadevelopment. Condemnation and assembly of the Times Tower site by Empire State Development Corporation did not occur until after the New York Times was identified as the prospective owner of the building. (See: Blight to Some Is Home to Others; Concern Over Displacement by a New Times Building, by David W. Dunlap, October 25, 2001). According to the Village Voice “After the Times expressed interest, the city and state abandoned previous plans to seek bids on the property, which is privately owned but in the Times Square redevelopment area.” Instead the state and city signed off on a sole-source deal with multiple special benefits for the Times and its partner, Forest City Ratner Companies. (See: The Paper of Wreckage, The 'Times' Bulldozes Its Way to a Sweetheart Land Deal You Will Pay For, Paul Moses, June 18th 2002.)*

By definition, the price paid to acquire private property through eminent domain creates a windfall since it is not equal to market value, given that it is not the price at which the original owners would willingly sell the property. The windfall is greater since the original owners of the real estate (including such parties as tenants) are not fully compensated for all the value lost in the process of the forced transfer. Therefore, eminent domain is attractive to developers because of the per se windfall it represents in any acquisition price. But the greatest possible windfall is made possible to the extent that the density of the new development exceeds the density of the area’s development that would have been reasonably expected or anticipated. To the extent that density in the new development exceeds the generally expected, reasonably anticipated density for the area, there will be eminent domain windfall that is gravy over and above the base level of eminent domain windfall that could be expected. That is because, while condemnation law does not presently fully compensate original owners, the law prescribes that the portion of the compensation that will be paid will be geared to the foreseeable development value of the property. To the extent that density is pushed to exceed the foreseeable development value, the developers will not have to additionally compensate the original owners at all. Therefore, there is a strong incentive associated with developer-driven eminent domain to push the density beyond what was reasonably foreseeable so as to access this gravy windfall.

* (The June 2002 Village Voice article presciently reported: Robert McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois, said the deal "gives the appearance of impropriety" and will undermine the Times' ability to criticize similar arrangements between government and business. The materialization of that prediction has been reported upon by Atlantic Yards Report and most recently in an IFC Media Project documentary segment devoted to the issue. See: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, Time to Times; Dear, Dear, Dear, Thursday, December 11, 2008, "Unreliable Sources" redux: only one of three dailies covers the Forest City conference call, Monday, December 08, 2008, A dozen Atlantic Yards stories that have gotten scant or no coverage, Unreliable Sources and December 13, 2008, Unreliable Sources: "Undue Influence." See also the picture of the Times Tower on the cover of the Forest City Enterprises new annual report, click to enlarge, laid out to look like the New York Times Magazine: Fr more on this see: Sunday, May 25, 2008, The FCE annual report looks like the NYT Magazine.)

Examples of Developers Pursuing Unforeseeably High Levels of Density in Order to Get Eminent Domain Windfall Gravy

Eminent domain-associated, developer-driven campaigns to exceed density increases that would be reasonably expected through foreseeable upzonings are likely to be most apparent in the case of areas zoned for relatively low density, where the difference between current low zoning and the maximum possible legal zoning is greatest. Atlantic Yards is a clear example of this difference. Atlantic Yards evaded public hearings on the zoning change to increase density. The proposed Columbia University expansion into West Harlem is another such example. Columbia’s proposal to put a huge “bathtub” basement underlying most of what it is proposing to build, including under the intervening streets, can be seen as a convenient rationale to undergird its argument for the use of eminent domain to take over a complete neighborhood rather than integrate into it. The seven-story-deep bathtub can also be seen as a way of maximizing the jump in density beyond what might have been reasonably expected. Thus it is associated with the pursuit of maximum eminent domain windfall gravy.

The extent to which Columbia’s increase in density is unexpected or beyond what might be reasonably anticipated is somewhat disguised by the fact that there was a competing community plan and the community, stretching to get its own plan accepted, sought to propose as much maximization of density to accommodate Columbia as possible. The difference was that with the community’s alternative plan, other property owners, not just Columbia, would have benefitted by acquiring the value associated with increases to permitted density of their property. Those owners would have benefitted even if they then sold their land to Columbia. (Even as is, the community plan’s proposal to increase density should assist in providing an evidentiary foundation for the owners in the West Harlem to obtain greater compensation to the extent that eminent domain forces transfers of their property to Columbia.)

But Doesn’t the Creation of All This New Density Stimulate the Economy?: Not Likely

Could we at least say that these new concentrations of density will benefit society by representing development and economic stimulus that would not have occurred otherwise? No, not reliably and it may be the opposite. It will not be so to the extent that these new overly dense areas are subsidized to out-compete the less dense and more diffuse alternative development the economy would naturally have engendered. In this regard, things like the level of the tax abatement subsidies received by the New York Times Tower must be examined. It will not be so to the extent that these areas of huge development shift resources into the less efficient and productive rigged economy benefitting the politically favored. It will not be so to the extent that these new areas of density involve, as they more likely will, unnecessary demolitions of worthwhile buildings rather than infilling around them. It will not be so to the extent that these developments capture and misdirect scarce resources like subsidies that would be better used elsewhere. Last, and most important, it will not be so to the extent that we create an undesirable environment in which to live and work.

What Hasn’t Yet Been Noticed

At the moment we are unaware that anyone else has pointed out the linkage between eminent domain and the delivery of unprecedented new and unexpected levels of density. You may be reading about it here first. In Is NYC Becoming Too Dense? Who’s to Say? we pointed out that there are lag times involved before increases in density are fully noticed or comprehended. In the end, whether a level of density is the right level or too great depends upon how it is experienced and that experience does not come until the tail end of a process. It doesn’t even come when sky-blocking buildings are built; it comes only after they are fully rented and occupied in a thriving economy. As fast as things have been moving in Yew York, we are not yet at the stage where significant increases in density have been fully noticed. For instance, though we wrote about how the Bryant Park area is destined to become denser than it has ever been before, right now the buildings that overlook Bryant Park are have difficulty renting to fill up. (See: Market’s Troubles Echo in a Building’s Vacant Floors, by Charles V. Bagli, November 9, 2008 and Square Feet: Manhattan Awash in Open Office Space, by J. Alex Tarquinio, December 2, 2008.)

You Heard It Here First

Once we more fully notice with full comprehension the density building up around us, we will perhaps also notice the new important relationship between that density and eminent domain. As we said, we are in uncharted territory since we have not seen this before. Because this is uncharted territory, people should be talking about what is going on in order to decide how to navigate going forward. So remember, you heard it here first when we pointed out that New York’s brand new second-tallest building, its new third-tallest building and its new proposed 22-acre neighborhood that would be twice as dense as the densest census tract in the country, all rely on a new proclivity to use eminent domain as it has never been used before, to subject us to new unexpectedly high levels of density.

Is NYC Becoming Too Dense? Who’s to Say?

Is it possible that parts of the city are becoming too dense? If that were so, would anyone have told us? Or would we perhaps know it first, as Jane Jacobs would tell us, sensing this for ourselves? There might be no official announcements, no official recognition. The answer is partially subjective and people’s opinions will differ. But when Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Daniel Doctoroff announced his departure, it was noted that in six years he presided over 78 rezonings covering about 16 percent of the city’s non-parkland, so maybe now is a good time to ask the question. There is building all around us, with some terrifically large projects proposed like the Solow development on Manhattan’s East Side and the Hudson Yards proposal on the West Side.

Experiencing Density: Herald Square and Bryant Park

I found myself asking the question of whether perhaps we might have reached a density limit one warm afternoon the fall of 2007 as I stood on one foot on a corner of 34th Street and Sixth Avenue at about 4:30. I was waiting for a space in the crowd to clear so I could put my other foot down to proceed in the general direction I wanted to go. I had just passed by some buildings on 34th Street that looked as if they might be sold for redevelopment. They have been demolished now. There was talk in the air that Macy’s might be lured from its home, undoubtably paving the way for even more density. Earlier I’d walked by Bryant Park marveling at the commendably intricate recent adjustments to its design but also noting how little of the late afternoon sunlight was reaching the park. A new Durst building about which many good things can be said was in the finishing stages on one side of the park. The building is very large.

Density is Good . .

I consider myself a proponent of density. I love New York City for its density. There are many areas of the city where I stand and look at recently built buildings and ask, “Why couldn’t that building have been built taller?” But where do we stop?

. . . But We Reach a Limit Where We Want Protection

Last year I was at a Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting when it entertained an owner’s application to take down the back of his townhouse in order to get more light and air after a new multistory residential tower was built close to his property line. One of the commissioners wondered whether “this was a first.” More typically property owners want to maximize the density they are permitted. The solution of tearing down your own property to create space between you and your neighbors, akin to buying an extra seat on airline for elbow room, may not be something many of us can afford but it is interesting. There may be other signs that the public is reaching its limit when it comes to density. Creation of historic districts and changes to the zoning code in order to have “contextual zoning” have developed new-found popularity. Each technically pursues another purpose, but each tends to have the effect of also holding down density, which probably contributes to the new zeal we have seen in their pursuit.

Higher Permitted Density as an Accelerator Pedal for Development (A Spongy Unreliable One)

While other things have a practical effect, the main control over density in the city is the city’s zoning code. As (most would agree) the city ought to grow, most neighborhoods are zoned to permit additional building and growth. In fact, zoning to permit a higher than current level of density might actually be regarded as sort of an accelerator pedal for wanted development and to stimulate development generally for its desirable effect on the economy. Other things being equal, if a robust economy provides gas, development will follow. The harder the pedal is pressed with a raised level of density (in other words the more permitted density is raised), the more pronounced the response. But if the economy is slow or conditions in the neighborhood not primed, this economic vehicle isn’t always quickly responsive. With the economy in steep decline, we may see, in contradistinction to last year, no impetus toward development.

Interrelationship with Other Neighborhoods, Projects, Subsidies: the Syphoning Effect

Potentially, the fuel for movement can be syphoned off by other neighborhoods competing with better incentives. That was true when the 15,372 Co-op City was built was built with subsidies. Among other things it is credited with having drained the Grand Concourse of its population. A project like Atlantic Yards, with its disproportionate subsidies, also stands to siphon off development from other areas.

The Density Lurch Forward, Just When You Want to Ease up on the Accelerator Pedal

Ironically, you often get the phenomena of a lurch or more pronounced acceleration of actual development and building just when communities might be want to ease off on the density pedal, viewing the density permitted as too great. Communities cannot quickly ease off the density gas pedal. This is because down-zonings must go through the city’s Uniform Land Use Review and Procedures process, which involves public notice and takes time. And these days, because of demand, city staff for the process is in short supply. Until the process is complete there is a race to the finish line as land owners and developers rush to construct “grandfathered” properties with zoning that will thereafter not be allowed. An additional incentive for quick last-minute developments may even be stimulated by the realization that competition will be precluded. This is the kind of race to the finish line that occurred with the contextual down-zoning that went into effect for Fort Greene-Clinton Hill in July 2007.

Downtown Brooklyn: An Example of Too Little Development Followed by Too Much Permitted Density?

Downtown Brooklyn is an area that has been historically slow to develop. In 2004 the area was substantially upzoned in pursuit of hopes that the area won’t continue to be so overlooked, but there will be lag time before hoped-for development will be seen. Even before the 2004 upzoning, greater density had long been permitted without being taken advantage of. We are only at the beginning of what the new permitted higher density will bring. Would some argue that new zoning would now permit too great a density or that the vision of the old provisions was actually superior? Until the advent of actual development the question was academic. The new Downtown Brooklyn zoning is accompanied by height caps so some of the harm of initial new building may be limited, but with rapid change the preservation of historic buildings is in particular jeopardy (see: Sunday, November 30, 2008, Landmarks Preservation Commission: Will Times Special Series Have it All Covered?) and the are other effects about which people are complaining (see: Sunday, December 07, 2008, Some Place Like Home: FUREE's new film takes on Downtown Brooklyn rezoning).

Increasing Density Gradually

Jane Jacobs, who considered herself a proponent of high density, was of the opinion that while density should be high, increases in density should be brought about gradually. (See: Saturday, November 29, 2008, Jane Jacobs Atlantic Yards Report Card #4: Appropriate Density? NO.)

By inference, if we find that density is being created too rapidly, we should pull back by pressing on the accelerator pedal of significant density upzoning in areas either not as hard or not as long.

Empirical and Subjective Contextually Based Judgment

In the end, how much density is too much must be an empirical judgement that will be based in large part on how it is experienced. No matter the actual usage, New York’s poorly designed Penn Station will tend to feel too dense in comparison to the much better designed Grand Central Terminal. And some density just works better; for instance, if mixed uses lead to use of space at different times of the day. Density works better with short blocks and frequent streets.

Desirable Density and Respite

Manhattan, the most densely populated county in the United States, is very much a center, and should tend to be dense. But all of it? Probably we want different areas with a variety of densities, with neighborhoods cleverly intermingled so that one needn’t travel far to partake of density’s stimulation or respite from it.

Recognizing How High Permitted Density Often Is Already

Currently the Borough of Manhattan is about 147 residential units per acre in its densest areas. On average, there are about 37 residential units per acre in the entire borough (the borough is more than just the island) including all parks and unoccupied areas. The most direct zoning control of residential density is the zoning code’s limit of maximum “floor to area ratio” (“FAR”). It often isn’t practical or possible to build the maximum permitted FAR because of other limitations such as height or setback requirements, but what people may not appreciate is just how relatively high a density FAR requirements sometimes permit. Where a plaza, arcade or lower-income housing is involved, density can reach a permitted 700 dwelling units per acre, (the maximum residential density permitted by the State Multiple Dwelling Law), a substantial move up from the 147 figure for the current densest areas. (700 d/u/p/a is exclusive of streets, frequency of which can vary.)

Whose Voice Is Heard When It Comes to Recognizing Appropriate Levels of Density

The institutionally well-represented real estate industry spurs city agencies and politicians who are alert about generating development revenue; this ensures that there is continual opportunity for growth. There isn’t a shortage of places to build, though developers complain about the price of land. But when it is a question of needing to ease up on accelerating density, that is mainly left for the public to sense though it lacks institutional support for the task.

A Modest Proposal: Time-Limited Upzonings

Sensing when maximum desirable density has been reached is a little like trying to drive while looking in your rearview mirror. First come the building permits, then the steel girders and shadows as walls fill in. But until buildings are occupied the experience you’re headed for isn’t there. Given the built-in lags involved, perhaps city upzonings should be implemented with “sunset” provisions, where permitted densities automatically fall back to lower levels unless communities revisiting the question affirmatively endorse keeping higher density possibilities in place. Such an approach might actually result in development activity that is more responsive to upzonings. If you think about it, it could also address developers’ complaints about high land costs. That is because developers’s age-old nemesis, speculative land owners who refuse to sell, would be faced with a ticking clock: sell now or be faced with a rollback of the upzoning there to be taken advantage of.

Looking Back at The Times and Back to Bryant Park

What is written above represents, with little modification, thoughts that a year ago we proposed the New York Times publish, most likely in the form of an op-ed piece. You may correctly infer from seeing our post here that the Times didn’t run with the suggestion. Mostly the Times has not considered the subject of what is an acceptable density in its home city even though areas of New York are poised to become rapidly more dense. At the beginning of this piece we observed that Bryant Park may be surpassing the level of density at which its amenities can be appropriately enjoyed. A few months after we submitted our proposal to the Times, it ran an article that picked up on our observation about Bryant Park. (See: Bryant Park Braces for a Tidal Wave of Traffic, by Glenn Collins, June 5, 2008.) The photo on the side ran with the Times article (click to enlarge).

For a large scale view of a photo that provides an even better representation of the astonishingly dense level of use that Bryant Park is now getting go to Flickr. There you will see the photo (spring lunch at Bryant Park, vol. 3) that was used in the Gothamist when it briefly commented on the Times’ Bryant Park story. (See: Bryant Park to Get Even More Mobbed, June 5, 2008.) (With appropriate permission we might insert that image into this post later.)

These pictures reflect the level of use Bryant Park is getting now, not what it will be getting when the nearby buildings are all fully rented. Because the economy is suddenly slow and office vacancies are climbing, we may not experience that day as soon as we were about to.

Remediation: Durst We Say We Have Reached a Limit?

The Times article began `cute’ with a Yogi Berra quote saying that one day Bryant Park “will be so crowded, nobody will go there anymore.” Remedial measures are being taken to accommodate larger crowds. The park is being altered with more hundreds more tables and chairs being added and ivy beds are ripped out to make room for them.

The new Durst Bank of America building* (with its spire, the 54-story building is the second tallest building in New York City, after the Empire State Building) did not legally have to become part of the Bryant Park Business Improvement District but it did and therefore, together with the Times Square BID, it will be voluntarily paying fees into one more business improvement district than it needs to. That is unusual and while it may be helpful in addressing the problem of the new density to which the building is contributing we may be well past the point where it could be a solution.

But before envisioning where we will be, we should look where we are. From the Gothamist’s follow-up to the Times article, (a quote from Daniel A. Biederman, president of the Bryant Park Corporation):

BPC chairman Daniel Biederman contends that “no other public park in the world is as densely populated,” with Bryant Park packing in over 1,000 bodies per acre – and that’s not even close to how mobbed it gets when HBO screens movies in the summer . . . – and your knees are in your chest.

The Times, ending full circle with a reference back to Yogi Berra’s quote, concluded with New York City Parks and Recreation Commissioner Adrian Benepe’s opinion that, in the end, Bryant Park may be protected by “a self-limiting factor . . .If it’s too crowded, people just won’t go in.” But maybe we should consider that we are simply building at too great a density when the only available open space in an area is space that people feel turned away from.

* (The Bank of America Building was able to be shoehorned into the neighborhood at the maximum possible density because eminent domain by the Empire State Development Corporation facilitated it. In this case the threat of it was sufficient. See Durst buy-back plan sparks controversy, Real Estate Weekly, Dec 3, 2003 and Developers Can't Imagine a World Without Eminent Domain, by Terry Pristin, January 18, 2006 and Demolition Man, Why can’t anyone fight developers anymore? Because builders have discovered that if the state likes their proposals, Pataki will tear down whatever is in the way, by Karrie Jacobs Published April 19, 2004 )

(Modified image below, uses photo from the Gothamist.)

Times Coverage of Landmarks Preservation Commission: The Pieces Needing to Fall Into Place

The New York Times has now completed what has turned out to be a four part series on the problems with the workings of the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission. We previously wrote about this when the Times was two articles into this important series. (See: Sunday, November 30, 2008, Landmarks Preservation Commission: Will Times Special Series Have it All Covered?)

At the Half-Way Point: Our Noticing New York Comments

At that half-way mark, we noted that the series had yet to mention the accountability of the mayor. We also cited the Ward Bakery Building, as of then unmentioned by the Times, as a superlative example of problems with how the selectively of landmarking is controlled by the Bloomberg administration:

Superlative Example of Selectivity Not Mentioned by the Times: The Ward Bakery Building

Not mentioned was the Ward Bakery Building. The selectivity of its nondesignation and the ensuing destruction that resulted would have been well worth writing about to make a number of points. It is our understanding that landmarking protection was specifically not to be made available for the Ward Building. We can only presume that was a decision for which Mayor Bloomberg was responsible. Yes, sometimes developers race with the LPC to destroy landmarks before they can be designated, but Ward Bakery serves as an excellent example of a situation where one side is not even running.

The shoes finally dropped with the publication of the last Times article in its series (Preservation and Development, Engaged in a Delicate Dance, by Robin Pogrebin, December 1, 2008).

The power of the mayor in the process is one of the principal topics of the article and the Ward Bakery Building is mentioned. We have a few ideas of points the Times could, but didn’t, make, but these articles are a critical step in getting people to talk about matters that are very important to the city.

The New Times Article on the Power of the Mayor

The fourth and last Times article was very blunt about the mayor’s power which makes sense and is surprising only given the way that the subject was obliquely left out of the prior articles. Here is some of what they wrote:

Over a decade of whirlwind development, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has repeatedly played dance partner to a potent mix of preservationists, developers and city politicians. It must strike a balance between protecting architecture and accepting economic realities, between a responsibility to history and a knowledge that the city must evolve.

* * * *

. . .some preservationists and politicians assert that, under a mayoral administration that has emphasized new construction — from behemoth stadiums to architecturally bold condo towers — big developers have too often been allowed to lead on the dance floor. Some accuse the landmarks commission, charged with guarding the city’s architectural heritage, of backing off too readily when important developers’ interests are at stake.

“The real estate industry controls the agenda in the city,” said Tony Avella, a city councilman from Queens. “If they don’t want something to happen, it doesn’t happen. They pull the strings from behind the scenes, whether in rezoning reform or landmarking. It’s just incredible how much influence they have.”

“The direction comes from the mayor, and the mayor’s pro-development,” Mr. Avella added.

The New Times Article on the Ward Bakery Building

About the Ward Bakery Building the Times article wrote (in its final corrected edition):

Yet the commission is faulted for refusing to schedule public hearings on some of the most fiercely contested projects, like Ward’s Bakery, an imposing terra-cotta-tiled structure that lay within the 22-acre footprint of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. In 2006 the commission’s staff determined that the building was not eligible for a hearing on landmark designation. Yet it was ruled eligible for a listing in 2003 on the National Register of Historic Places. Forest City Ratner began demolition in September 2007 and has almost completed it.

“This appears to be a political decision by the landmarks commission,” Daniel Goldstein, a spokesman for the group Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, was quoted as saying at the time. “It is deeply frustrating that they have let politics enter their deliberation on a building that clearly deserves landmark status.”

A commission spokeswoman said of the bakery, “There are many other industrial structures like it around the city, and it had several branches throughout the city.”

Adding In a Little Ward Bakery Building Demolition Confusion

As a correction at the end of the article notes, the Times got a little confused about the status of the bakery building’s demolition. However, it is easy to get confused about the status of the demolition which has lasted an infernally long time, going back to the Spring of 2007 and involves a suspicious parapet collapse. Some of the grand old building still remains. (See: Saturday, December 06, 2008, Correcting the Times's Ward Bakery correction (and my own error), plus a big footnote.)

The fact that it took three tries for the Times to variously report that the building was torn down last year, this year and is still ongoing indicates that mention of the Ward Bakery might have been included in the article late in its writing. If some of us, Noticing New York included, who have “fiercely” objected to the failure to landmark the Ward Bakery Building contributed to getting it mentioned in the article, so much the better. For more of our Noticing New York thoughts on this see: Sunday, October 19, 2008, Building the Right Landmarks Case; Wrong Building and Wednesday, October 29, 2008, Puzzle Pieces: Proposed Prospect Heights Historic District, LPC Public Hearing.

Political Decisions: Ward Bakery Example

As noted in the Times article, the 2006 `determination’ not save Ward Bakery was made by the commission’s staff, which means, as was made clear by the preceding articles, that it was made under the direction of the commission’s chairman. We have noted previously that Chairman Tierney considered his hands tied and was apparently acting under the direction of Mayor Bloomberg. That is why the quote of Daniel Goldstein that it had the appearance of “a political decision” is precisely on the money. We’ll quibble, as we will amplify on shortly, with the second half of Goldstein’s statement that the decision was “by the landmarks commission.”

Lopate/Huxtable Discussion on Qualifications for Making (Political) Decisions

A great thing about the Times series is that it put these issues more prominently into the pubic forum. On Monday, December 1, 2008, before the final article in the Times series was published, the Times articles were discussed on the Leonard Lopate Show in a free ranging discussion with architectural critic Ada Louise Huxtable (available at: Radical Architecture, discussion of the articles starting at 12:13 in the segment). The final Times article was not published in the paper edition of the Times until Tuesday, December 2nd although it was dated the 1st.

Picking up on from what was reported in the first article of the series, Leonard Lopate noted (15:30 in the recording) that “One of the criticisms we have heard about the Landmarks Commission is that the person in charge (by which he meant Chairman Tierney) doesn’t have a hist. . Doesn’t have a background in architecture.” Then he asked ,“Is it necessary to have an architectural background to make these kinds of decisions?” Ms. Huxtable’s response:

But that, that is not true of the commission. That is true of the chairman. The chairman of almost every commission we have is always a political appointee. Where you get your strength, your background is in the members of the commission and the landmarks law absolutely says there must be appropriate representation of the building and the architecture professions.

Ms. Huxtable’s response disregarded one of the main points of the first two articles in the Times series, a point which is key with respect to what was “determined” respecting the Ward Bakery Building: The credentialed and qualified commissioners are not currently taking part in the key commission decisions about what comes before them for a hearing on designation or how promptly it is brought. The decisions are being made exclusively by Chairman Tierney, whom Ms. Huxtable described as a political appointee she seems to regard as unqualified in the profession of architecture. Chairman Tierney works with commission staff, but according to the quote of a commission researcher in the first article “All the final calls are his.”

Final Analysis on Final Calls: They’re Bloombergian

In the final analysis though, final calls are not Chairman Tierney’s to the extent that he follows Mayor Bloomberg’s directives, which he apparently does. So despite Ms. Huxtable’s assurance we have a political appointee making what are apparently political decisions.

Commission Could Be Responsible

It is possible that the Commission could and should rein in the chairman by insisting that decisions the chairman now makes independently be made under the commission’s guidance and direction. That is a typical way for boards and commissions to structure responsibility and accountability. Until that day comes, Ms. Huxtable (with Daniel Goldstein in her company) will not be truly correct about the full commission being responsible for such important decisions. That is, unless one is to hold the commission responsible now by virtue of their inaction in taking any such step to date (a not unreasonable position).

Charitably Delicate Metaphor: Dance Equals Balance?

As its title “Preservation and Development, Engaged in a Delicate Dance” suggests, the final Times article uses the metaphor of a dance to speak in terms of striking “a balance” between the interests of preservation and evolution of the city through development. As the Times fairly intimates when it speaks of “big developers have too often been allowed to lead on the dance floor,” it is hard to strike a “balance” when the weight on one side of the scales is coming from “big” developers.

In judging how the balance is weighted, consider that for its last article the Times interviewed Patricia E. Harris, the First Deputy Mayor, since, as the Times reported, she “oversees the commission.” All indications are that Ms. Harris had a hand in signing the death sentence for Ward Bakery when she and Mayor Bloomberg met with the Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner in a meeting that bore evidence of a quid pro quo exchange of contributions to Bloomberg charities in exchange for project approvals. For more on this see: Are the Atlantic Yards Land Grab and City Official Fraud Being Used to Finance Bloomberg’s Bid for Billionaire Term Limit Exceptionalism? Wednesday, October 22, 2008 and Forest City Ratner Gives to Coney Island Carousel, Other Bloombergian Public Projects, April 1, 2007. The mayor and Ms. Harris met with Ratner in December 2005. The donation to Bloomberg’s charity was six months later in 2006. Note that the LPC `determination’ that Ward Bakery was in 2006 and that the demolition began in early 2007.

As we noted in the above linked article and in other articles (among them Monday, October 20, 2008, “Charity?” We Begin to Groan), Mayor Bloomberg’s mixing of his “charities” with politics and real estate developer relationships is very troubling. Deputy Mayor Harris’s mixing of her involvements with real estate development as in the case of her oversight of the commission and her history as Bloomberg's chief philanthropic advisor at Bloomberg, LP., plus her portfolio including arts organizations, is similarly troubling. Does Deputy Mayor Harris have anything to hide in this area? The Times article noted that “She agreed to reply only to questions submitted in writing.”

Proverbial Balance with Proverbial Heavyweights

Though the headline of the Times last article uses the word “delicate” to describe the dance wherein a balance is struck, it never used the word “delicate” in the article. We submit that the dance is anything but “delicate.” We wound up thinking of Bing Crosby’s and Fred Astaire’s banter when they, in later years, reprised their earlier rendition of Irving Berlin’s “Couple of Song and Dance Men,” with Bing asking Fred if he still taught dancing:

Bing: How would you teach a 300-pound gorilla to do the shimmy?
Fred: Any way he wants. . .
Bing: Just give him the downbeat and duck, huh?

(Keeping pace with the modern world, our proverbial large gorillas are generally now referred to as 800 to 1200 pounds.)

Deputy Mayor Harris Avers Administration Balances Development and Preservation

Deputy Mayor Harris responding to the Times questions which she had required be in writing promoted the idea that the Bloomberg administration performs a balancing of development and preservation.

“We don’t think about development without thinking about preservation . . . During a time of unprecedented growth, preservation has always been front and center.”

Two Buildings in the West Village; Similar Situation Contrasted with Ward Bakery

The Times told another story with parallels to the nonpreservation of Ward Bakery.

The story was about two buildings, the Superior Ink building, and the Whitehall Storage, which despite community requests for their preservation were left out when the Greenwich Village Historic District was expanded to cover the West Village, just the way that the Ward Bakery Building block was conspicuously carved out of the new Prospect Heights Historic District being created. Request for expansion of the Greenwich Village district was made in 2004. The commission approved the extension with the exclusion, sealing the two buildings’ fate in 2006, so the time frame is similar to the failure to save Ward Bakery. The Times writes about how developers lobbied for the exclusion:

Meanwhile, developers made their own efforts in hearings, private meetings and letters to persuade the commission to leave their properties out or not to extend the district at all. The Witkoff Group was planning to build a 15-story residential tower atop Whitehall Storage; Related Companies wanted to raze Superior Ink and build a condo tower and town houses.

The tale of what happened in the West Village diverges from what happened with Ward Bakery. It is easier to claim that in the West Village situation a need for development was being balanced against preservation. For one thing we are talking about development that was about to take place.

Today a 17-story luxury condo tower called Superior Ink and a row of Neo-Classical town houses are rising on the site at West and Bethune Streets.

The Ward Bakery is not replaced now and may not be replaced for 20 or 30 years. No matter what Deputy Mayor Harris might aver, preservation of the Ward Bakery was not weighed “front and center” against the possibility of current development.

Further Contrast: Ward Bakery Demolition a More Hostile-to-the-Community Act

We have made the case that Ward Bakery was destroyed not in order to develop its site at this time but for a more-hostile-to-the-community reason. Destruction is part of strategy to pressure the community to support the Atlantic Yards project by removing the community’s options and creating ongoing blight. In our last post we analogized it to the inverse developer values that cause developers to target and seek to erase a building’s historic and “distinctive features,” obtaining “stripping permits” with the purpose of irreparably damaging exactly those features of buildings that the public values so that the buildings will no longer be landmark-worthy. We also noted that this kind of demolition, driven by Ratner’s inverse values, continues, pointing out the new demolition of three attractive town houses on Dean Street. (See: Friday, December 05, 2008, On Dean Street, a slide show shows blight.)

When plants are stressed and dying they put their last resources into procreative seed production. These final demolitions are similarly last gasp. They come just as Ratner’s stressed and, we hope, finally dying project, is halting work. For more information about the “indefinite suspension of work” see: Saturday, December 06, 2008, With railyard work halted, no answers about the timetable to rebuild the Carlton Avenue bridge (and why is FCR in charge?)

Is this the way the administration weighs development against preservation?

Further Contrast: Ward Bakery Demolition Driven by Developer’s Creation of Its Own Incentives Outside of Proper Public Process

The development that was balanced against preservation in the West Village was normal development. The demise of the Ward Bakery Building cannot be weighed properly against the impetus for development that destroyed it because it is not being driven by the lure of normal development. Under normal development, the leanings of developers would more likely to have been to preserve Ward Bakery.

In the West Village the development side of the scale involved construction in accordance with zoning approved through a proper community process. In the case of Ward Bakery, the development is supposed to occur pursuant to a developer-driven and orchestrated zoning override. It is an override intended to grant the developer huge and unprecedented density. Excluding the public (and legitimate informed objection) from the upzoning process was critical to the developer’s end goal of being granted such unusual rights. The public is still objecting to the fact that it was excluded from the process. The early destruction of the Ward Bakery is intended to make the public more acquiescent toward the zoning override. Rather than the prospect of development incentivized by existing zoning being balanced against preservation, we have, in the case of Ward bakery, destruction and nonpreservation that are intended to incentivize an inappropriate developer-driven upzoning.

Lastly, as the notoriously odd shape of the Atlantic Yard footprint should make clear, the Ward Bakery block is being specially targeted for inclusion in the footprint for another reason connected to the zoning override. The developer is going after eminent domain windfall that it also intends to get by overriding proper public process.

Huxtable: Tough-Minded Moderate Believing in Balance

One thing that one takes away from the Leonard Lopate interview with Ada Louise Huxtable is that when it comes to preservationism, she views herself as we view ourselves: as a tough-minded independent moderate who believes in balance. She agrees with us (at: 14:06) that too much fuss was made over the alteration of Edward Durell Stone’s eccentric building at 2 Columbus Circle that she said she was against saving. Altered, it is now the new home of the Museum of Arts and Design. Mostly, she speaks of required balance not in terms of “development” vs. preservation but in terms of considering the condition of the buildings that might be preserved. In a modulated defense of the LPC that acknowledged it has problems she said (at: 12:44):

This is such a complex subject. You can’t just say save your building when there is no way to save it, when there is no money, when there is no way to keep it and preservationists tend to be very tunnel vision about that. Particularly in new York preservation is a . . it’s a very complicated thing that requires a lot of tradeoffs and a lot of willingness to look at all sides of a problem. We don’t have that now. We have a preservationist movement that really alarms me a little bit because they don’t want to deal with reality. They just want to forge ahead and save buildings and it is not that simple.

(The question of balancing the cost of preservation came up in the Times series, mainly in the third article which focused on preservation of religious buildings with the attendant issues about separation of church and state: Preserving the City: Houses of Worship Choosing to Avoid Landmark Status, by Robin Pogrebin, November 30, 2008)

Huxtable as Celebrant of Change

Ms. Huxtable also celebrates change (5:00):

One thing you learn is how relative it all is and it’s going to be a different skyline and it’s going to be a different skyline again. . . . I think it’s wonderful that things change.

Huxtable: Still a Preservation and Therefore Particularly Against Urban Renewal

As a tough-minded moderate Ms. Huxtable is nevertheless a preservationist and was particularly critical of urban renewal style destruction. Asked by Lopate about the 50's and 60's urban renewal, Ms. Huxtable responded (11:04):

That was the biggest mistake in the history of urban design. That was . . That grew out of the total ignorance of what was being lost. Urban renewal required total clearance. There was no provision for saving anything and that was how we learned how valuable the things were that we lost.

Lopate asked whether this was “the fault of European thinkers like Le Corbusier or because of American bureaucrats who found it more convenient to think that way?” Ms Huxtable:

Oh no, I think we were all guilty. There was no consciousness. That consciousness had to be found and raised; that the environment, the built world was a rich tapestry of time and style. We just didn’t know!

Atlantic Yards: Flying in the face of What We’ve Learned From Urban Renewal Mistakes

In essence, the Atlantic Yards magadevelopement is urban renewal all over again, complete with its mistakes (even old-fashioned superblocks) despite what we have now learned. In fact, part of the way the megaproject is being defended in court is that it is adjacent to, and might be considered an extension of, a 40-year-old urban renewal area (the Atlantic Terminal Urban Area or “ATURA”). That notion involves a substantial stretch of the imagination: Although the developer created the irregular configuration of the project footprint to include the Ward Bakery, for 40 years running the ATURA excluded the bakery and its block.

Can a supposedly knowledgeable and professional developer like Bruce Ratner and his Forest City Ratner development company now be designing a project that is the modern equivalent of an urban renewal project without being aware that urban renewal as Ms. Huxtable says, “was the biggest mistake in the history of urban design”? Without being aware how the destruction of the Ward Bakery especially exemplifies that mistake? This is highly unlikely since through all its initial phases the executive in charge fo the project for Ratner was Jim Stuckey*. Stuckey’s qualifications? He was formerly a city official responsible for city urban renewal projects (including the ATURA).

*(James P. Stuckey is now President of the Arts Commission of the City of New York, very recently renamed the “Public Design Commission of the City of New York.” Designated a “lay member,” he is one of those heads of commissions appointed during the Bloomberg administration that Ms. Huxtable would no doubt refer to as “a political appointee.” We deem that thereby hangs a tale or two.)

What about the obliviousness of our current city officials? There should also be no excuse. The urban renewal of the 50's and 60's was before creation of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. As one might say, the creation of the commission was because the “consciousness” that Ms. Huxtable said “had to be found and raised” was indeed found and raised.

This time it is was not that “we just didn’t know” that “the built world” is “a rich tapestry of time and style.” This time we not only knew; this time we had available the tools of the Landmarks Preservation Commission and yet the LPC did nothing. Do we think this was the result of a weighing process by current city officials or calculated obliviousness?

Leerily, On Gehry We Don’t Agree (A Double-lopate Digression)

Let us digress to say the following.

We respect and listen carefully to Ms. Huxtable’s points of view. We find it more valuable than that of the Times’ current architectural critic Nicolai Ouroussoff, whose focus seems too narrow and adorational of “name” architects. We would suggest that if the Times is going to continue to retain Ouroussoff they should have more than one critic to provide necessary sweep and balance. It would be nice if they had someone on board able and interested to point things out if the city is going to be doing things like repeating the “biggest mistake in the history of urban design” in the 22 acres of Atlantic Yards.

Nevertheless, much as we respect Ms. Huxtable, we warily disagree with her and think she has a blind spot when comes to valuing the work of Frank Gehry. Mr. Lopate asked (22:50) about Gehry, noting that “now we have all these wild-shaped buildings by people like Frank Gehry” and asked “is that just the latest trend or do you see that as architecture’s future.” Ms Huxtable;

Well, you have to really be very careful about not putting it all into the same basket. Frank Gehry is a great architect. He has created an architecture that it is . . it is as much about restudying function, how we live and use buildings as in changing shapes. It works together. Then we have the knock-offs on the shapes. If this is getting publicity, and the press has a great deal to do with this, then that’s what they design.

Later on Ms. Huxtable talks about Gehry designing museums that suitably interplay with large sculptures to which they provide a home. (Richard Serra of “Tilted Arc” fame was mentioned.)

We would rather apply other of Huxtable’s general statements and thinking to Gehry’s work. She says (immediately below speaking about a lot of the modern condominiums):

There’s been all of the “wow” in Architecture that is for effect, and for show, and for status and I have very mixed feeling about it. I frankly don’t care if some of it disappears. (20:30)

* * * *

(Architecture) is the art we must live with. If you want to experience painting or sculpture it’s an option. But there is absolutely nothing optional about your experience of architecture. . . . We see an awful lot of bad buildings and I guess my life has been devoted, or a good part of it, to trying to say, `We have entitlements; we deserve better than this’ (17:10)

We found it amusing to hear Ms. Huxtable speak well of Frank Gehry in a Leonard Lopate interview when we had just read something similar in her Times interview with Phillip Lopate, Leonard’s brother. After Phillip asks her to explain what she meant when speaking critically of architecture as “eye candy” she explained:

The “wow” buildings. Don’t blame it all on Frank Gehry. Gehry is legit; what he did at Bilbao is superb. He showed us how to marry all the arts in our time. But the lesson taken away from it was: We need something that looks “iconic,” that’s going to put our city on the map.

She also likes Gehry’s “Dirty Iceberg” building, the IAC Building on the Hudson River. (See: Her New York, by Phillip Lopate, November 7, 2008)

On the other hand, in her interview with brother Leonard she did say, speaking of the `marvellousness’ of kitsch:

I think that kitsch has it place just as great art has its place. It’s all part of the culture. (19:30)

Even if we could chalk it up to subjective judgement and allow that Ms. Huxtable could be right in thinking that Gehry is a better architect on some projects than we think he is, it is doubtful that he is an appropriate architect to design the 22 acres of Atlantic Yards. There is also a moral component to it: it is not defeasible for him to lend his name to perpetrating a repeat of the “biggest mistake in the history of urban design.” Destruction of Ward Bakery has to be laid partly at his doorstep.

It Is Not All Balancing; There Is Also Principle and Precedent

Beginning the “battle lines were familiar,” the final article of the Times series starts out by talking about the Rudin/St. Vincent’s real estate deal in a way that gives the impression that, like other things being talked about in that final article, it involved a balancing with perhaps a give-and-take:

In the case of St. Vincent’s, the commission initially rejected the hospital’s plan, objecting to the height and bulk of the new buildings and invoking the aesthetic value of the old ones. Then St. Vincent’s reduced the scale of its project and resubmitted an application for permission to demolish the O’Toole building, the likely site for the new 20-story medical tower, citing physical hardship. A distinctive, sawtooth-sided low white 1964 structure on Seventh Avenue between 12th and 13th Streets, the O’Toole is valued by many Village residents and devotees of midcentury Modernism.

What the Times didn’t pick up on was that the commission’s actions in approving the Rudin\St. Vincent’s real estate deal didn’t involve a “balancing,” but a failure to adhere to principle and precedent. This is important because while it is hard for preservationists to counter the heft of big developers when a “balancing” is involved, community interests should fare better in battles when principles and precedent can be invoked.

Principles Should Have Given Greenwich Village Community Victory

In the Rudin/St. Vincent’s situation historic designations were in place. A Historic District already existed. Once designations have occurred, principles and precedent should come into play more readily and fewer “balancings” should be involved. By all rights the community was entitled to a win against the developers.

We have written before (Wednesday, October 8, 2008, The Subsidy Ball: The Rudin/St. Vincent’s Proposal) that the essence of the Rudin/St. Vincent’s real estate deal is that a portion of the Greenwich Village Historic District is being sold off for private real estate profit and to create a special real estate endowment subsidy for St. Vincent’s Hospital. That is not the way that we are supposed to subsidize hospitals, and it is not the way that the landmarks law or its concept of hardship is supposed to work.

Prospect of Creating Density Driving Deal

As with so many real estate megadeals that the Bloomberg administration is ushering through, the fuel for the Rudin/St. Vincent’s deal comes from the creation of a substantial amount of new density that can be created if the protections of the Historic District can be wiped out. Eliminating this corner from the Greenwich Village Historic District is not the end of the road and won’t itself create the extra real estate density now driving the deal. As the Times cryptically notes, “Further approval is still needed from city and state agencies.”

The extra density won’t exist until the City Planning Commission upzones to create it. The gyrations that the St. Vincent’s developers have been willing to go through in getting the LPC to contort itself indicate the developers feel reasonably assured of eventual City Planning Commission approval. (The Times is going to have to do a whole other series on the workings of the City Planning Commission.) The commission is, in fact, probably much more likely to dump the extra inappropriate density into what is still theoretically the historic district now that the LPC has voted to strip away landmark protections.

No Balancing; Just an Unworkable Precedent

A balancing would only have been involved if the LPC had been weighing whether the landmark O’Toole Building was worthy of preservation. Since it had already concluded that it was, the LPC could only consider whether landmarks acquired and in the inventory of charitable organizations can be destroyed if it is cheaper to convert them into higher-density uses than to buy other real estate where similar higher density is already possible. There was no precedent or principle for this. Furthermore, it should be recognized that it will always be cheaper to buy a low-density landmark and covert it to higher density. Therefore, if the LPC’s vote is a new precedent, it is an unworkable one since it amounts to both tool and incentive for all city landmarks and historic districts to be sold off.

Adieu to Landmark Protection

The horrible thought that all landmarks protection might have been eviscerated by the Rudin/St. Vincent’s real estate deal decision is probably the best place to conclude this review. The implications of the Rudin/St. Vincent’s vote and the implications in general of not adhering to principle is something the Times series largely missed, though the last article of the series concluded with a slight nod in this direction:

“They really need to look at a way to be more forthcoming, more explanatory, so you could at least understand their reasoning,”

The fact is the whole Times series was a very good one. It should generate a lot of discussion and raises a multiple issues for people to be talking about. That is what we have been doing here and, as we noted the series provoked worthwhile dialogue between Leonard Lopate and Ada Louise Huxtable even if they were just scratching the surface and we differ with Ms. Huxtable in some respects. There is easily enough material for several more Times articles. The series did raise, just as we said it needed to, the influence of Mayor Bloomberg and gave reasonable clues to how profoundly political his influence can be. As we suggested, the series presented, in brief, the example of Ward Bakery about which there was much more to say. The series also raised, as we think it needed to, the Rudin/St. Vincent’s real estate deal, though not apparently recognizing what we think are some fairly startling implications associated with it.

We see in what happened to the Ward Bakery Building just how poorly the public can fare under the Bloomberg administration when landmarking decisions amount to no more than a political appointee’s balancing test. Its destruction belies the words of the deputy mayor overseeing the commission who says “We don’t think about development without thinking about preservation” and avers that “preservation has always been front and center.” We have further seen in the case of the Rudin/St. Vincent’s real estate deal, that under the Bloomberg administration there is considerable reason to worry even when landmark status protection is officially in place. Protection is illusory when principle and precedent yield to the political power of development interests.

Principles to Be Found

There might be no known landmark-law principle that could have been invoked to save the Ward Bakery Building, but perhaps there ought to be. Should the things of most value to a community be targeted for destruction if only vacant lost will replace them? However, principles written into law mean that some people just look for loopholes or ignore them: Witness Rudin/St. Vincent’s. What we need more than anything else is leadership with an innate and natural sense of principles, leaders who would not need something written to know that the destruction of the Ward Bakery was unjust and that the Rudin/St. Vincent’s power play was unacceptable . . . leaders who would act upon those principles.

Will It Come? What the Bloomberg Administration Wills at Willets Point (Part I)

We are wondering why the Bloomberg administration wants to put the Willets Point Iron Triangle auto parts and repair district out of existence. The city wants to use eminent domain to do so.

Even a lot of wondering doesn’t make the answer obvious, but it leaves us wondering whether there are better alternatives. If there are better alternatives, as we think there are, we have to wonder whether the City Council has done its job.

This is a long post so be prepared to spend some time with this subject. The reward is that we have done our best to deal comprehensively with a subject which we understand a lot of people may not know much about. Most other reporting has been in much shorter stories. Because this piece is long, we have for the sake of convenience and ease of bookmaking, divided it into four sections. The sections flow into each other since the subject matter doesn’t readily divide itself up. If you are inclined to take a reading break, wherever you do will probably be as good as anywhere else.

Economic Downturn and Jobs at Willets Point

It is a time of economic downturn. The 62 acre* area is the home of 250 businesses which employ, it is variously reported, 1,000, 1,200, 1,300, 1,700, 1,711, 1,800 or 3,000 people. (The 1,300 figure is supposed to be the city’s though some of its documents use higher figures like 1,800. The 3,000 figure is the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association’s.) The area property owners pay taxes and receive minimal services that probably cost the city very little.

* (We will return to discuss at length the issue of how many acres are involved.)

It is only a single-story low-rise area but it is tightly packed with bustling businesses. One Sunday morning not long ago a few businesses were closed at about 10:30, but enough were open so that the whole area had a busy thriving feel to it. The jobs are blue collar. Arguable they are green collar since, technically, there is a lot of recycling going on. You don’t get the feeling that the jobs are Monday through Friday, 9 to 5.




An Isolated Area

The area is hemmed in and separated from other areas of the city on all but one side by isolating elevated major highways running along the waterfront. The elevated highways interfere with whatever enjoyment of the waterfront might be possible. On the last remaining side, the district is set apart and isolated by the newly constructed Citifield which has been built as a replacement for the Mets’ Shea Stadium. Shea Stadium was not a pretty stadium. We don’t know if Shea needed to be replaced, but it is not surprising that its replacement is better-looking. Nevertheless, it is still a stadium and not likely to be the best neighbor. The vast stadium parking lots make up about two-thirds of this final wall that completes the isolation of the Willets Point Iron Triangle area.

Relocating or Eliminating the Businesses?

Why in a time of economic downturn is it so important to the city to go after and try to eliminate a functioning economic district within the city that is working well to provide jobs? Is it that the city feels that the 250 businesses should not exist? Ostensibly that is not the case since, in theory, the city will be providing relocation payments to the businesses. (The city recently offered a $3 million relocation fund which has been described as insultingly low.) Why “relocate” what should not exist? That is perhaps not such a neat equation for more than one reason. It is doubtful that the relocation payments will adequately compensate the businesses for moving. That payments are being made at all is probably more a political salve. Also, once dispersed by relocation the businesses will probably never achieve again the kind of synergy that makes them work the way the interrelated businesses all co-located in the same area now work. A Hunter College study described the area as a "unique regional destination" for auto parts and repairs. Bottom line: “Relocation” probably means that a lot of the businesses will cease to exist when dislocated.

What would it actually cost to relocate the businesses? By one report an early study said it would cost $130 million to relocate the businesses of Willets Point at that time counting them as 83 in number. (See: City Plans Big-time Makeover for Flushing, By Donald Bertrand Daily News Staff Writer, November 19, 2003.) This figure, though it should be factored into a total assessment of the total cost associated with relocating the businesses, is apparently not actually a statement of relocation costs. It apparently refers to the estimated cost of buying the land under them. As far as we can tell, a 2003 city document this might have been taken from “Comprehensive plan for downtown Flushing” is no longer where it was once posted on the web: (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pub/flusing.html)(83 is likely the number of property owners, not businesses, the report found to be in the area.)

The $130 million figure which represents the cost of compensation for the real estate ownership interests would go mostly to property owners. Many of the businesses lease rather than own their space and would not receive any substantial compensation out of that amount. The true figure for the cost of relocation would have to fold in other costs associated with moving the businesses the amount of which would be much more important to the businesses that are leasing their premises. With 250 businesses $130 million would come to $520,000 per business but a City Economic Development Corporation survey reportedly calculates that over 60 percent of the Willets Point's owners are leasing their property to others (See: Yes! Redevelop Willets Point, by Julia Vitullo-Martin, September 2008.)

So, added to the $130 million figure above is the actual relocation $3 million fund which will be much more important to the average business in the Willets Point Iron Triangle. How much on or off the mark is the proposed $3 million relocation fund figure that has been described as insulting low? It has been pointed that, evenly divided, that comes to a mere $12,000 in relocation per business. It is predicted by plan opponents that smaller businesses might get only $9,000. As noted, there is a difference between land owners and renters since renters have a particularly rough go in terms of ever being reimbursed for anything.

The city currently plans to establish a larger fund ($5 million) to cover the effects of “traffic mitigation” in connection with the plan than it plans to establish for relocation. (See: June 30, 2008, Willets Point project faces key test Monday night, by Daniel Massey, Crains New York.)

(For a longer description of current conditions in Willets Pont see: Melting the Iron Triangle: Amid Willets Point 'blight,' pride and vow to fight redevelopment, by Jarrett Murphy, Tuesday, June 6, 2006)

Relocate Where?

If relocation rather than elimination is truly the city’s honest objective, is there a better place for the businesses to go than where they are now? Some would more cruelly shorthand the description to refer to the businesses as “junk yards” rather than describing them as “green collar recycling.” That probably shortchanges their value, but the businesses would likely be rejected as such if and when they try to relocate themselves into many other neighborhoods. Even though the businesses may perform useful functions for society, how many good citizens will embrace them as neighbors? Does it then make sense that having found a neighborhood where they have virtually no neighbors, the city now wants to eject them from them from it? Will they find such a perfect fit again?

Bloomberg Administration Fought to Overcome City Council Opposition; Why?

The City Council was for a long time widely reported to be resistant to approving a plan that involved eminent domain. Whatever tactics of persuasion were used by the Bloomberg administration, the City Council just voted to permit the use of eminent domain to rid the area of these businesses. Without elaborating on what would likely be important details, the New York Times reported that the Bloomberg administration “spent considerable time and money in recent weeks to arrange support for the plan.” (See: Willets Point Project Foes Reach Deal With the City, by Fernanda Santos, November 12, 2008)

Is the city so bursting at the seams in this time of economic downturn that there are no other places in the area to develop and a 60-acre development can’t wait? Does approval mean that the city has all the necessary resources to proceed so that this should take priority over all the other opportunities that might be available? What makes this such a good area to develop that eminent domain should be used to remove the businesses for what might replace them?

City View of Willets Point as Extension of Downtown Flushing Development: Muss Development

The city views the development as an extension of Downtown Flushing, which is on the other side of the remnant of Flushing Creek, now sometimes referred to as the Flushing River. What is left of the waterway is a canal/inlet at the south end of Flushing Bay. It passes under the Van Wyck Expressway, which also separates the Willets Point Iron Triangle from Downtown Flushing.

Development is going on in Downtown Flushing, but nothing on the scale of the large island of development proposed for the Willets Point triangle. Downtown Flushing development doesn’t use eminent domain. It is driven by what is permitted under the current zoning. Most of the development that has occurred has been done by local Korean and Chinese developers. A more ambitious development is being done by Muss Development, which is doing a project for on the edge of the neighborhood for which it will receive brownfield clean-up tax credits. Interestingly, though the Muss project is all the way over on the Downtown Flushing side of the creek, a New York Sun article provides this description of the project: “The development is planned for a site near the No. 7 subway line, and is within walking distance of Shea Stadium and Flushing Meadows-Corona Park.” (See: Developer Plans $600M Queens Project, by Staff Reporter of the Sun, February 10, 2005)

According to the Sun, the Muss “complex, located at the corner of College Point Boulevard and Roosevelt Avenue along an abandoned industrial strip” and will be:

a $600 million mixed-use development on a 14-acre brownfield site in Flushing, it announced yesterday. The project will create 725,000 square feet of retail space, six condominium and rental buildings with 1,000 residential units, and a 55-footwide waterfront esplanade along the Flushing River.

Willets Point a Separate Neighborhood?


The Willets Point development the city is proposing does not really seem like an extension of the Downtown Flushing development that has occurred to date. It may rather have more in common with the as yet uncompleted Muss development. Or it may be viewed as something more separate and apart. The city Economic Development Corporation also prominently described the proposed development as a separate neighborhood “Willets Point is poised to become New York City’s next great neighborhood.” although the city says that this would be “Through an area-wide approach to redevelopment.”

Vision of the “Next Great Neighborhood

The proposed development is supposed to have the “first non-Manhattan convention center ” (talked about as being 125,000 square feet) and a “high quality” hotel (talked about at different times as being 250 rooms or 700 rooms). There are supposed to 5,500 housing units. 500,000 square feet of office space is also being talked about. The development is supposed to contain a new school. The City EDC site speaks of the development as including “open space, parks, and playgrounds.” In respect thereto the Bloomberg administration released information to the press in May of 2007 saying there would be, according to the Times, a two-acre park. From the city’s renderings it appears that the Flushing Creek wetlands around the highways would be preserved. It is also proposed to create a new pedestrian bridge over the creek, connecting it to Flushing. A city rendering shows the pedestrian bridge going underneath the elevated Van Wyck Expressway to connect to the redeveloped area. In time, the area surrounding the Flushing side of the pedestrian bridge is likely to be more developed and the city says it is planning to clean up and revitalize the waterfront in that area. (The pedestrian bridge idea may be on a back burner since newer renderings don’t show it.)

Residential units, 15% for Above-Average Income Families Overcomes Eminent Domain Abuse Objections

Previously it looked as if the issue of eminent domain was going to pose an insurmountable hurdle to the Bloomberg administration’s procurement of City Council approval for the plan. Approval was obtained when a promise was made to set aside additional housing units that are to be considered affordable.

Almost invariably, when low-income units are provided by developers it is done so in conjunction with programs that meet the requirements of federal tax code benefits. The same would be expected here as a matter of course. For federal tax code purposes at least 20% of the units under these programs must be set aside for households with incomes at 50% or less of the local Area Median Income (AMI), adjusted for family size. Such financing is a limited resource, but the math works out that if it is available a developer will opt for it. If the financing is not available, the developer probably won’t proceed at all. Resources to finance units under these programs are scarce though it is likely the city is hoping that the financing may become less scarce with Democrats and an Obama administration in Washington.

The accord that was reached to allow eminent domain was based on an agreement that in addition to the 20% of the units that would normally be required as affordable housing under the federal programs, an additional 15% of the units will be set aside for families who make less than 130 percent of the city’s median income. In other words: families with the above-average incomes that would currently be $99,840 a year for a family four (less for a smaller family and more for a larger one). Is that below the income for which the Flushing market would provide units on its own? That question and whether these additional units would be subsidized are worth thinking about.

We will revisit this City Council compromise in a bit.

Enough Residential Units to Create a Workable Neighborhood?

When they are eventually constructed, the proposed 5,500 housing units should be sufficient in number to comprise a workable neighborhood unto itself. When they are all constructed, the number will be sufficient to support services. An insufficient number of services was a criticism when Roosevelt Island, starting up in the 1970's, had only an initial 2,141 units; also when Battery Park City was just being built. The Battery Park City situation was less problematic in that it was near already existing developments and more connected with the rest of the city in other ways.

Challenges of Building at Willets Point

The proposed Willets Point development is close enough to the LaGuardia Airport flight path so the buildings there will have to be moderate in height rather than hi-rise. The land will be more expensive to build on than typical because piles will have to be driven deep into the soft soil. Low-rise buildings will make it harder to amortize the cost of the site preparation, but unless bedrock is reached the soft soil conditions are another reason not to build hi-rises. Construction for residential use will also entail greater-than-usual expenses to reclaim the land environmentally. There is debate about how much cleanup is necessary. Should we suspect that Muss Development, which is doing nearby brownfield clean up on the other side of the creek, would consider itself on the inside track to clean up this area if it were to bid on the development?

One last thing about the problematic nature of building in the triangle area; it is in a flood plain. According to the EDC site: “Most of Willets Point lies within the 100-year flood plain, necessitating a significant increase in grade across the site before modern infrastructure can be installed.”

EDC’s Stated Reasons for Building New Neighborhood at Willets Point

Why does the Bloomberg Administration see the triangle area as a priority area in which to build? The EDC website observes that the area is close to the #7 train and the Long Island Railroad. That’s true, you can get to it by walking (under elevated infrastructure) the length of about two baseball stadiums.

The EDC site says that there is good highway system access. That is probably a reason the existing car-oriented services and businesses currently thrive there. It is not a good reason to create a dense new urban residential community there. The city is promoting the development as “green” and environmentally oriented; creating a dense new car-reliant community is not.

The EDC site says that the location is “minutes” from the LaGuardia and JFK airports. It is very close to LaGuardia but while it is closer to JFK than some other parts of the city it is not a dependable short trip. Google Maps tells you to plan on 40 minutes if there is traffic. Technically, however, that is still “minutes.”

The EDC site also promotes the site for its connections with Flushing.

An Environmental Reason Debated

It is also being argued that the development should proceed in order to clean up pollution at the site. According to the EDC site:

* Willets Point suffers from widespread petroleum contamination, with additional potential contamination from paints, cleaning solvents, and automotive fluids.

* Environmental hazards are exacerbated by a high water table that spreads pollution throughout the site, endangering adjacent water bodies.

The city continued this theme more accusatorially in public testimony:

Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber and members of the Economic Development Corp. compared the pollution at Willets Point to a state Superfund site in their testimony on Friday, deriding the property owners for years of poor housekeeping while stating their case for a sweeping environmental cleanup of the area.

(See: The Iron Triangle Tracker: Property owners dispute city’s pollution claims after hearing, Posted on October 22, 2008 by Stephen Stirling)

The same Iron Triangle Tracker article covers rebuttals on behalf of the resident businesses:

“No one has ever talked about the Flushing River being contaminated from Willets Point until recently. Flushing River was contaminated for years,” (according to Dan Scully, vice president of Tully Environmental)

* * * *

In a statement, an environmental attorney representing the property owners, Michael Gerrard, said the city is overstating the contamination that exists.

“The only times the government tears down communities because of contamination is when there is a horrible chemical legacy, such as at Love Canal,” Gerrard said. “The key point here is that if Willets Point had that kind of legacy, the city would never want to take title to it because of the liability it would be assuming.”

The businesses in Willets Point pose environmental problems because cars use petroleum products. There may be an extra challenge to a proper environmental handling of things given the limited infrastructure and maybe because the land is so low-lying. One has to wonder, however, whether it will be easier or harder to deal with these businesses in an environmentally friendly and appropriate fashion if they are dispersed over a wide range of locations.

Does Bloomberg Not Know Willets Point Reality?

It is possible that Bloomberg wants to develop by eliminating the existing businesses at Willets Point because he doesn’t actually know what is now there that would be eliminated. Evidence of this is that in a radio interview Bloomberg referred to the Willets Point unknowledgeably as follows:

a haven for "chop shops and deserted warehouses" . . . . "There's no real economic activity there”

(See: The New York Times: Square Feet, A Redevelopment Scuffle in Queens, By Terry Pristin, May 17, 2006.)

“Chop Shop(s)” a Motivating Factor?

The Bloomberg quote mentions “chop shops.” The use of that term may be intentionally disparaging and factor in as an influence for people who want to see the area eliminated. They may believe that area businesses there are illegally carving up stolen cars for car parts. Bolstering this perception is a critically well-received 2007 independent movie, Chop Shop, filmed on location in Willets Point that depicts such illegal activity going on.

The teenage star (12 years old in the film), Alejandro Polanco, actually worked in Willets Point for six months as preparation for the film. He doesn’t agree with the city’s plan for eliminating the district:

"They shouldn't do it," he said, noting that the existing shops might perish if scattered across the city because they rely on a network of customer sharing.

"You're not going to know where to find them," Polanco said. "That's taking business from a lot of people - taking jobs away - just for building big towers for no reason.

"We already got a lot of high-rises in New York."

(See: 'Save Iron Triangle' - 'Chop Shop' star, by Jess Wisloski, April 29, 2008.)

How much illegal activity goes on in Willets Point? Does the rather timely “Chop Shop” reflect a documentary level of truth? It is filmed in a neorealistic style. Not everything about it is realistic. In the film Alejando and his sister take up residence in the area. That would triple the area’s official population since it is supposed to have only one resident.

High Crime or Misdemeanors?

Certainly anyone who has had a car stolen and vandalized will have a strong emotional reaction to the charge that there is a lot of illegal chop shop activity in the area. Before one gets too busy assessing the relative level of crime in a community, it is important to remember that violations of the law come in a variety of flavors and can technically include even jay-walking, together all sorts of other things of various levels of seriousness: chop-shopping stolen cars, undocumented aliens, building code violations and environmental infractions of various degrees. It is hard to imagine that if there is serious illegal activity at Willets Point that the police and inspectors have not zeroed in on it. One would think they would want to resort to a crackdown as an easier instrument than relocation to shut the area down. Also, if there is crime, is the answer to disperse it?

Crime? Out of AKRF’s Environmental Impact Statement’s Mouth

The environmental impact statement for the Willets Point redevlopement plan was prepared by AKRF, Inc., Eng-Wong, Taub & Associates and HDR-LMS. AKRF is notorious for preparing, hired-gun fashion, blight-finding studies and environmental impact statements that congenially support a predetermined pro-development agenda. Their close coordination with those doing development has gotten them involved more then once in legally objectionable conflict-of-interest problems. (See: Friday, August 15, 2008, Was AKRF's work for Ratner a hindrance to hiring by ESDC? No, it was a justification)

We remember that at the September 15, 2008 oral argument for the state lawsuit challenging the Atlantic Yards environmental review hearing, Justice James Catterson expressed judicial skepticism about AKRF and its blight study findings:

“Has AKRF ever studied an area it didn’t find to be blighted?” Catterson asked, drawing muted titters from the audience.

(See: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, In appeal of case challenging AY environmental review, some justices skeptical of state’s blight claim.)

Justice Catterson followed up, explaining his skepticism by saying that he knew a lot about AKRF’s reliable propensity to find blight because he had just written about AKRF and Columbia University. (As referred to above, in both the Columbia University and Atlantic Yards situations AKRF worked for both the private entity and theoretically also for the government, raising all sorts of accountability and conflict-of-interest issues.) (See: Friday, September 19, 2008, Contrivance in the service of creating blight, real blight- Listen again- REAL blight)

one Justice asked ESDC’s attorney whether consultant AKRF has ever studied an area that it didn’t consider blighted. He said he knew a lot about this because he had just written about AKRF and Columbia University. (In both the Columbia University and Atlantic Yards situations AKRF worked for both the private entity and theoretically also for the government, raising all sorts of accountability and conflict of interest issues.)

It is certainly possible to find accounts of crime at Willets Point in the press though sources like the New York Times are not exactly overflowing with them.

Here is the way a description portrays Willets Point crime in the March 30, 2007 environmental impact statement for the Willets Point Development Plan. says:

Today, many automotive repair and service businesses and junkyard operations have continued to add contamination to the area through illegal dumping and poor housekeeping, creating unsafe and unhealthy conditions throughout the District. In 2001 the State Attorney General announced the indictment of 21 junkyards and 35 individuals for violating State environmental laws by dumping motor oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid and other materials onto the ground and into storm drains and Flushing Bay. In addition, some businesses in the area have been linked to organized crime; in the past several years, the New York State Attorney General and the NYPD have issued several indictments for auto theft and racketeering.

It’s true, Eliot Spitzer when Attorney General went after businesses in Willets Point. April 25, 2001 his office issued a press release saying that after a year long investigation those 21 junkyards and 35 individuals, were indicted for breaking state environmental laws by dumping motor oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid and other materials onto the ground and into storm drains as they dismantled cars to be recycled. According to a follow-up press release, one individual was found guilty. Prior to that incident, a 1999 police sting operation reported about in 2000 (Undercover Scrap Operation Leads to Gotti Relative, by Juan Forero, January 26, 2000) resulted in the arrest of Carmine Agnello, the son-in-law of John J. Gotti. Mr. Agnello, owner of a scrap metal shredding company in the Bronx was accused of strong-arm racketeering and extortion tactics to force scrap metal companies in Willets Point to sell scrap to him at below-market prices. The Queens District attorney also asserted that Mr. Agnello ran the Gambino family's auto theft ring.

Most recently, according to the Final Environmental Impact Statement on April 3, 2008, the NYPD seized truckloads of counterfeit sneakers, handbags, and other goods from one of the warehouses.

(Continue to Part II)