Forest City Ratner Needs No Stinkin’ Badges To Rake In Cash From Unauthorized Parking Meters Posing As Legit

This is great.  What we have here for you is a story from the Journal News in Yonkers about how Forest City Ratner was reportedly illegally collecting fairly appreciable money for a year and a half (May 2011 until fall 2012) in the form of what were supposedly `meter fees’ and `parking ticket payments’ by running a phony parking meter operation at its Yonkers government-subsidized Ridge Hill project.  See:  Yonkers officials: Ridge Hill parking meters weren't legal, by Colin Gustafson, Jan 14, 2013.

That's priceless!:  Forest City Ratner impersonating the government yet again . . .  I guess it just gets to be a habit with some people.  See also: Thursday, June 16, 2011, Sovereign Immunity, Reconfiguration of Brooklyn’s Traffic And The Peculiar Verisimilitude of Government Functions When Forest City Ratner Takes Over.

Forest City Ratner is now in the process of removing the Yonkers meters for which they apparently had absolutely no authority (or that were at very best of “questionable legality”).

Forest City representatives assured Yonkers City Council committee members that it was legal to have the meters, according to a video of the meeting The Journal News reviewed.  The Ratner behavioral assumption that everything public, including all the streets around can be treated as the Ratner company’s private property is pretty much the way things are unfolding with the “Barclays” arena “black car” congestion problem that is likely to be solved by dedicating Brooklynite parking space as waiting areas for the private arena.

Above, the green shows where within the 30+ acre Forest City Ratner mega-monopoly (outlined) once-public streets, avenues and sidewalks are now privately owned by Ratner, subject to Ratner rules

 I suppose that after a while it just gets really difficult for Forest City Ratner and cohorts to think of themselves as not completely owning all of the public highways and byways.  The Atlantic Yards mega-project involves the city giving the company streets, avenues and adjoining sidewalks (Pacific Street, Fifth Avenue and their sidewalks) some of which are being closed down completely and permanently by the real estate firm, some of which will be partly open to the public’s passage through, subject to whatever prerogatives of private ownership these new owners might want to assert. . .   And (something not everybody knows) the Ratner organization already owns the once-public Fort Greene Place (between Hanson Place and Atlantic Avenue), another part of the 30+ acres of contiguous mega-monopoly that includes Atlantic Yards, thus making the now private Fort Greene Place subject to different rules and authority from the public streets around it.

Choice Discussions: Modifying the Grand Army Plaza of Olmsted and Vaux

The Design Trust for Public Space has now announced the “People's Choice Award” in its “Reinventing Grand Army Plaza” design competition. We earlier looked at the submissions in terms of overall principles: Sunday, October 5, 2008, Modifying the Grand Army Plaza of Olmsted and Vaux.

Leonard Lopate Show Discussions

There was a very worthwhile discussion of the competition and redesign issues on last Thursday’s Leonard Lopate show. Visiting the show’s website, I picked up on the fact that there had been a longer discussion on a prior program (February 6, 2008) which I recommend for those wanting to reflect on these issues in depth.

The October 9th discussion was with Deborah Marton, who is executive director of the Design Trust for Public Space, and Shin-pei Tsay (of Transportation Alternatives), who was involved in submitting a design called "A Parade for Brooklyn: Cultivating Local Flavor for Grand Army Plaza." Her design got an honorable mention in the competition. The half-hour February 6th discussion, again with Deborah Marton, included Tupper Thomas, President of the Board of the Prospect Park Alliance and Administrator of Prospect Park.

In following up I’d like to concentrate on certain of the proposed solutions for dealing with the traffic patterns in Grand Army Plaza, particularly on proposed reconfigurations that turn Grand Army Plaza into a peninsula of extended park space off Prospect Park. There was also discussion about, and relevant to, the proposed Atlantic Yards megadevelopment which I will review before concluding.

People’s Choice Award to “Canopy”

The People’s Choice award went to “Canopy”, an intricate design that works with a treatment of Flatbush Avenue and its Eastern Parkway connection as a main thoroughfare and covers it over with elevated green park. Canopy, by Anne-Sophie Coué, Christian Matteau, Stephane Mauget and Chrystelle Sanaa of Nantes, France, was also tied for first place as part of the earlier formal competition by a panel of judges.

Canopy eliminates the West Drive roads that now provide car traffic into and out of Prospect Park, allowing Grand Army Plaza to become a peninsula off Prospect Park. (More on this later). Vanderbilt Avenue, Union Street and Prospect Park West would lose their more direct connection to Flatbush and Eastern Parkway, pushing traffic out into the encircling Plaza Streets (East and West) which have been serving as quieter residential streets. Covering over Flatbush allows a maximum extension for pedestrians of the plan’s newly created peninsula off Prospect Park. The expense of covering over Flatbush probably makes this plan a less likely proposition. Nevertheless, covering Flatbush in some way is probably instinctively attractive to all us. As the Thursday Lopate discussion noted, submerging roads below grade in the area is not practical since there are subways running under the plaza. Elevating the park to cover the roads is possible but still expensive.

Grand Army Plaza as a Green Peninsular Extension of Prospect Park

Transforming Grand Army Plaza into a peninsula off Prospect Park is an attractive proposition that more than one competition submission took up. The idea would be that you could walk from the park to the plaza and reach its triumphal arch without having to cross any car-trafficked roads. Pedestrian walks and bike lanes would still flow where it might make sense. The Grand Army Plaza oval is between Park Slope and Prospect Heights. Big roads tend to divide neighborhoods. Conversely, pedestrian paths and bikeways serve to knit them together.

The idea of making Grand Army Plaza into a peninsula off Prospect Park cannot be implemented unless the West Drive roads in and out of Prospect Park are either eliminated or closed to car traffic. Elimination would be consistent with the evolving consensus that car traffic in Prospect Park should be either reduced or eliminated. The West Drive roads traveling longitudinally through both the plaza oval and the neck of the park’s entrance absorb a huge amount of space, so elimination would provide a big pay-off in acreage that would possibly be associated with a lot of greening.

Turning Grand Army Plaza into a peninsula off Prospect Park also is not possible without severing roads that complete the traffic circle loop, such as the stretch of road that allows Union Street and others to flow east to Eastern Parkway and to Flatbush Avenue headed south.

"A Parade for Brooklyn” Honorably Mentioned

The design "A Parade for Brooklyn: Cultivating Local Flavor for Grand Army Plaza" by Lori Marie Gibbs and the above mentioned Ms. Shin-pei Tsay is somewhat similar to Canopy, similarly treating Flatbush Avenue and its Eastern Parkway connection as a main thoroughfare. It gives the roads a similar course through the plaza. The design pays attention to better accommodating the farmer’s market that uses the open space just outside the park by its McKim, Mead, and White designed central gates. Unlike the Canopy design, there would be no covering over of roads. Similar to Canopy, it eliminates the West Drive car roads into and out of Prospect Park, but it doesn’t go all the way to take advantage of this because it doesn’t turn the plaza into a connected park peninsula. Instead it leaves the circle of traffic intact flowing all around the plaza. The design would push a lot of traffic out to the quiet Plaza Streets which become the new traffic circle.

Achieving a Peninsular Extension by Replacing Current Traffic Circle With a “Traffic U”


Tied for first place with the Canopy design was “Please Wake Me Up!” by Guillaume Derrien and Gauthier le Romancer of Paris, France. Please Wake Me Up! is most worthwhile for the traffic design it creates that turns the inner plaza (not the entire plaza) into a peninsular extension of Prospect Park.

Basic Benefits

Except for the design’s interruption of the traffic circle pattern that currently makes a complete circuit around the interior roads of the plaza, the design is surprisingly similar to the presently used version of the Olmsted and Vaux design. Also, like Canopy and Parade for Brooklyn, car access into Prospect Park on the West Drive in and out of the park would be eliminated. The design would keep in place the raised berms that surround the plaza with their sound-baffling effect for the outer residential area. The design would also be good in that it would not tend to push a substantial amount of traffic flow out to the quieter encircling residential Plaza Streets.

Substantially Different Traffic Flow

The new, U-shaped flow of traffic under the plan would be substantially different from the current flow. Among other things, it would tend to quiet traffic substantially. It maintains all the connections between major traffic arteries. Those connections might be less flowing, but that would contribute to the quieting effect. Substantially less overall space would be devoted to roadway, particularly because of the elimination of the West Drives. There is some opportunity for further shaving down the design’s roadway space though automobile-centric advocates might argue for going the other way.

The circle-replacing design makes its U-shape traffic pattern work by flowing traffic in two directions around the plaza. Bidirectional roads would calm traffic. The plan also changes directions of some surrounding streets.

Plaza Street East would flow in the direction opposite to what it does now but it would remain substantially as quiet and little-used. It would no longer take in traffic from St. John’s place and it would take in Flatbush traffic from its southern end rather than from the north.

Prospect Park West would flow two ways instead of just southerly. Again, as noted, two-way streets tend to be quieter. It would also make Prospect Park West less attractive as a speedway to those rushing down from Flatbush Avenue.

Union Street looks as if it would become a one-way street going only southwesterly.

A Fat vs. Rectilinear Interior Plaza

On paper the plan lays out the interior plaza peninsula with pleasing rectilinearity. It is probably a mistake to do so because it shrinks the peninsula. The surrounding streets will be quieted, but the surrounding traffic and its noise will be uncomfortably distracting because of its closeness to the center plaza. As a practical matter, in the immediate term, a preponderance of the inner plaza’s trees and shade would be lost. Double rows of mature 60-year-old trees on each side of the interior plaza would be sacrificed. Making the plaza smaller than what it could be if a more buffering fat oval were retained would deal with noise less effectively. Further, any green space that cleaves to the inner sides of the berms will be used less effectively than green space that fattens the interior plaza.

A general fattening of the interior plaza with a more organic shape of the roads would be preferable. In addition, fattening might allow other opportunities to add to and collect green spaces together with the larger pedestrian spaces. It might allow for some moderate berms and other sound-baffling features around the inner plaza. Perhaps thought should even be given to eliminating entirely the sidewalk that currently travels inside the existing berms and reallocating that space to the interior plaza. The berms with their elevated height could be used to launch access walkways into the plaza, elevated over arches. These could be built at the end of a phased-in redesign.

The Hugely Wide Eastern Parkway and Its Greenwway

Looking at the proposed U-shaped traffic pattern, the relative size of the six-lane Eastern Parkway looks huge. In the plan Eastern Parkway is shown as six lanes. Eastern Parkway once met the plaza with six principal lanes. Currently, Eastern Parkway joins the plaza with five+ principal lanes (three west-bound lanes, two east-bound and a wide lane-dividing space) plus, in addition to those five principle lanes Eastern Parkway has laminated next to it an adjacent residential service street. This service street is five lanes wide when it joins the plaza. Two lanes are used for parking and in the center there is space without lane markings wide enough for three cars to stand abreast before entering the plaza. In other places the service road is only four lanes wide. In all, that is the equivalent of more than ten lanes of Eastern Parkway traffic at the entrance of the plaza.


There may be a superabundance of roadway but the Eastern Parkway greenway that was also designed by Olmstead and Vaux stops unfortunately short, missing the opportunity to make it all the way to connect with Prospect Park. The full greenway stops just east of the Brooklyn Museum. A version of the greenway, a 50% echo, runs the short stretch of blocks traveling in front of the Brooklyn Museum, the Brooklyn Botanic Garden and adjacent park. The greenway stops entirely across the street from the architecturally beautiful public library.

Clearly there is an opportunity to widen, improve and connect the greenway to the plaza, going west from the Brooklyn Museum.

The Lopate Discussions and Traffic

The Lopate show discussions are interesting if you want to pick up fascinating historical trivia about the plaza and its design, including how many time the arch and plaza have been renovated. The city Department of Transportation spent $400,000 on plaza renovations as recently as the fall of 2007 (video available). I didn’t know, for instance, that Grand Army Plaza was once the location of Brooklyn’s “death-o-meter”, which in 1927 posted the borough’s traffic accident figures to discourage fast or careless driving.

More important, it is refreshing to hear discussed at length on the public airwaves the kind of informed urban design concerns that were being discussed on the Leonard Lopate show. After all, the plaza is a central Brooklyn landmark and symbol encompassing a total of 11 acres. In the more recent program there was nuanced discussion of the value of keeping all the plaza uses on one level. It was suggested that interaction of mixed uses would quiet the car traffic by buffering it with other uses.

The handling of the car traffic is key to making the 11 acres work. Traffic is, in fact, the `driving’ need for redesign. In both Lopate discussions it was emphasized that the reason that the Grand Army Plaza design needs to be addressed is that things changed since it was designed by Olmsted and Vaux: The automobile was invented.

The Two Lopate Discussions and Atlantic Yards

In my last post on the competition I noted that the UNITY plan, a preferential plan for the development of the Vanderbilt Railyards (instead of the foundering Atlantic Yards plan), presciently took the Vanderbilt Railyards’ relationship with Grand Army Plaza into consideration. (The UNITY plan envisions creating a new public square to the north on Flatbush Avenue.) The two Lopate program discussions were interesting for their discussion of how the proposed Atlantic Yards interrelates with Grand Army Plaza. We were, after all, listening to people thinking about urban planning issues.

The First Show- Traffic-Considerations

Clearly, there is an immediate link in terms of traffic handling. Flatbush Avenue flows through Grand Army Plaza and because it also flows by Atlantic Yards would flow through the new plaza to the north suggested by the UNITY plan. (BTW: I think we may be able to look forward to a community-sponsored competition for that new plaza.) Vanderbilt Avenue also flows through Grand Army Plaza as well as right past the Vanderbilt Railyards.

(Some references in terms of scale might be important. The proposed Atlantic Yards site is only 40% over the Vanderbilt Railyards site. It is interesting to note that, at about 11 acres, Grand Army Plaza is 25% larger than Vanderbilt Yards and about half the acreage of what Ratner proposes as his AY footprint. You can, as an interesting exercise, imagine 50% of the 22 acre Atlantic Yards being squeezed into the plaza area by imagining eight crazy Gehry-style skyscrapers plus a one-half of a Nets arena squeezed into the area. The buildings, should be imagined as ranging from 51 stories (previously and maybe again 60) down to buildings in the 20-story range. They would mostly be at the taller end of this range. For quick reference, the new 114-unit Richard Meier building going up on the plaza which has set-backs is just 15 stories. It Makes you wonder what the left-over and shadowed Atlantic Yards green open-space would be like!)

The current flow of car traffic past the Atlantic Yards site, particularly on Flatbush is already a significant problem which the arrival of the currently proposed version of Atlantic Yards will make substantially worse. (See: Atlantic Yards Report; Thursday, August 21, 2008, 60,000 vehicles daily at Flatbush and Atlantic? A closer look; Tuesday, February 20, 2007 Marty said “get real” on traffic/parking, but ESDC didn’t agree much and the New York Times; A Traffic Knot, Pulling Tighter, By Nicholas Confessore, January 8, 2006.)

The first Lopate conversation discussed the traffic relationship, observing on the air (at 23:13 in the broadcast), that a listener named Andrew posted a comment raising the problem:

I welcome the efforts of the design trust to rethink Grand Army Plaza. We have to do it now before the Atlantic Yards mess brings an additional 10-15k cars into the neighborhood each day.

Lopate said he was sure that this was something that would have to be thought about. His guests agreed, noting that a traffic study would have to be done. Would the U-shaped traffic pattern of “Please Wake Me Up!” have a beneficial effect on upstream Atlantic Yards traffic? These things will certainly need to be thought about.

First Show: Brooklyn Development

Atlantic Yards was mentioned three times in the February 06, 2008 show. In the discussion participants used an almost respectful tone about the megadevelopment, referring to it as if its prospects were reasonably definite. It should be borne in mind that Lopate’s discussion guests were, at the time, clearly fishing for money and cooperation from the city (and perhaps elsewhere). There were innumerable respectful references to the city agencies whose cooperation had been obtained for the plaza project and one remark provoked Tupper Thomas to remark how she would be “thrilled with $30 million.” This might explain why neither of Lopate’s guests offered the kind of negative aside about Atlantic Yards one ought to expect from people sensitive to and involved with good urban design.

Atlantic Yards, when it was mentioned, was mentioned as a reason the Grand Army Plaza needed to be addressed. Lopate brought it up first (at 13:23 in the broadcast), saying that Atlantic Yards “isn’t all that far away” and “will change the whole look of Brooklyn.” Tupper Thomas (probably thinking of the incredible immensity of Ratner’s Atlantic Yards) responded, indicating that she had given thought to whether the undesirable height of Atlantic Yards project would negatively threaten the plaza and Prospect Park. She explained defensively that “we are much higher up,” and that as one of the “highest points in Brooklyn . . .we will still have fabulous views straight down to Manhattan.” (Really? The Williamsburg Savings Bank rises up if you look down Flatbush.)

Earlier in the program Ms. Marton had been pointing out the very brisk pace of Brooklyn development, giving statistics on how many building permits were being issued every day. The next time that Atlantic Yards was brought up, Leonard Lopate was noting optimistically how funding ought to be readily available. Ms. Marton responded, attempting to confirm this optimism, citing the “energy in the borough” and the “intensity of development”, listing development projects, including others that could be considered controversial (Coney Island and Domino) (at 17:55). She spoke about “a groundswell to have Grand Army Plaza realize its potential.” In this vein, the importance of Brooklyn as a tourist destination was also invoked.

Second Show: Brooklyn Development

The second Lopate discussion last week was different. There was no direct mention of Atlantic Yards. With the passage of the intervening eight months, Atlantic Yards is increasingly recognized as an undefined and ever more unlikely project. There was mention, however, of how successful Prospect Heights is. Mr. Lopate was talking about the effect of the plaza’s design on its division of Prospect Heights from Park Slope (at 10:50). He observed how we are seeing “much more gentrification of Prospect Heights” and suggested that Prospect Heights will “probably look like Park Slope.” Park Slope was named in 2007 by the American Planning Association as one of America’s 10 great neighborhoods “for its architectural and historical features and its diverse mix of residents and businesses, all of which are supported and preserved by its active and involved citizenry.” (See: New York Times, Park Slope and 125th Street Are Named ‘Great Places’, by Sewell Chan October 4, 2007.)

Lopate noted that “On Prospect Park”, the new aforementioned Richard Meier designed building on the plaza, was very-high-priced housing. The last time we checked it contained the second most expensive apartments in Brooklyn, second only to "One Brooklyn Bridge Park" being built under the BQE at 360 Furman Street in what is the new Brooklyn Bridge Park.. There was no mention in the discussion that Atlantic Yards-induced blight has actually forestalled development activity that was underway in Prospect Heights near the yards. Newly renovated buildings are intended to be demolished and Atlantic Yards will also dislocate existing low-income tenants.

Second Show: Money, Time and Planning

The second discussion, occurring only last week, naturally dealt with the economic downturn and the implicit difficulty in obtaining funds in this new environment (at 13:15). The suggestion was made that slow economic times are a good time for urban planning because urban planning is “not a fast activity” and times like these afford a “chance to give proper thought” to what is being done. It was pointed out that Grand Army Plaza is iconic and has every asset so that there is no reason why it should not be a showplace of the borough. That’s pretty much what I think when I look at the Williamsburg Savings Bank sitting beside Vanderbilt Railyards. Let’s hope we take the opportunity to give proper thought to Grand Army Plaza (as the city seems willing to do) and to designs for Atlantic Yards/Vanderbilt Railyards (which the city has not been willing to do).

Future Grand Army Plaza Community Meetings

Reinventing Grand Army Plaza competition submissions will no longer be on display in Grand Army Plaza after Monday, October 13th, but the Grand Army Plaza Coalition (GAPCo), which coordinated with the Design Trust to create the competition, will be hosting community meetings to discuss what should be done. GAPCo’s website has a number of elucidating videos and other resources. At the community meetings it will be possible to make suggestions that take the best ideas from all the plans.

A recent Brooklyn Paper article discussing the plans, A winning vision for Grand Army Plaza, by Sarah Portlock, October 10, 2008, is also available for reference.

Dear Eliot, . . . . . Please be a true reformer

This is the second in a series of posts I am running. Each post will share one of a number of letters I have written to politicians representing us calling for them to take responsibilty on Atlantic Yards.

I invite others to borrow freely from them in structuring their own letters.

The first in this series was my letter to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to which, as you will see if you refer to my first post, I received a response.

I also received a response to this letter I sent to Eliot Spitzer when he was still governor. More on that later because that is an interesting story in itself.

This letter back in May of 2007 was CCed to the Brooklyn Heights Association. The Brooklyn Heights Association is part of Brooklyn Speaks. Brooklyn Speaks and the Brooklyn Heights Association are quite appreciative of how flawed a (mega!)project Atlantic Yards is. They are not powerless. I have called upon them to take effective action “Effective Action Needed From Brooklyn Speaks, BHA, etc.” (Picked up and posted by No Land Grab, March 19, 2008.)


This May 2007 letter also refers to City Councilman Bill de Blasio. Since the letter goes back a ways it would be fair to say that Mr. de Blasio’s position on Atlantic Yards has been shifting since that time. (Atlantic Yards Report, Wednesday, April 16, 2008 De Blasio's (late) AY conversion and the need for oversight and Brownstoner, April 15, 2008 De Blasio Blasts Ratner on AY Obfuscation) It would also be fair to say that de Blasio’s position needs to shift more and that he is one the politicians from whom we will need more effective action in order to make sure the stake is driven through the heart of Atlantic Yards. Our respect needs to be earned on this.

(Need we comment that, in retrospect, Eliot did not earn our respect or convince us of his legitimate credentials as an honest reformer.)

*********

May 29, 2007

Hon. Eliot Spitzer
Governor
State of New York
State Capitol
Albany, New York, 12224


Re: Please Support Reform in Brooklyn- Conduct and Governance of Public Authorities

Dear Governor Spitzer:

We live in Brooklyn Heights and together with many of our colleagues in this neighborhood of skilled and informed professionals we count ourselves as amongst your most effective, aware and first supporters. We naturally contributed heavily, including contribution of our time, to ensure that Democrats won across the board in the last elections. Since Brooklyn Heights is a home community for many Wall-Streeters, we acknowledge that Brooklyn Heights is also replete with a complement of professionals many of whom are hostile to, or have reservations about, certain of the reforms you have pursued (more on this later)- but we must emphasize that we are among those who have strongly supported you because of your reform agenda.

This letter is to urge you to be reform-minded as set forth herein and to urge you to understand that for us reform in Albany begins in Brooklyn.

Last week we received a political polling call asking whether we were within a few blocks of Downtown Brooklyn: Absolutely, we are within fewer blocks than they asked. We were asked about which local politicians we supported, (de Blasio- Thumbs down,- Montgomery- Thumbs up, red-faced Markowitz- thumbs down). Lastly, we were asked whether there were any major issues we thought were affecting our community. To this we were very emphatic that our community and the rest of Brooklyn is very significantly threatened by unfolding events in which you, your administration and the authorities you oversee have a very significant role to play. That is what this letter is about.

We cannot think of anything that has ever threatened Brooklyn so profoundly as the politically embarrassing Atlantic Yards project. As currently proposed it has all of the following things egregiously wrong with it:

1. Excessive Density. The project is absurdly and offensively dense. As what will be the densest area of the entire USA, (seven times the overall density of Manhattan) it will be a significant multiple of what would be an appropriate density which might, instead, be the much lower density of Battery Park City.

2. Indefensible Condemnation. The peculiar “Boymelgreen wrench” shape of the project will be as famous to future urbanists, government and political scholars (not to mention all the rest of the public) as the salamander shape that gave rise to the verb “gerrymander.” The wrench shape that has been thrown into the inexcusably odd history of this project will be a perpetual high-relief reminder etched on the Borough’s skin and skyline of two indefensible aspects of the project’s progress through the system. The peculiar wrench shape comes about for two reasons:

a. The unnecessary, unjustified, inappropriate and overreaching condemnation of the Wards Bakery Building block. This block with quality buildings that should be put to adaptive reuse is obviously being condemned because it is not actually over the rail yards. Since expensive platforms will not have to be built and since the zoning override of normal density restrictions will give the developer value far in excess of the condemnation price he will pay, this overreaching is purely for the purpose of creating a windfall gift to the developer.

b. The donut-hole of the Shaya Boymelgreen-developed block of property which is in no appropriate way distinct from the surrounding property. The relationships and special treatment of Boymelgreen in this transaction do not bear examination. Possessed of the knowledge that I have as a former public official (and which I believe is readily available to you and the people who work for you), I feel particularly well qualified to reach a conclusion on this subject.

3. Improper Bid Process. Everyone knows that the process by which the single developer for the project was selected was improper. The public knows the developer was not the high bidder for the property. People are aware of the exclusion of other developers from the bid process. People know that the criteria for the bid and the public benefit were improperly derived from the to-be-selected-bidder and not, as should have been the case, by public officials doing their job. When people consider the matter, they appreciate quite clearly that the site should have been bid out in multiple parcels to multiple developers (which would result in faster development). No one ever says it isn’t so when people aptly attribute the choice of the developer to that developer’s close personal ties with the former Governor. People know that all of this was done with an appalling lack of transparency and that there are no producible documents that can adequately justify or document the making of the choice.

4. Very Poor Design Quality. The project’s design is far below the lowest baseline that ought to be acceptable. The worst part of the project’s design is the residential and public space portions, but the rest of is also inexcusably below standard, the Gehry name being just eyewash. As his “dirty iceburg” building that recently appeared on West Street attests, the name Gehry does not provide any guarantee of good design. Frankly, this is a very big task that is monumentally beyond him. I don’t ask you to accept my comments based on the fact that I have a degree in urban planning but I do ask you to consider the lucid comments from others such as the Municipal Arts Society. Among other things, there should be no wholesale closure of public streets. The poor design is particularly regrettable because in this instance there should be a very high degree of obligation for good design for the following reasons:

a. The Empire State Development Corporation is exercising a zoning override. Zoning overrides are not, per se, always necessary but when they are exercised for the purpose of superseding the minimum design standards of the zoning code there is an opportunity to achieve better, more suitable site designs. In such cases design standards should not be overridden unless better, not worse, standards will be achieved.

b. Extra-high density creates substantial extra sets of problems that can only be coped with, as
in the case of Battery Park City, with good design.

c. Low-quality design should never be accepted from a developer if, as in this case, public officials have abdicated their normally applicable responsibility to themselves specify and impose suitably high design standards that will apply.

5. Public Benefit Mirage. The project has been promoted on the basis that it will deliver public benefit. Should it ever be done, it should only be done on the basis that public benefit will be delivered. But the idea actual that public benefit will be delivered is an uncertain, receding and distant mirage. Brooklyn is split on the subject of whether there should be an arena. We ourselves don’t favor an arena at the project location but we accept the point of view of others and acknowledge that, on this, reasonable minds could differ. However, the arena is being so heavily subsidized with millions of public dollars that it cannot properly be said that the developer is delivering this public benefit. The basic problem with any prospect of public benefit in this project is that the developer, rather than responsible public officials, has been the one coming up with his own meandering assertions of a.) what will theoretically benefit the public, b.) how he “commits” to it, and c.) when it might possibly be delivered. Partly because this project was not bid out in multiple parcels to multiple developers, the more important benefits of delivering the residential and ostensible “public space” portions of the project have been thrust out years further into the future than makes any kind of sense. The practical result is that immediately and for the foreseeable future there is a project that delivers extraordinarily disproportionate private benefit to the developer while the public lives with a perhaps ever-receding mirage of vague promise. The chance that the developer will ever deliver is inadequate and probably totally undermined by the developer’s tack to soak up public housing subsidies that would simply have delivered the same benefit more effectively and sooner elsewhere. That the developer is failing to deliver real and timely public benefit and has no hard commitment to do so is rooted in the fact that there was never a fair bidding process where developers competed to earn the right to develop Vanderbilt Yards/AtlanticYards. Net, net: The project delivers burden not benefit to the public.

6. Improper Review and Conduct of Environmental Impact. The improper handling of the Environmental Impact Statement for the project is another part of the project’s processing and consideration which should have been handled properly and wasn’t. The EIS was rushed through in an attempt at perfunctory dispensation of a legal requirement before the last governor left office. The essence of the EIS requirement is that there should be due and proper substantive consideration of the environmental issues which was quite palpably not the goal, nor was it what was done by those charged with this further responsibility to the public.

We know that, in the end, you and your team need to evaluate all of the above. The public might perhaps excuse bad process if it brings about a good project. Or the public might overlook a project of normal density that is of somewhat below-average or mediocre design. A project delivering real public benefit on a timely basis, notwithstanding a peculiar set of condemnation procedures, might evoke only a normal level of public regret. But a project that rises 1.) with crushingly oppressive and unprecedented density, 2.) awful and insensitive design, 3.) a peculiar footprint that announces the project’s errant DNA and genesis, and 4.) whose public benefit is a mere distant mirage, achieves a trifecta-plus-one that ensures permanent public opprobrium. This will be an irritatingly monumented public opprobrium that appears on every city map, subway map and picture of the Brooklyn skyline.

We think that everyone understands that even though your administration was not involved initially, that the Atlantic Yards project will not now happen as proposed without your administration’s active support, which makes you one of the officials most responsible for the project going forward.

We noted at this letter’s outset that our community is comprised partly of those in the financial community with reservations and doubts about your reform agenda. When you took on Wall Street you stood up and did things that people disagreed with in the name of reform and we believed earnestly in what you were doing. Atlantic Yards cries out for the kind of reform you have said you believe in. It is one thing, a good thing, to stand up against the crowd and the powerful for what is right.- It is an entirely different matter to go against the community and its interests to escort to completion a project which is poisoned by corrupt process and unconscionable inequity and windfall. (With simple and straightforward wisdom, the local Community Board 6, in September, voted 35-4 to disapprove of the project as proposed in the July 18, 2006 General Project Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement "because it will cause irreparable damage to the quality of life in the borough of Brooklyn.") This is a defining moment for your administration which will inform, in retrospect, how people view your goals and values.

We need to report to you that people in the community are saying that you are not willing to listen to opposition to the project. People who are saying this also ascribe certain meanings to their assertion, usually mentioning that you have family involved in the real estate business. We are able to argue against some of the most cynical assertions, pointing out that now and in the future contributions from Forest City Ratner and kin will forever be off-limits to you. Arguments notwithstanding, in the end everyone is expecting to make their ultimate judgements based upon your actions.

Everyone knows you have excellent people working for you. Everyone knows that there are plenty of people working for you who are fully sensitive to everything that is wrong with the project as proposed. If you listen and let the wisdom and concerns percolate up from the people you hired to do their jobs, they will tell you that the project desperately needs to be fixed and it cannot be fixed without some serious back-to-the-drawing-board activity. (Going back to the drawing board there is opportunity to create a fabulous project.) You just need to tell them that you want to hear the truth and that they should think in those terms.

Many people are dealing with the proposed Atlantic Yards making the assumption that it won’t happen as planned or with some other mixture of denial. Some say the conventional wisdom in Albany is that the entire project will never be consummated as currently planned. Some say that decision-making politicians such as you are simply inadequately informed and some say that much of the public likewise doesn’t yet truly know what to expect. Rest assured though that it will not be until the project is physically manifesting itself that public alarm and scorn will climax. Until then, let our voice be the “canary in the coal mine” for you.- At the Brooklyn Heights Association we hung on your words, fascinated to hear once again what you had to say when you addressed us. We thought then we were ahead of the pack in picking the right man. We hope that we were right then and hope that you prove us so by realizing that we are right about this now.

I am writing this letter jointly with my wife who is cosigning it below reflecting our shared and common viewpoint. Sincerely, this matter is critically important.


Sincerely,


Michael D. D. White


(& my wife)


CC: Brooklyn Heights Association

Hudson Yards: Review of Development Proposal Designs

The following, while setting forth some updated analysis, is also partly in the nature of a catch-up. After the introductory update, this post sets forth comments I submitted to the MTA on December 10, 2007 about the development proposals for Hudson Yards.

I was pleased when a month later, on January 8, 2008, the MTA received an open letter from the Hudson Yards Community Advisory Committee with comments substantially parallel to my own. The Community Advisory Committee’s open letter is available at “Open letter to the MTA from Hudson Yards Community Advisory Committee”. The PDF is available too.

At the time the Committee’s letter was sent, the Committee was composed not only of key members of the community but also significant politicians and political representatives such as City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn, Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer, and
State Senator Thomas K. Duane.

The complete membership of the Committee at that time is set forth below.

Manhattan Community Board 4: Lee Compton, Anna Levin, Walter Mankoff, Joe Restuccia, Jean-Daniel Noland
U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (or proxy)
City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn (or proxy)
Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer (or proxy)
State Senator Thomas K. Duane (or proxy)
Assembly Member Richard N. Gottfried (or proxy)
Hell’s Kitchen Neighborhood Association – Kathleen Treat
Housing Conservation Coordinators – John Raskin
Friends of Hudson River Park - Ross Graham
Friends of the High Line - Joshua David
Manhattan Plaza Tenants Association – Marisa Redanty
Rep from 544 West 35th street – Camilla Pettle
44th Street Block Association – Renee Stanley
45th Street Block Association – Justin Krebs
Hudson Crossing Tenants Association – Brian Sogol
Save Chelsea - Andrew Berman
West Side Neighborhood Alliance - Anita Black

My comments were with respect to five development proposals that were submitted for Hudson Yards. A proposal has now been selected by the MTA.

Through a circuitous route the development proposal that was selected by the MTA was the Related Companies proposal. The Related Companies proposal was viewed by me and probably the substantial majority of the public as the second-best proposal from the standpoint of design and creation of a livable city. Brookfield Properties, which everyone thought submitted the best proposal, dropped out of the bidding. Tishman Speyer was announced as the winning proposal but did not follow through and was thereafter replaced by Related.

While it is unfortunate that we are not now proceeding with the Brookfield proposal, the Related Companies design is the closest to Brookfield’s and can be modified and improved by incorporating many features of the Brookfield proposal. We sincerely hope this will happen.

Density is an absolutely key consideration in evaluating the design and development proposals for the site. The Community Advisory Committee’s # 1 comment on the proposals is, “There is too much density for a successful environment.” The MTA is striving to put as much density on the site as possible in order to maximize the sales price for the yards. This striving for density is one of the things that makes attention to good design and things like continuation of the street grid and maximization of streets absolutely critical. Only with the best design can this proposed density be expected to work.

Should the density for the site be as great as proposed? Very likely not. The site is a good site for high-density development but the Community Advisory Committee is probably right in complaining that too much density is being squeezed onto this site; more density is being squeezed onto the site than would be built on immediately adjacent property. If you look at what is proposed for the site in the context of what is proposed for the neighboring properties you will note that the proposed density mounds up and is greater directly over the Hudson Yards property being sold by the MTA than the property that surrounds it. That is good for the MTA because it garners a higher price but bad for the public because it doesn’t make optimal long term urban planning sense. It doesn’t make long term urban planning sense because the density around the properties closest to the extension of the #7 subway line is less although it is there that it should be relatively greater.

Since it doesn’t make good long-term urban planning sense to selectively mound up extra density over the Hudson Yards site, we can assume that the decision is being driven by the practical expedient of maximizing site sale proceeds to the MTA. Some may applaud this decision given the news that subway fares are to rise again for the second year in succession. The New York Times points out today that “This would be only the second time in the history of the subway that fares were raised in consecutive years; the last time was in 1980 and 1981.” (See: “M.T.A. Plan to Raise Fares Angers Officials and Riders” By Ray Rivera)
Interestingly, the MTA is NOT maximizing the sales price of the land it is selling in the parallel example of Atlantic Yards. Rather than raise more money for capital or operating expenses the MTA is selling its property to the Atlantic Yards developer at a substantial write-down and collecting far less (hundred’s of millions less) than it could. In the case of the Atlantic Yards site the density of the site is being maxed out to an inappropriate degree, but the real estate value of that extra density that is being created with this maxing out is being given to the Forest City Ratner as the developer of the site rather than being captured by the MTA as in the case of Hudson Yards. (See: Friday, June 27, 2008 “No-property-tax status was supposed to raise the price of the Vanderbilt Yard”)

One last thing on Atlantic Yards, vis-a-vis Hudson Yards: The participation of City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and the other above named political representatives in the Hudson Yards Community Advisory Committee letter on Hudson Yards reveals where Speaker Quinn and the others should stand on the Atlantic Yards. They no doubt know this. There are many parallels between the proposed Hudson Yards and Atlantic Yards projects so that criticisms of Hudson Yards, which is a relatively good project (a high density project in a high density neighborhood), also apply to Atlantic Yards. At the same time, all the ways in which Atlantic Yards is different from Hudson Yards make Atlantic Yards a substantially worse project, probably the worst project being proposed in the City right now.

Here are the comments I submitted to the MTA in December on the development proposals for Hudson Yards.


*******
December 10, 2007

To: Metropolitan Transportation Authority

From: Michael D. D. White


RE: West Side Yard Development Proposals: Tell us what you think. Write your comment and drop in the box.

______________________________________________________________________________

Here are my comments on the five West Side Yard development proposals. First, Brookfield Properties design is very much my favorite. Second, all of the High Line should be kept (see the final section after comments on the individual proposals).

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES PROPOSAL IS BEST BECAUSE:

• It is the proposal with the best intricacy and the proposal with the best potential for adding additional intricacy with tweaking. That is important working at these densities.

• I also like its treatment of the High Line. I think Brookfield did a superb job creating a great public promenade space around the High Line and I like to think that during much of that portion of the year when people spend the most time outside there will be an arrow of setting-sunlight coming in from the river.

• It has several other admirable and varied public spaces including the best space taking advantage of the waterfront.

• It does the best job of maximizing the street connections.

THE RELATED COMPANIES IS SECOND BEST:

I am in concurrence with the Curbed poll in that I think The Related Companies’ proposal is the second best in terms of its attractiveness to the public. Interestingly, the characteristics that make the Related proposal good are characteristics it has in common with the Brookfield proposal but which the Brookfield proposal mostly does better.

COMMENTS OF BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES PROPOSAL:

The proposal is my favorite. Here are ideas for tweaking it:

Here are some other thoughts including some suggestions for possible eventual tweaking.

Connections to the High Line. I would create more second level connections between the East/West running stretch of High Line (“West Chelsea Promenade”) and the other project public space at the South end up at that higher level. Right now there is one such connection and there should be at least one more making it easier to access the cultural space. (BTW: I note that with the Manhattan Children’s museum on the West adjoining “Hudson Green”- good idea- there are actually two cultural spaces which is good.) While some additional connections would be great, the Related proposal, by comparison, gives the High Line a sort of hug-of-death in this area and would benefit from some separations.

Possible Outdoor Promenade Running East/West Parallel to High Line. There are no places I know of elsewhere where the High Line can be appreciated from its own level or from outside and above. There is a unique opportunity to create such places here with this design. In so doing, you have the chance to accentuate the sense of place and destination. Without disrupting any plans for the foundations of the proposed buildings it should be possible to create a recessed promenade that would run alongside and at the same level as the High Line. If there is recess into the buildings there would be Bellamyesque shelter from the elements that pedestrians could opt for. The promenade would also create extra connection options capable of luring pedestrians all the way to the South of the upper-level public spaces.

Elevated Space on the South Next to the High Line. I think it is worthwhile to keep in mind the extra high density of this project which is why the extra streets the Brookfield plan are especially beneficial. It also means that extra pedestrian levels can be supported. Some of the multi-level kind of outdoor park experience created by Olmstead and Vaux can be experimented with here if, alongside the High Line, a third level is created. This could be done if, there were space elevated perhaps over interesting arches. There are two almost identical square parks abutting the West Chelsea promenade. The arches and elevated space could be at the South side of at least one of these spaces.

Differentiating the Two Square Parks Abutting the West Chelsea Promenade. The two almost identical square parks abutting the West Chelsea promenade have a nice organized feel when looked at as part of a big plan, but as they might be experienced by pedestrians it is likely best if they are differentiated so that they provide different on-the-ground experiences. This can be assisted by slightly varying their shape. Another way to add to the difference would be to partially encircle one of the parks with an elevated vantage which could be done by allowing the space elevated over the arch (or arches) described above to continue around the park. The actual open area of the green space would remain the same, but would feel different if the elevated vantage walks were recessed into the side of the adjoining buildings. If you look at the Related plan you will see that Related has a very nice triangular public space on the South by the High Line. Some of the unusual closure feel afforded by triangle shapes could help here. See my next comment.

Possible Skewing of First Floor of South-westernmost Residential Building. Without having to change the existing foundation plans for the buildings and with only a minimal, if any, amount of cantilevering, some very interesting effects could be achieved by slightly skewing the first floor of the South-Westernmost residential building. The following could be achieved:

1. A slight triangular feel could be given to the adjacent park now planned to be square.

2. There could be elevated space in the sunlight overlooking that small park that could be an extension of an elevated vantage walk. This might involve walking out from recessed space to the sunlit space. Building pillars could be left in place for an interesting exterior effect.

3. The new promenade running parallel to the High Line could widen and open up to a wider public space that could then lead down graciously via steps from the upper-level project spaces to the street level spaces below the promenade at the Southwestern corner.

4. There could be an elevated space at the Northwest corner of the building from which the public could appreciate “Hudson Green” on high. This space could even be accessible via connections from the elevated space overlooking the High Line. It might make either a good special function space or a good performance space. Perhaps both. (Yes, I know it is under residential space.)

Connections Between the Street under the High Line and the Higher Ground Level of the Project’s Other Public Spaces. The “West Chelsea Promenade” could be quite an extraordinary Mecca. You have Chelsea at one end of the High Line, the Javits Center at the other, and the projects green space will draw from the center of town- The Moynihan Station and new buildings in that area. “Hudson Place” as the southern end of the new boulevard/park (Senator Schumer et. al. permitting) and the cultural space will also draw people in. There will the buses and new subways and new water taxis all ending there. Done right it will have quite a draw. Therefore as much attention as possible should be paid to the space and part of this is connecting the street below the High Line to the great spaces at the project’s own ground level. There could be a very interesting stair connection, perhaps a double staircase wrapping the corner, at the corner where the Western four residential buildings reach the cultural center at the edge of the “West Chelsea Promenade.” As a destination spot I see this as being a location for a lot of interesting retail, maybe like the areas in Rome where small vendors sell silk and leather.

“Hudson Green.” I think “Hudson Green” is ideal. In talking to people about it I would emphasize its similarity in size (and other aspects) to park at the North of Battery Park City because people generally know and like that park. It is great the way it is open to the Southern and Western sun. In contrast, the Steven Holl design for Extell is oxymoronic: It makes a big thing about the angling of buildings on the South to let the sun’s light through as it travels the sky but the answer would have been not to put the tall building on the South side of the property at all. If I were to mull over any tampering with it, it might be to make it just a little less rectilinear. In Related’s plan I like the nonlinear narrowing with the slight triangular point of the big east/west running main space. I know that there is an argument that Brookfield slightly diverged from the RFP guidelines by the way in which the Hotels break up the green space while providing a needed wind break. I think this defines the public spaces in a superior way, but I am also wondering whether the criticism could be addressed somewhat by providing an interesting feeling of connection under the hotel space via a route that could be very interesting to travel. Maybe part of that route would share connection with the streets.

Connections to Hudson River Park. I would make the connection between the High Line and Hudson River park a better more direct one. Right now, “Hudson Green” connects with the High Line and connects via a walk way to Hudson River Park. If you want to go from the High Line to Hudson River Park you can do it by going back through “Hudson Green” but it should be possible to go more directly.

“Hudson Hall” & Adjustable Outdoors. When I asked questions about “Hudson Hall” it wasn’t entirely clear whether this space was going to be more indoor or outdoor in character. But that makes me think about something I have been wondering in general. On reason I avoid and don’t enjoy Related’s Time Warner Space is that it has such a stuffy interior mall feel. Space is more fun when it is outdoors and alive with breezes. On the other hand, there are times when protection for the elements is desirable. It seems to me that with the proper mechanics there can be space that changes in character as the situation changes and that this space could be quite “green” if properly managed. In a way, it goes back to having windows that open. Looking forward, it ties in with the intelligence of computers to know what the weather is or even what the weather is going to be. People who own their own houses in the suburbs can economically cool them with central attic fans that effect a quick exchange of air with the outdoors when the temperature conditions are appropriate. Looking at the design of “Hudson Hall” I wonder about whether it could sometimes share climate with the outdoors on a nice day and other times have its own interior climate modulated largely by exchanging climate with the outside. Bring in cool evening air in the summer. Let the space be sometimes sun warmed when appropriate. I wonder whether this approach can be carried over to other public spaces in the project as well.

Good Continuous Flowing Ground Floor Retail. One of the things that the Brookfield plan does very well is provide lots of continuous forking paths for a flow of ground floor retail trails. Because of the density and destination nature of the site, it should be possible to support a lot of retail. In contrast, Related’s proposal disintegrates in certain places into separated tower-in-the-park buildings that would break up that flow. Once again, there is a huge opportunity for multilevel retail tying in with the High Line.

Floor Plate Sizes. I know that floor plate sizes have been discussed as a matter of importance. The Tishman proposal seems to make them important above all else. That is one reason their result is so intimidating. I gather that Doctoroff may be preoccupied with the subject in terms of New York competing with London as a financial center and the theory that there may be a continuing growth in the need for sizable trading floors (That is not necessarily my own bet). You seem to have an easy option for increasing large floor plates by increasing the height of the low structure abutting the Northwest condominium building. (The top of that space can also be a terrace overlooking “Hudson Green.”) Height could also go up for the buildings abutting “Hudson Place” immediately on the East.

Integrate Space for Vintage Orchestra(s)? I would love it if you might be interested in the following. I am in contact with a vintage orchestra that is looking for a more suitable permanent home. There is another vintage orchestra with which they might conceivable share space. The orchestra is based in New York and plays fairly regularly on Prairie Home Companion. The optimal venue would probably be a nightclub style seating about 200.

Building Textures. One thing that Related did well was posting pictures showing their proposed buildings with a range of various building styles and textures, a number of them reminiscent of older buildings on the West side. I think various textures and variety is a good way to go and it makes the density less intimating and everything seems more comfortably familiar. It is still possible to have big windows on the Hudson with these other styles and I think people are getting tired of glass as the perpetual answer. One thing that is interesting when you look at the Related visuals is that Related has a clump of residential buildings that look like they come straight from what we did at Battery Park City. Since they were therefore very different, they stand out oddly in the model, but the picture on the wall with different textures reconciles quite well how they would fit in.

Setbacks. Given the prescribed density, there is not much opportunity for setbacks though they can add a lot to a landscape. Maybe a few things like the skewing of the first floor that I described above can add something that may help in a way, but it may just be too bad that there isn’t more opportunity in this regard.

COMMENTS ON EXTELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROPOSAL:

The Steven Holl design for Extell is oxymoronic: It makes a big thing about the angling of buildings on the South to let the sun’s light through as it travels the sky but the answer would have been not to put the tall building on the South side of the property at all.

The cable system for construction is ingenious, but it only makes sense to use it if such a huge new section of the city can, at the same time, be well designed. This proposal does not demonstrate that this can be achieved.

Jane Jacobs derided tower-in-the-park design as towers in urban “prairies.” This exemplifies that unless it is a tower in a “moor.” In this case “moor” would be less. The design does not even allow trees. There will be no way to go back and retrofit the landscaping to break up the vast center with any feel of intricacy.

The buildings themselves worsen the experience by being huge, bland, featureless and repetitive. And anytime a building gets described as resembling a “tuber” you know you are in trouble.

Keeping the High Line is good though.

COMMENTS ON HUDSON CENTER WEST/HUDSON CENTER EAST LLC PROPOSAL (DURST-VORNADO):

One problem with the Durst/Vornado and Extell plans is that they have too little sense of human scale. For instance, the sinuous taffy-pull shape of the Durst elevated people walkway (that “makes up” for destruction of part of the High Line) leaves you uncomfortably clueless about scale, aside from being rather silly. The proposal also lacks intricacy.

The green ideas and effort is nice- but this is something that any of the proposals can be asked to do. It does not substitute for good city-making or design.

The fact that the proposal does not fully preserve the High Line is a definite negative.

COMMENTS ON THE RELATED COMPANIES PROPOSAL:

Brookfield handles the High Line in an ideal way on 30th Street by being mostly separated from it. By contrast the Related proposal gives the High Line a sort of hug-of-death in this area and would benefit from some separations. Whereas, I would tweak the Brookfield plan to add some connections to the High Line on the South, in the case of Related's plan I would tweak it to add some separations in the same area. Keeping the High Line is good though.

There are a lot of things I like about the Related proposal though I have to get over a personal blue state reaction to Fox/Murdock.

I really like the triangular public space on the South.

I like the nonlinear narrowing with the slight triangular point of the big east/west running main space.

There is a clump of residential buildings that look like they come straight from what we did at Battery Park City. Since they were therefore very different, I had to struggle with that for a while even though I would love a whole complex done this way. The picture on the wall helped me reconcile what I thought about that. I come out positive on the tension in design. But looking at the picture made me think about some of the 12th Ave/West Street buildings further downtown that have an even older echo and it seemed to me making some of other buildings mimic that old style even more might help really pull together the conglomeration of style effect you are going for but which is not so absolutely obvious. It wouldn't be necessarily to give up big windows on the water but it might reduce construction costs.

The recent changes Related made to it main model during the exhibition improve the proposal by making the Eastern buildings less like the Time Warner complex. I don’t like the Time Warner complex. I like that there is lot mixed together in the complex. I like some of the performance space there. But I generally avoid the complex. I remembered liking very much the Dan Brodsky plan that lost out to Related and thought it echoed CPW well.

The idea of the waterfall of trees in the western facing windows of the tallest building. Dramatic and fun but it may be a full employment challenge for arborists which might wind up getting solved with some fairly generic easy-to-grow varieties the selection of which, accordingly, may feel a bit vintage in about 10 years.

Especially as buildings near the water, the lines for linked and flowing retail is too broken. The tower in the park stuff never works out that well in actual experience. There are some ways to play with fixing this though.

There is a huge opportunity for multilevel retail tying in with the High Line that is missed. Going for extra retail will be supported given the density that is coming and the potential destination aspect of the site. You have Chelsea at one end of the High Line, the Javit's Center at the other, and this is a park that will draw from the center of town- The Moynihan Station, (and new Related buildings over there), buses and new subways and new water taxis will all end there. Done right it will be a Mecca.

COMMENTS ON TS WEST SIDE HOLDING, LLC PROPOSAL (TISHMAN SPEYER):

This plan is intimidating and dull partly because too much stress is put on achieving a high proportion of large floor plate building based on a questionable bet that this is what the financial industry will be needing in the future. This is not a good bet and too high a sacrifice to make. Go back and study where Wall Street is really heading: this is a bet that probably won’t pay off.

The full High Line should be kept.

KEEPING THE HIGH LINE.

It may turn out that there is some arguable cost involved but I think the question of whether the northern section of the High Line should also be preserved is a no- brainer. Of course the full High Line should be preserved.

1. A significant part of the High Line’s overall impressiveness is its total length. Shortening the High Line at its northen end will be a loss for the entire High Line. It will affect the language of every major tourist guide to the City forever onward.

2. The High Line is a unique opportunity being realized to create quiet public park space. The High Line is an exception to a current trend where significant amounts of our newly created City park space are subject to a great deal of highway noise.- Conversely, most of the High Line, because of its elevation and mid-block locations and distance from major roadways, will by and large provide a quiet experience. Anything that adds to the overall High Line experience will augment this rebalancing of the equation even though most of this northern portion of the High Line will not, itself, be one of the very quiet parts of the overall quiet park.

3. The High Line is creating obvious value to the City as demonstrated by the way in which developers are excitedly and quickly flocking to develop adjacent to it. I read reporting that a study commissioned by Friends of the High Line and conducted by the consulting firm Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler estimated the High Line would add 7% to the value of residential development at the Hudson Yards. That means hundreds of million dollars extra to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (the seller) and to the City in tax revenues if the High Line is preserved in this area.

4. This is one example of a situation where the benefit of a one-time opportunity must be measured not in immediate terms but in terms of something that, like other great parks that have been created, will shape the City a hundred or more years into the future.

5. This particular terminating portion of the High Line offers the most dramatic and closest elevated view of the Hudson River of the entire High Line and links it with another major linear park, the Hudson River Park. If anything, opportunities should be reviewed for how to optimize this hook-up.

6. The High Line’s presence in this northern area provides sorely needed amelioration of some of the flaws of the Javits Center which is likely to remain at that site. It will afford the Javits Center with an immediately adjacent connection and humanizing relationship to the rest of the City through a high-profile public amenity and social experience. It will serve to help integrate the Javits Center with the rest of the City and help deal with the way in which the Javits Center is currently an austere place, which upon exiting you immediately seek to flee. There is also perhaps some opportunity in that the westerly side of the Javits Center has elevated areas that could integrate with the elevations of the High Line. Taking the opportunity that is present, Javits visitors could exit the Center and immediately begin a leisurely stroll through some of the most interesting experiences and neighborhoods available in New York. If the opportunities are destroyed, then out-of-city visitors at the Center will be handed maps of the City and told that if they exit the Center and navigate some unfamiliar streets they can eventually hook up with this interesting experience. So more often than not they may never do it. What a waste that would be.

7. Any cost of preserving this section of the High Line should not be measured against the cost of demolishing it. It should instead be measured against the cost os replacing it with a fully comparable substitute amenity. Demolition for plaza or park space does not constitute a comparable amenity either in terms of area of public space or otherwise.

8. If the High Line is destroyed in this Hudson Yards area it will always be famous for what WASN’T done. In operatic terms for those of us who are fans of opera, it will be as famous as the end of Turandot, where virtually every opera aficionado knows that Puccini died in the middle of writing it so that the first time that Turandot was performed, Toscanini, as conductor, stopped, set down his baton before reaching the end of the opera, turned to the audience and said, “Here is where the master laid down his pen.” Likewise, if the High Line isn’t completed through to its end, people will stroll a truncated mile upon it and get to a point, turn to each other and say, “Here is where the High Line used to continue, could have continued, and doesn’t now.” It would be dreadful if this became a disappointing part of every tour guide’s repertoire offered to all the tourists they address to take home to their respective home country.

As for High Line design: There should be no abrupt design transitions.

FINAL THOUGHT ON DENSITY

One final comment overall. Most New Yorkers would be quite happy if this effort were not striving for this extreme density even though lower density would reduce proceeds to the MTA. But if there is going to be insistence on extreme density there must be truly excellent design to pull it off.

CONTACTING ME

Please feel to contact me if you want. I am a lawyer with a lot of experience in government, public finance and development and I have a degree in urban planning.