RPA Building The Next NY Appendix

w w w . r p a .
o r g
Building the Next New York

Appendix: Profiles of Past and Future Projects
Contents
I. Large-Scale Development: Exemplar Projects from New York and Other U.S. Cities NYC Projects Comparative Case Studies Common Themes and Findings II. Current and Future Projects III. Sources 1 2 9 11 13 16
I. Large-Scale Development: Exemplar Projects from New York and Other U.S. Cities
The following profiles describe major city-building initiatives from New York and other cities that offer insights into how large complex projects succeed or fail in meeting multiple public policy objectives. Any lessons drawn from these examples need to account for the unique historic and local context of each. However, there are recurring themes and best practices that point to parameters that generally lead to more successful outcomes. Historically, the success of economic development projects was measured in numbers of jobs, tax dollars, housing units and public amenities they created, and the degree to which environmental damage or displacement was limited or mitigated. More recently, sustainability has provided a broader range of objectives for projects. Not only should they generate measurable economic benefits. Projects that expand the economy should also enhance the environment and public health while advancing more equitable social outcomes. There is no universally accepted definition of sustainable development. Some proponents use the term largely to emphasize the importance of sustaining the natural environment that supports human activity. Others use sustainability to define outcomes that broaden the recipients of economic benefits and reduce social inequities as well as improve energy efficiency, air and water quality and other environmental benefits. This report uses a definition that acknowledges the wideranging impacts of large-scale economic development projects. Sustainable development, in this context, creates long-term public benefits by enhancing the environment and broadening prosperity and economic opportunities for both current and future residents. This is consistent with a commonly accepted definition of sustainability that actions meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. For the types of projects described in this report, this definition implies several outcomes: Long-term economic growth that benefits current and future residents across a broad range of incomes,
1 Building the Next New York Appendix | Regional Plan Association | March 2012
Jobs, housing services and other benefits for the immediate community without disproportionate environmental damage or displacement, Maximization of energy efficiency, air and water quality for community, city and regional residents, Net fiscal benefits that maximize the value of public assets and investments over the useful life of the project, not just the immediate budget cycle. The following projects were selected based on preliminary analysis of 24 projects for their scale, innovative practices and potential lessons for future projects. Each is prefaced by a brief statement of its value and is followed by a description of its most salient characteristics. The success parameters and other characteristics of the cases are summarized in the next chapter. The ten New York City projects, including start and completion dates, are the following:
Project Start Finish
Lincoln Center World Trade Center Riverside South Battery Park City Roosevelt Island Times Square Columbus Circle Bostons Seaport Millennium Park Mission Bay Willets Point Atlantic Yards Coney Island
1955 1961 1962 1969 1969 1981 1985 1987 1997 1999 2002 2003 2003
1974 1987 Ongoing 2012 Ongoing 1999 2004 Ongoing 2004 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Three comparative cases from elsewhere in the United States help to identify potential lessons that can be applied to the New York context: Bostons Seaport Millennium Park in Chicago Mission Bay in San Francisco
NYC Projects
Lincoln Center
While rooted in the top-down urban renewal process and design values of the 1950s, Lincoln Center nonetheless was innovative in its use of the arts and education as anchors of economic development. It was also remarkable for the scope of its partnership, which included multiple city and state agencies as well as major cultural institutions. In playing a key role in gentrifying a wide area, it also points to the need for policies which address the social and economic dislocations triggered by large citybuilding projects. In May 1959 President Eisenhower broke ground on what would become Lincoln Center on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The urban renewal program was hailed by the President as a great cultural adventure and was envisioned as the largest performing arts complex in the world. Lincoln Center was the first of its kind to cluster many performing arts and educational
institutions in one place in order to revitalize a rundown neighborhood. Its success has spawned the development of countless other performing arts centers around the country. Lincoln Center evolved out of the 1955 Lincoln Square urban renewal project initiated and supervised by Robert Moses. While Moses had presided over various urban renewal projects and plans across New York to turn around decaying and low performing neighborhoods, this was the first time he, or anyone else for that matter, thought to use arts and educational institutions as catalysts of neighborhood revitalization. The total urban renewal area consisted of 70 blocks between 60th and 70th Street on the west side of Manhattan between West End Ave and Broadway. From the start, Moses envisioned attracting Fordham University campus, a hotel and office complex, residential units for low- and middle-income residents, and a music and arts center. One year after the designation as an urban renewal area in 1956 an advisory committee led by noted philanthropist John D. Rockefeller Jr. convinced the Metropolitan Opera, Julliard School, and the New York Philharmonic to relocate onto one campus. Once these three prestigious institution agreed to move into the new complex, the other nine organization New York City Ballet, New York City Opera, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, The Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center, The Film Society of Lincoln Center, Lincoln Center Theater, School of American Ballet, and Jazz at Lincoln Centerfollowed. Lincoln Center came to occupy 13 acres from 62nd to 66th Street between Amsterdam Avenue and Broadway. For two years the advisory committee with help from renowned urban planners, architects, and landscape designers worked on a master plan for the basic location of the buildings and public plazas. As the architects were chosen by every institution for its particular building, a basic modernist aesthetic was agreed upon and a set of unifying elements was established to guide the design of each structure. Many of the participating institutions with long and illustrious histories as independent organizations were skeptical of giving up autonomy to a controlling umbrella organization to coordinate the building and operations of the performing arts center. The economic and marketing benefits of forging an alliance were compelling, however, and the institutions agreed to restrict the financial responsibility of the umbrella organization to building ownership, arts education, and promotion while individual institutions would be responsible for programming and maintenance of their facilities. The government assembled the land through acquisitions and condemnations and donated it to Lincoln Center for the various institutions use. The rest of the $185 million it took to complete the project was raised privately. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. is credited with raising almost half of this sum including contributing his own funds. Lincoln Centers construction took fifteen years, from 1959 to 1974. Despite the multiple criticisms of Lincoln Centers design it has always been praised for the foresight of bringing together under one roof the worlds largest collection of renowned performing arts institutions. It has won almost universal accolades as the catalyst for renewal of the entire Upper West Side. Even during construction of the first building in 1961 the New York Times reported a spate of new development of office buildings, apartment houses, motor hotels and institutional buildings and attributed it to the construction of the cultural complex. Over its lifetime Lincoln Center has maintained its role as an anchor for the neighborhood. High-end office and residential development is drawn to the prestige of the worlds top cultural institutions while the constant programming attracts millions of visitors to the restaurants and shops in the area. The social ramifications of the project were also widely felt. The develop-
ment replaced a largely blighted tenement district and contributed to rising property values on the West Side. While a boon for the surrounding area and the city, it also displaced many of the existing lower-income households.
The Original World Trade Center

The original World Trade Center project illustrates the difficulty of valuing public investments that will meet success after more than a decade of underperformance. It is also an important example of the use of eminent domain and the intergovernmental negotiations that are often central to large-scale redevelopment. The sixteen acre site known as the World Trade Center was not merely home for the Twin Towers, the tallest buildings in New York, but a symbol of faith in the continued dominance of Lower Manhattan as a world commercial and financial center. Since the Great Depression, New Yorks economic growth had been focused in Midtown while downtown floundered. The World Trade Center was a government-led effort to bring back Lower Manhattans prominence. The idea for a World Trade Center in New York was first suggested in 1946. The New York State legislature authorized the governor to begin developing plans but by 1949 the project was shelved. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) proposed the concept again in the late 1950s as a way to breathe life into lower Manhattan which had been in a steadily decline since the Great Depression. The LMDC was led by David Rockefeller, who convinced his brother, then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller, that a World Trade Center would spur additional economic development in the area and help to support the regions struggling ports. With the LMDCs backing, New York State Governor Rockefeller suggested that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey construct the project since it could issue bonds, had accumulated reserves from its port, bridge, tunnel, and airport enterprises, and already owned some property in Lower Manhattan. But the Port Authority being a bi-state agency, Governor Rockefeller had hard time convincing his New Jersey counterpart to approve such a large investment in New York. Ultimately in 1961 it was a agreed that the Port Authority would to take over the declining Hudson Manhattan railroad (now Port Authority Trans-Hudson, or PATH) which brought New Jersey commuters into New York. The two governors also agreed to move the proposed project from the east side of Manhattan to the west side over the Hudson terminal making sure New Jersey commuters had easy access. This also made it easier for the Authority to assemble the parcel because it already owned some of the land in the area. The condemnation process was long and bitter and included the demolition of 164 buildings on sixteen blocks and the closing of five streets. The next hurdle was securing New York Citys approval. The City opposed the project because it would have to forgo property taxes from the sites new interstate owner. The City did not grant approval until 1966 when the Port Authority agreed to make annual payments in lieu of taxes for all non governmental organization which signed leases. The Japanese-American architect Minoru Yamasaki won the contract to build the World Trade Center on 16 acres of lower Manhattan with 13.2 million sq. ft. of office space in seven office towers, two of which would soared over 110 stories. The first of the twin towers was completed in 1970 and the second in 1972 with other towers seeing completion between 1972 and 1987. And while the towers became a symbol of New Yorks
dominance as the center of global finance, the complex experienced persistent financial difficulties. First coming online in the middle of a national recession in the early 70s, the towers struggled as a viable enterprise and caused real estate values in the area to sink as over 10 million sq. ft. of office space flooded the market. To rectify the situation and provide a stable revenue stream for the project, the Port Authority and all of the New York States offices in the city moved into the complex. When the economy finally rebounded in the 1980s and 1990s the World Trade Center was able to successfully attract tenants with its location close to Wall Street and all the state and federal regulatory agencies. Lower Manhattan regained its position as the center of the global finance and trade. It was tragically and precisely because of its success that the World Trade Center was targeted for destruction on September 11, 2001. Today construction is under way to rebuild the site and honor those who lost their lives in the attack. The World Trade Center was a government project owned by a government agency. It could not have been built by the private sector alone because it required a long range vision and financial patience. While it took many years for the public investments to pay off, the WTC helped Lower Manhattan maintain its status as a center of the financial industry and eventually led to the construction of the nearby World Financial Center.
Riverside South
Riverside South was only able to overcome fierce community opposition when a coalition of civic organizations became part of its planning process. It is an example of negotiated community benefits largely through an ad hoc process that drew the interest of city-wide organizations and stakeholders. Nothing is more precious in Manhattan than a vacant site, especially a waterfront one. It is no wonder that for over 40 years there had been many pitched battles to develop the 75 acre Penn Yards site on the Upper West Side between 59th and 72nd streets along the Hudson River. The first proposal was floated in 1962 by Penn Central and Amalgamated Lithographers Union to build a mixed-use development on platforms over the trains. The proposal failed because Penn Central began struggling with the decline of the railroad industry. In 1969 the New York City Educational Construction Fund proposed 12,000 residential units on the site. Next Donald Trump optioned the site and proposed the same 12,000 residential units but got caught up in the New York fiscal crisis of 1975. Finally in 1980 the Macri Group optioned the site and it seemed that the development might seriously start this time. The 7.3 million sq. ft.-venture called Lincoln West was supposed to build 4,300 residential units and even obtained the necessary zoning in 1982. Unfortunately Lincoln West failed to receive financing and lost control of the site. In 1985 Donald Trump and bought the site for $100 million and proposed Television Citya 16.5 million sq. ft.-project. The proposal hoped to lure NBC to the site with a 152 story building, the tallest in world at the time. The plan would also include residential, retail, office, and studio space. The intensity and scale of the project generated fierce community opposition. In an attempt to quell the opposition, in 1986 Trump downsized the project to 14.5 million sq. ft. with 7,600 residential units in 60-70 story towers, and a regional shopping mall. This strategy did not work and public outcry against the project only grew. Compounding community resistance was also the failure to secure Mayor Kochs support who announced that he would oppose any project larger than 7.4 million square feet. He also
rejected Trumps request for $1 billion tax credit to lure NBC from Rockefeller Center. Soon after NBC withdrew from the new project. All the while a coalition of civic groups was suing to stop the development. By 1990 Trump was near bankruptcy and sought from his creditors the restructuring of $2 billion in loans and deferred loan payments for the Penn Yards (now called Trump City) project. The banks were pressing Trump to come up with a buildable plan that would gain community support. Working in the late 80s to revise the development of Trump City, a coalition of six civic groupsRegional Plan Association, Municipal Art Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Parks Council, the Riverside Park Fund, and Westpride offered an alternative plan. The plan reduced the size of the project by 40 percent to 8.3 million sq. ft., limited building height to 30 - 40 stories, provided for 12-20 percent of affordable housing, and included a 23-acre waterfront park. Design standards would assure variations among the towers, the west side grid would be maintained and the 72nd Street subway station would be renovated. After a series of heated negotiating session between the developer and the civic coalition called Riverside South Planning Corporation (RSPC) in the early 90s Trump accepted the alternative plan. In exchange for paring down the development the civic groups promised to help the project through the land-use review process. The RSPC kept its word and in 1992, a year after its agreement with Trump, the project was approved and zoning changed from manufacturing to residential/commercial. In another major victory for the neighborhood and civic coalition the park was to be built by the developers, then turned over to the City with the developers still responsible for the maintenance. In part due to the design and park amenities, the apartments and condos in the development command among the highest rent and sale prices in the city. While construction on the project did not start until 1997 because of financing difficulties, as of late 2010, 11 of the 14 towers were completed. In 2008 Extell Development and the Carlyle Group bought the right to develop the last three sites and got the final, southernmost parcel rezoned for higher density.
would have to be built all at once. Because of an uneasy relationship between the state and the city, it took over five years to hammer out the exact details of the project, and the agreement coincided with the 1973 national recession and the Citys fiscal crisis. In 1974 BPCA bonds failed to sell and the state stepped in to finance the $200 million bonds for the landfill and infrastructure. By 1979 little progress had been made on Battery Park City. Under pressure from impending default on the $200 million state bonds, the BPCA scrapped the 1969 plan for a new master plan that was more attractive to investment and responsive to the urban planning approaches of the times. This new master plan by the design firm Cooper Eckstut integrated Battery Park City with the fabric of downtown Manhattan by aligning the site with the existing street grid. The commercial center was moved from the southern end of BPC to the center adjacent to the new World Trade Center. Part of the plan also called for the City to relinquish the ownership of the site to expedite the development process. In return, the city would receive all future profits and tax equivalency payments. The plan allocated the following land uses: 42% residential - up to 14,000 housing units 9% commercial - 6 million sq. ft. of office space located adjacent to the World Trade Center 30% open space - it includes public parks, plazas, and esplanades 19% right of way - streets and avenues 2% Other marina, schools, library, museum Much of the innovation in the 1979 plan was the combination of flexibility in the types of buildings and pace of development and strictness of design standards. Developers were able to construct their own building on leased parcels from the BPCA but were held to exacting standards to insure quality and consistency. At a time when many architects were still looking to the modernist approach of object buildings and turning their back to the mixed-use fabric, the plan embraced a variety of building types and echoed the designs of older successful New York neighborhoods. There was an emphasis on public space with residential and office buildings woven together with parks, retail space and the waterfront. Battery Park initially failed to incorporate connections to transit and improvements to surface mobility as part of its master plan, separating BPC from the rest of Lower Manhattan an island within an island. Recent changes to calm Route 9A and the planned underground passage connecting the World Financial Center to the new WTC Transportation and Fulton Street Transit hubs, will help to remedy this situation. Both the design and the financing strategy for Battery Park City were innovative. On the eve of an impending default on its $200 million bonds, the state allowed developers to build on smaller parcels incrementally rather than all at once, decreasing the risk and upfront costs. BPCA leased out the land parcels to developers who provided payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to pay off the bonds. It also allowed the BCPA to control its own revenue stream for the maintenance and administration of the project. By 1987 the bonds were completely paid off with interest and BCPA began producing revenue for the city. Because almost all the residential units in Battery Park City were market rate, revenue from the site was to be used to construct affordable housing in Harlem and the Bronx. In 1986 a revenue sharing agreement decided how the excess revenue from BPC was to be allocated. Part of the revenues was to be remitted directly to the
Battery Park City

BPCs eventual success demonstrates the importance of a longterm state role and a flexible master plan to spur development with high-quality design. Ground leases for each parcel bring revenue for both state and city over decades. It is also an example of evolving sustainability practices that were incorporated into design guidelines. A great urban experiment that has stood the test of time, Battery Park City is a successful high-end, mixed-use neighborhood built on landfill. The 92-acre site, located directly west of the World Trade Center at the southwestern tip of Manhattan, was developed in response to the deterioration of piers by the Hudson River. Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller saw the opportunity to build into the harbor as a means to expand the city without destroying existing neighborhoods. In 1968 both the city and state forwarded two separate plans for the site and the state created the Battery Park City Authority (BCPA) to have its own bonding authority, separate from the municipal government, to finance its own projects. In 1969 BPCA and the City unveiled Phillip Johnsons master plan for Battery Park City. The plan was a modernist design that called for raising the ground plane of the site with a mall extending the length of the development. Shops, restaurants, schools, parks, transit, utilities and public and recreational spaces would all be plugged into the mall and everything
city and allocated through the budget process, while another portion was to be deposited in a joint purpose fund held by the BPCA but controlled by the Mayor, Comptroller, and BPCA. To use any of the funds all three parties need to agree to the purpose. Battery Park City has a history of sustainability that incorporated increasingly environmentally-sensitive design and best practices in the last 15 years. By the late 1990s, much of the site was developed but several building lots remained empty. A decision was made to require all new projects to follow strict environmental as well as design guidelines. Working collaboratively with architectural, energy, construction, and engineering industry experts, BPCA developed the guidelines and a manual explaining the green strategies and the rationale behind them. All developments were required to incorporate the same environmental features instead of selecting from a menu of options. Prospective developers were scored on financial, environmental, and architectural criteria, with the best combination of the three winning the right to build, including but not limited to the following. 30 percent greater energy efficiency than state building code requirements, solar paneling supply more that five percent of the buildings energy, 30 percent more light than city code requires, recycling more than 80 percent of waste water Since the guidelines have been in effect, all seven residential buildings have achieved LEED platinum or gold ratings and two acres of green roofs have been constructed. Parks around the area are watered with rainfall runoff while treated waste water is used in toilets and to cool buildings.
Roosevelt Island
A unique case in which a state entity (The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation) controls the operation, maintenance, and development of the community. This is a model in which a whole community is developed around institutional facilities such as hospitals. Unlike Battery Park City a goal of creating a mixedincome community through subsidies for on-site affordable housing was maintained in spite of early financial difficulties. The current residential and commercial development of Roosevelt Island, the 147 acre island located between Queens and Manhattan, began in 1969. Prior to 1969 the state used the island as a prison and psychiatric ward. By 1969 the only occupied buildings on the island were two hospitals. Interest in developing the island was spurred by the announcement in 1963 that the city was planning on building a new subway tunnel crossing the island into Queens. In 1966 Mayor Lindsey announced intentions for the development of Welfare Island, as it was known then, to be a low and middle-income residential community housing the nurses and doctors of the hospitals. By 1968 a development committee was formed and in 1969 Johnson and Burgees Master Plan for the island was released. The mixeduse, mixed-income plan incorporated the existing hospitals with medium density housing for 20,000 low and moderate-income residents along with five parks, all car free. The project would be completed by the state Urban Development Corporation (UDC) instead of private developers, who would lease the land from the City for 99 years. The lease stipulated that construction begin
within 18 months, and it was expected that the project would be completed in eight years. The plan divided the island into nine zones, five parks and four building groups consisting of four-totwelve story buildings with housing, shops, and public facilities. In 1971 the first phase of construction began for 30,000 sq. ft. of commercial and office space, 3,000 housing units in four buildings (30% affordable housing), streets, sewers, and waterlines. But by the following year the number of housing units was reduced to about 2,100. There were construction delays with the subway tunnel and the director of the development corporation resigned. The master plan was altered by adding height to the buildings and blocking some of the river views. Many of the original architects left the project along with staff at the UDC creating lack of management continuity. Coordination with transit infrastructure also failed with subway construction being delayed, making it difficult to access the site until 1976 when an areal tram was installed as a temporary solution. By 1978 the first phase of construction was completed with 5,500 people occupying four apartment buildings. The design received mixed reviews, partially as a result of constant staff turnover at the UDC and the changes to the original master plan. Housing on the island did accommodate mixed-incomes and ethnicities. During most of the 1980s, development of the island came to a halt, in part due to continued access issues and also because the federal and state government dismantled much of the housing subsidies needed to fulfill the affordable housing components of the master plan. In response to the lack of progress, the state created an independent corporation in 1986 to manage and plan the future of the island. With a new focus and mandate, the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation focused on completing the housing plan with amenities that could sustain and attract a larger population. But unlike the UDC, the RIOC did not have bonding capacity and relied on earned income, outside grants, and a state operating subsidy for income. By 1989 a new cluster of five buildings was under construction with 20 percent of the units set aside for low-income residents under one of the last federal programs for new housing. The next year the subway was finally completed after a 14 year delay along with the last two buildings in the five building cluster. By the end of 1990 the U.S. was in an economic downturn and a proposal to build 1,000 luxury units and 1,000 subsidized low, moderate, and middle-income units failed to attract any developers. Instead of compromise on the mixed income experiment, the RIOC decided to wait for the market to recover. By 2008 the market had picked up and Southtown, a nine building cluster, had four completed buildings and two more under construction. In 2010, the retail component of the island was failing with over 20 percent vacancy and a leasing process that often became politicized with the states acting as landlord. But in spite of delays in construction, and tweaks to the original master plan, today Roosevelt Island is almost complete with the last three buildings already in the design process and a last park due to open in 2013. The recent agreement between New York City and the partnership of Cornell University and Technion Institute to complete a new campus on Roosevelt Island will open a new chapter for this community. The educational facility is scheduled to break ground in 2015 and be completed by 2037.
Times Square
This area-wide development plan demonstrates the importance of related policiesin this case crime reductionto the success of the real estate venture. It also shows the necessity of revising plans in response to changing market conditions. Often referred to as the crossroads of the world, the 13-acre Times Square located between Broadway and 8th Ave. with primary frontage on 42nd St. underwent a dramatic redevelopment in the 1990s. In its heyday in the 1920s, Times Square was known as the Great White Way because of all the illuminated theater signs that lined the streets. By the 50s and 60s the area had severely deteriorated. Many of the theaters were turning into adult entertainment establishments and were attracting criminal activities. By the 1980s things had gotten much worse with 2,300 crimes committed on 42nd St. in 1984 alone. This situation had a devastating effect on the 13-acre area that only produced $6 million in property taxes and supported just 3,000 jobs, the equivalent to a medium sized office building. A concerted effort to clean up the area of Times Square began in 1981 and by 1984 a redevelopment plan was announced. The UDC took the lead on the project. The 42nd Street Development Plan, as it was named, called for building four towers with 4.1 million sq. ft. of office space, a 2.4-million sq. ft. computer and garment wholesales market, a 550-room luxury hotel, additional office and retail space along 8th Ave and 42nd St., the allocation of $9 million for the restoration of nine historic theaters, and a $100 million makeover of the 42nd St. subway station. $240 million tax abatement was as included for George Kleins Park Tower Realty who was chosen to develop the site. The modernist architects Philip Johnson and John Burgee were selected to design the four office buildings. Their designs were controversialfour-story granite bases would support glass towers topped with iron-crested glass mansard roofs. At the street level pedestrian pathways would connect the office towers and establish a new hub for subway travel. As part of the deal Park Tower Realty also agreed to finance the restoration of the non-profit theaters and subway station improvements. The UDC would assemble the land through condemnation and evict the adult entertainment establishments that predominated in the area. It was envisioned that all development would move forward at the same time. But as soon as the project was approved it began to unravel. Opposition to the plan began immediately with criticism of large tax breaks for the developer and the use of eminent domain to clear the area. In 1991, by the time the UDC acquired over two thirds of the area and fended off over 47 law suits brought against the project, New York and the country were in the throws of a deep recession. In addition, two major office tenants dropped out of the project in 1986 and in 1989 the developer failed to begin construction in the area. By 1992, Governor Mario Cuomo realized there was no market for office buildings and allowed the developer out of its contracts. The recession provided a good opportunity to overhaul the failed government-led development plan and in 1993 a new interim plan was announced. The new plan shifted the focus away from office development, which was in oversupply at the time, to a mixed-use entertainment focused area. The new plan reconnected Times Square with its past as an eclectic, vibrant entertainment district emphasizing big showy signs, glitzy office towers, and lobbies that flowed on to the sidewalk. A special signage overlay district in Times Square required buildings to have at least one illuminated sign, set minimum standards for sign coverage, and mandated brightness. These standards were put in
place to make sure Times Square was always looking vibrant and active. The new signs, some of which command up to $4 million in rent, also provide revenue streams for property owners. And while the original plan for Times Square stalled and withered, other government policies helped to transform the area and the market for new development. The most important were crime reduction efforts, starting with innovative precinct policies in the 1980s and continuing with city-wide anti-crime initiatives in the 1990s. The first effective measures to combat crime in the area were introduced by the Midtown South police precinct which began charting crime patterns. This allowed police unites to deploy more effectively and officers were instructed to arrest for minor offenses. The new police procedures were designed to counteract the climate of lawlessness that existed around Times Square. The tactics introduced in 1984 reduced crime by 12 percent by 1991. In 1993 when Rudy Giuliani became mayor, the war on crime intensified. A newly introduced system, Compstat allowed the police to deploy personnel and resources even more efficiently while allowing quality-of-life policing. Thanks to these innovations crime rates dropped even further in Times Square and throughout the city. The marked reduction in crime and Giulianis continued tough stance made residents and tourist feel safer in Times Square while also reassuring the business community about the areas future. Alongside effective crime reduction, UDC successfully, albeit at the cost of $300 million, condemned and acquired most of the land in the district expelling the sex shops, x-rated movie houses, and other activities which attracted criminals and drove away legitimate commerce. In an effort to permanently keep these undesired uses away from Times Square, the Giuliani administration and the City Council passed zoning regulations restricting adult-oriented businesses. The expulsion of the sex industry and the reduction in crime were not quite enough to transform Times Square. To encourage business to relocate to the area as it was undergoing this transformation, the government offered special tax abatements and low-interest loans. As the project area improved, incentives were lowered. In 1992 Morgan Stanley received a $40-million tax abatement; sometime later Disney was awarded a $25 million low interest loan to refurbish the New Amsterdam Theater, and by 1999 Ernst and Young got a $20 million package. While it is difficult to say how critical these incentives were, the area has seen more than $2.5 billion in private sector investment.
Columbus Circle
This is an example of a developer-driven project whose ultimate success was delayed by lack of early planning and public input. Redevelopment of the traffic circle and the MAD museum also show how public realm improvements can be essential to defining and facilitating a real estate project. Columbus Circle located at the convergence of Eighth Ave., upper and lower Broadway, Central Park South, and Central Park West is the gateway to Central Park and the Upper West Side. For many decades Columbus Circle was a paradox. Despite being located adjacent to Central Park and tony neighborhoods and affluent commercial districts Columbus Circle was characterized by vacant and under developed properties. Two properties, the New York Coliseum and 2 Columbus Circle (NYC Cultural Affairs Department), owned by the City took up the western half of the area. By 1985, the Coliseum was left vacant and Mayor Koch announced that the city would sell the land to the highest private bidder. With the support of Mayor Koch,
Boston Properties was selected to develop the property paying $455.1 million for the site. The agreement included the stipulation that Boston Properties would renovate the subway station at Columbus Circle in exchange for a 20-percent building bonus. The proposal was for a five-story indoor mall with two towers, 68 and 58 stories respectively. The building would be called Columbus Center and would be mixed use of offices, condominiums, shops and movie theaters. Solomon Brothers was to be the anchor tenant. From the beginning, the development was plagued by a combination of legal, economic and political problems which grew over time and eventually defeated the venture. The neighborhood residents around the area opposed the building as too massive and tall and worried it would cast long shadows into Central Park. By 1987 the City had lost the first round of a suit against the development and a stock market crash had sent the economy into a tailspin. Due to the faltering economy, Solomon Brothers had dropped out of the deal and in 1989 Boston Properties was forced to shrink the size of Columbus Center to 59 stories and had renegotiated the price of the land down to $337 million. With the continued slump in the real estate market the deal to build Columbus Center fell through in 1994. In 1996 the Giuliani administration unveiled a new vision for Columbus Circle very similar to the previous plan. It called for two slender towers and ground level retail at the Coliseum site but it also included the sale of 2 Columbus Circle, the tenstory city owned building housing the Department of Cultural Affairs and the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Both sites were up for sale but development did not hinge on finding a single buyer, providing for greater flexibility. Learning from the fierce opposition against the previous proposal, government officials worked in close contact with architects, environmentalists, and community groups to prepare the development scheme. The size of any new proposals would be restricted to the existing zoning requirements (59 stories) but would not require payment for subway station upgrades. The timing to make available half of the real estate around Columbus Circle coincided smartly with an uptick in the real estate market generally and major investments in the surrounding area, most notable being Trumps conversion of the Gulf and Western office building to a condo/hotel, the renovation of the southwest entrance to Central Park, and reconfiguring Columbus Circle into a traffic rotary. A year later Giuliani blocked the selection of a developer for the site, demanding that all competing designs accommodate a jazz hall for Lincoln Center. By the summer of 1998 a developer was chosen and the jazz hall incorporated into the plans for the new Time Warner Center. After a few years of controversy as to the merits of preserving 2 Columbus Circle the City agreed to sell the building to the Museum of Arts and Design (MAD) as part of a mixed-use district at Columbus Circle. An essential component to the revitalization of Columbus Circle was the physical redesign of the circle and returning it to its original use as a public plaza, a public infrastructure improvement that enabled the building development to proceed. Transformation began in 1998 when the city rerouted traffic around the circle closing the lanes that ran through it and creating a true roundabout. The city removed motorcycle parking and reclaimed space in the middle of the island to create a public plaza that was accessible by three crosswalks. The fountain and statue were refurbished and the area landscaped when the final crosswalk was installed connecting it to Central Park. The Circle was integral in creating an enjoyable public space that linked the neighborhoods main nodes the newly-developed Time Warner Center, Central Park, the subway, and the MAD.
Completed at the beginning of 2004 Time Warner Center was the first large development to open after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The complex houses: 879,000 sq. ft. headquarters of Time Warner 211,000 sq. ft. office space 191 condominiums 504-space parking garage 347,000 sq. ft. retail space in a five story mall anchored by Whole Foods 40,000 sq. ft.-health club 251-room hotel Because of the areas central location, access to mass transit, and proximity to Central Park and other neighborhood amenities, Time Warner Center created a destination point, bringing together residents, visitors, shoppers, workers, cultural buffs, and recreational users which in turn attracted more investment. Today the area has seen the renovation of several residential towers along with the conversion of multiple towers into luxury hotels with park views. New office and retail space has been created tenants such as Goldman Sachs, Prudential Insurance, Boston Properties, and Best Buy. With the addition of Time Warner headquarters and its news organization CNN, the area has become the center of the press and broadcast industry with companies such as Time Warner, Hearst Corp., Random House, and Newsweek all within a few blocks.
Atlantic Yards
With its arena under construction and much of its planned housing deferred, it is too early to pass a final judgment on the Atlantic Yards project. However, the controversy it generated and the considerable changes that the development is likely to see by the time it is completed demonstrate the need for a robust public process and a flexible development framework with continued public oversight to both establish and maintain public priorities. Atlantic Yards is a 22-acre mixed-use project in the Prospect Heights neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY. The developer, Forrest City Ratner, plans to build a $4.9-billion project on land purchased from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. One of the largest components of the plan is the amount of residential units that will be constructed. The City of New York has committed $14 million in subsidies for affordable units. Currently the development plan includes: 16 residential and commercial towers Eight acres of public space A public school A community center An 18,000-seat arena Approximately 6,300 units of housing, 30% of which will be set aside for low-, moderate- and middle-income tenants. The Atlantic Yards development has a checkered history. The site known today as Atlantic Yards is composed of the Vanderbilt Rail Yards as well as some of the surrounding neighborhood that was declared an Urban Renewal Area in 1962. For the next twenty years the area surrounding Vanderbilt Rail Yards was
used for subsidized housing and office space. During the 1970s there was a proposal, subsequently abandoned, to move Baruch College of the City University of New York to the site. In 2003, with the support of Mayor Michael Bloomberg Governor George Pataki, Forest City Ratner announced a plan to move the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn, making the arena the centerpiece of a development that would also include housing and commercial office space. A community benefits agreement was negotiated, albeit with considerable controversy over the legitimacy of the coalition representing community interests. There were alternative plans developed by community and civic coalitions, one of which was the basis for a competing proposal by Extell Development Corporation. However, as a New York State sponsored project, there was no public planning process for the site that established priorities and benchmarks against which alternative proposals could be evaluated. Frank Gehry was brought onto the project team to design the arena, and in 2005 Bruce Ratner and Frank Gehry unveiled the master plan for the entire development which included the arena as well as residential and commercial space. After several years of negotiations, numerous design changes and considerable controversy, Forest City Ratner purchased the land from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for $100 million. With Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) as the lead agency, approvals were granted under New York States General Project Plan process, which has far fewer opportunities for public or legislative review than New York Citys ULURP. In 2009, due to the declining economy, rising construction costs and a drop in available financing, Ratner brought on Ellerbe Becket to value-engineer the arena. Later that year Ellerbe Becket replaced Frank Gehry as the projects designer. Following the community backlash to the revised design as not distinctive enough, Ratner added SHoP Architects on the team to create a more innovative structure. In addition, much of the housing was scaled back or deferred in response to the weak real estate market. A key challenge to building on the site was the complexity of erecting a deck over a functioning rail yard. Forest City Ratner constructed a $50 million temporary railroad yard east of the original yard which it then turned over to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in 2009. There has been a considerable amount of opposition to the Forest City Ratner plan in terms of project scale, environmental impact, schedule, and the use of eminent domain. The project endured years of delays and lawsuits over the legality of the State of New York using eminent domain to condemn private property. Ultimately in 2009, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that it was legal for the state to seize the property for the development.
Meadows-Corona Park and the USTA National Tennis Center. However due to the sites waterfront location, extensive environmental remediation and infrastructure installations need to be completed before any development can start. Around 1900 the site was leased to the Brooklyn Ash Removal Company and for over 25 years more than 100 railroad cars of incineration ashes per day were dumped into the marshland, covering the site with a 30 ft.-thick layer of ash. The area was not only an eyesore with a stench that stretched for miles, but it turned into a public health hazard as it became a breeding ground for vermin and mosquitoes. The City cancelled its contract with the Brooklyn Ash Removal Company in 1934. The site continued to deteriorate as Robert Mosess proposals to include the area in the 1939 and then the 1964 Worlds Fair site plans failed. In the meantime junkyards and auto repair shops moved in. In the 1980s the site was considered for the location of the stadium for the New Jersey Generals football team however the idea died when the U.S. Football League was disbanded. During the 1990s and early 2000s several studies were conducted to determine the highest and best use of the land. The City created the Downtown Flushing Task Force in 2002 and in 2004 the Willets Point Advisory Committee (WPAC) established a planning process and framework for development. The current maximum development program at Willets Point includes: 5,500 residential units (20% of which will be affordable) 150,000 sq. ft. of community space 1,700,000 sq. ft. of retail 700 room hotel 400,000 sq. ft. convention center 500,000 sq. ft. of office space 6,700 parking spaces Minimum 8 acres of open space, parks and playgrounds 850 student public school Due to the land conditions a substantial amount of infrastructure will need to be installed to make Willets Point habitable. The whole site will need to be raised approximately 7 ft. to clear FEMAs 100-year floodplain level. Additionally sewer infrastructure including sanitary pump stations will have to be installed throughout the 61 acres. The roadways and sidewalks, currently in very poor condition, will have to be replaced with a new street network and additional access ramps onto the Van Wyck Expressway and the subway station access will need to be improved. Along with the infrastructure work, significant environmental remediation is required due to decades of pollution. Willets Point was accepted as a LEED for Neighborhood Development Project and three of the main focuses of the sustainability planning process include: sustainable site planning, storm water/wastewater treatment, and energy alternatives. One of the major concerns of the community has been the looming displacement of existing businesses. The New York City Economic Development Corporation has partnered with the Department of Small Business Services and LaGuardia Community College to provide social services and job training to those affected. The communitys concerns about the use of eminent domain and the displacement of current tenants need to be weighed against the significant environmental and infrastructure
Willets Point
Willets Point is a prime example of the increasing priority given to environmental goals in large-scale real estate development. It is also an important example of the use of eminent domain powers by the City of New York and the city charter land-use regulations to address diverse community and city interests. Willets Point is located on approximately 61 acres of land on a peninsula in the Flushing River in northern Queens, NY. The site is easily accessible from the highway, LIRR, and the subway system and is only minutes away from JFK and LaGuardia airports. Every year almost 4 million people pass through the area on their way to Citi Field, Downtown Flushing, Flushing
improvements and the estimated 18,000 construction and 5,000 permanent jobs that the construction of retail space and affordable housing will bring to the area.
Coney Island
Coney Island is an outer-borough example that provides lessons for revitalization though reinventing an areas history. The use of city regulations and powers has created interest in an area that was largely abandoned and with existing zoning that precluded new development. Coney Island in Brooklyn is a New York City landmark. Attractions like the Cyclone, Nathans, and the Astroland Rocket are part of New Yorks history. In the early 20th century Coney Island was a premier destination for New Yorkers and tourists, however during the second half of the 20th century the parks popularity declined and the area became neglected and underutilized. In September 2003, the Mayor, City Council, and the Coney Island Development Corporation launched the a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the neighborhood. A main challenge to revitalizing Coney Island was its seasonal appeal: the area became desolate during the cold months. Additionally, the unemployment rate in Coney Island is over twice as high as the rest of New York City and the existing housing stock is heavily subsidized. The plan not only addressed the waning park, but also the surrounding neighborhoods, creating seven subdistricts: Western Coney Island Seaside Gateway Beach and Boardwalk- Riegelmann Boardwalk Community Center- South Brooklyns YMCA public community space and public amenities Amusement Area Aquarium and Asser Levy Seaside Park Steeplechase Plaza- waterfront public plaza The plan estimates that approximately $14 billion of economic activity will be generated over the next 30 years. As mentioned before, the redevelopment plan includes much more than just the renovation for the amusement area. The project is projected to create 6,000 permanent jobs and 25,000 construction jobs. It includes: 6.8 million sq. ft. of new development 27-acre amusement and entertainment district 1.4-acre neighborhood park 4,000-5,000 new units of housing, 900 of which would be set aside for affordable housing 500,000 sq. ft. of retail space After the Comprehensive Development and Rezoning Plan was completed in 2007, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued in 2009, the project went in for ULURP, the formal public review process. After a few modifications the Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed in June 2009 and the City Planning Council approved the application for the Comprehensive Coney Island Plan.
In 2010 Central Amusement International won the New York City Economic Development Corporations Request for Proposals to develop three parcels (6.2 acres) of land on Coney Island. Central Amusement International created Luna Park, the first new amusement park to be built on Coney Island in over 40 years. Luna Park opened during the summer of 2010 and includes 19 attractions, retail stores, and food and beverage outlets. The Scream Zone, a mini amusement park that opened during the summer of 2011.
Comparative Case Studies

Case studies selected include Bostons Seaport, Millennium Park in Chicago and Mission Bay in San Francisco. They represent large-scale and city-building initiatives with important implications for current and future urban economic development planning in New York City as they highlight best practices for redevelopment, revitalization and regeneration of urban areas.
Bostons Seaport
This case study showcases a district-wide redevelopment plan and industrial redevelopment process that has been successful through robust public participation. Unlike the other case studies in this report the success of Bostons seafront is not due to one large real estate project but to a plan and framework that inform its redevelopment. Development occurred organically but within the confines of land-use and design regulations that promote public access and maritime use. Boston and its environs were settled primarily because of the large and protected port. The vitality and growth of Boston stemmed from its prominence as a major commercial port in the 17th and 18th century. But by middle of the 19th century Bostons waterfront began a steady decline due to a change in shipping needs and the growth of competing ports. A century later, the port and waterfront were in disarray as the shipping industry moved away and related industrial and jobs left for the suburbs. In the mid 1960s as part of the citys urban renewal process, city allocated funds to stimulate both maritime and non maritime uses along the waterfront. Along the downtown waterfront, new high end office and residential communities were created while commercial activity blossomed with a range of businesses from small shops to Faneuil Hall (Quincy Marketplace). The New England Aquarium and Waterfront Park developed along the waterfront attracted tourists. All this new development brought physical improvement to the waterfront and reconnected the city to its roots as a harbor town. However, the new residential and office communities that sprang along the waterfront precluded water-based business activities and physically cut off people from the water. According to a report in 1985 only 18 percent of the harbor was publically accessible. And as pressure grew for more office and residential development in the early 80s so did demand for public waterfront access. It was clear that a comprehensive planning and management strategy was needed to balance the interests of development and continued public access. At the same time during the late 70s and early 80s a series of court cases introduced new procedures and regulations that strengthened public access rights and also strictly defined public purpose along the waterfront. Thus in 1984 in response to the changes in costal regulations and competing waterfront interests, Mayor Raymond Flynn initiated a comprehensive plan for the
Boston Harbor. Recognizing the importance of public participation, Mayor Flynn established the Haborpark Advisory Committee (HPAC) consisting of representatives from state and city waterfront planning and development agencies, private business and labor and each of the five waterfront neighborhoods. The 15-member HPAC advised the administration and the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) on policy and development on the waterfront giving all stakeholder parties a voice in the process. By 1987 the city had created the Harborpark Interim Zoning Overlay District to establish temporary zoning controls while a full plan was being prepared. For three years over 200 community meetings were held with community leaders, waterfront residents, and business representatives. Ultimately this extensive public consultation ensured the balance between development and public waterfront access. The completion of the Harborpark Plan in 1990 covered over 2,000 acres of waterfront property between the waters edge and the first arterial road. The plan had two goals: first to ensure public access and, second, to preserve and enhance the harbors maritime industries. Thus the new zoning policies set aside over 1,000 acres as open space and designated 660 acres for maritime industrial use. The plan also established height, density, and development and design guidelines. One of the main elements of the plan is the Harborwalk. The 43 mile continuous waterfront walkway spans the entire Boston shoreline and provides connections to each of the five shoreline neighborhoods and recreation areas along the way. To ensure continuous access, the plan included a Waterfront Access Zone which stipulated: No structure other than for maritime use could be erected within 35 feet of the waters edge No planning permits would be granted without an access plan Harborpark as an applicant for a planning permit was required to enter into a covenant to ensure maintenance of the walkway along the waters edge as one of the terms of a 99-year lease. Other zoning requirements included at least 40 percent of the first floor of any project to be for pubic use such as recreational facilities, theaters, restaurants, cafes, retail shops, hotels, ferry terminals, and others. The plan also contained strict design guidelines which controlled set backs, height, density, balconies and projections, faade design, and building materials that were context sensitive. They also required all projects to provide continuous public walkways along the waters edge, public seating every 50 linear feet, trash receptacles every 150 linear feet, and lighting fixtures appropriate to the historical setting of the inner harbor. Commitment to public access and openness to multiple and varied interests have allowed Boston to create a vibrant waterfront accommodating the needs of visitors, residents, and businesses. Currently Bostons waterfront is active with maritime and non maritime uses such as marinas, shops, residences, restaurants and cultural facilities. Public access enables residents and visitors to enjoy the waterfront while supporting the businesses located there.
Millennium Park
This is an example of how a joint public and private investment has transformed abandoned transportation infrastructure (rail yard and parking) into a prominent civic center and has spurred the revitalization of the entire surrounding area. Widely regarded as the one of the most successful park development projects in recent history, Millennium Park transformed the physical, cultural, and economic landscape of downtown Chicago. Located in the northern section of Grant Park, two blocks west of Lake Michigan and three blocks south of the river, the 24.5-acre park is the newest addition to Chicagos extensive lakefront green system. The project was launched in December 1997 when the city acquired the sites air rights from the Illinois Central Railroad (ICR). In March 1998 Mayor Daley announced a plan for a 16 acre park over the tracks costing $150 million with $30 million coming from the private sector. Instead of using tax dollars for the project, Mayor Daley raised $137 million through a parking bond issue. John Bryan, the former CEO of Sara Lee Corporation, was put in charge of raising the private funding for the park. Bryan created the non-profit Millennium Park, Inc. to solicit donations for all above-ground amenities while the city was responsible for the infrastructure. This clear separation between the city-funded and the privately-funded elements of the project was essential in attracting private donors and corporate sponsors. Bryans fundraising efforts quickly topped the original $30 million goal which allowed for the expansion of the park from 16.5 acres to 24.5 acres. The original plan for the park, created by the design firm Skidmore Owings and Merrill provided enough flexibility to accommodate the subsequent enhancements as long as funds and modification to the underground parking allowed. While this flexible framework allowed for the expansion of the park, strong project management was integral to managing successfully the constantly changing demands of the public, donors, politicians, designers, construction managers, and the media. This flexibility also contributed to construction delays and cost overruns stemming mostly from the structural modifications to the underground parking as the project kept expanding. Ultimately, the project failed to open on schedule and the parking revenues backing the bonds that funded the project fell short. The city was forced to take out money from the TIF fund to pay for the $220 million in cost overruns . In July 2004, Millennium Park with its twelve venues including the AT&T Plaza/ Cloud Gate, Jay Pritzker Pavilion designed by Frank Gehry, Lurie Garden, Harris Theater for Music and Dance, and Crown fountains opened to critical and public acclaim. And while the final price tag was almost $350 million more than the original estimate the investment has had tremendous economic impact. Buildings near bring the city over $10 million in tax increases. Additionally, the new residential population attracted to downtown by the parks amenities contributes $4 million in sales taxes. Not to mention the extra economic benefits brought to the city by the estimated three million park visitors annually. Most importantly it has transformed Chicagos Central Area and East Loop. Before Millennium Park the East Loop consisted mostly of office buildings with very little retail and pedestrian activity. Since the completion of the park the area has become one of the best performing real estate markets in Chicago. The area has seen ten residential conversions, 85 new residential developments and a population increase of almost 100 percent since the park opened. A transformation along South Michigan Avenue has also taken place attracting a
great number of higher end stores that thrive on the pedestrian traffic from the park. In less than ten years Millennium Park has become an icon for Chicago bringing residents and visitors to share this public space.
Mission Bay
Mission Bay is a district-wide model for smart growth development on a brownfield industrial yard. The new mixed-use and transit oriented community includes affordable housing and large open space. Mission Bay, located on 303 acres of industrial land on the central eastern coast of San Francisco, is being transformed into a mixed-used transit-oriented development. Ideas and plans for redevelopment began in the early 1980s but it wasnt until 1998-99 that a redevelopment plan for the area was complete. The lands owner Catellus1, the real estate firm spun off from Santa Fe Pacific Corporation. As a newly incorporate firm, Catellus was land-rich but needed development to realize the full financial potential of its assets. In 1991 Catellus announced a redevelopment plan for a residential and commercial neighborhood of five million square feet but the economic recession in the early 1990s put the project on hold. By 1996 the project was scrapped as infeasible and for two more years Catellus worked with the City on a new redevelopment plan. There was robust public participation in which the City and Catellus jointly brought agreements to the public for review and support. A twenty-member mayor-appointed Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) representing neighbors of the project, and community groups such as San Francisco Tomorrow, the Council of Community Housing Organizations (representing non-profit housing developers), the Building Trades Council, and the houseboat community in Mission Creek, also reviewed and approved the plan. Currently maximum development program at Mission Bay includes: 6,000 residential units of which 28% will be affordable 4.4 million sq. ft. of commercial/biotech space 43 acre University of California San Francisco biomedical research campus 5,000 sq. ft. retail space 500-unit hotel 41 acres of new open space public school, police and fire station, library, and other community facilities Mission Bay consists of two separate redevelopment areas: North and South. Mission Bay North is located above Islas Creek and is zoned primarily for mixed use retail, entertainment, and residential, while Mission Bay South on the other side of the river is the commercial, academic, and biotech hub. The plan used strict land-use and transportation assets to concentrate mixed-use retail and residential development around the Caltrain station and on either side of the new light rail line. Design standards also encouraged dense clusters of residential towers and walkable pedestrian landscapes. Affordable housing was also a large issue for the redevelopment areas. The master developer agreed to 28% affordable housing, almost double the state laws requirement of 15 % affordable housing construction in redevelopment areas. This was made
1 Catellus subsequently merged into the large distribution facilities owner ProLogis
possible by allowing the towers to rise over 160 ft. instead of the originally proposed 95 ft. 255 affordable units will be included in privately developed projects through inclusionary zoning provisions while the rest of the 1445 units will be constructed by non-profit housing developers on 16 acres of donated land. Catellus also donated 43 acres to the plans main anchor, UCSF, for the expansion of its biomedical research campus. Another major benefit to the area is the 43 acres of open space on either side of Islas Creek, along the San Francisco Bay, forming a long green corridor bisecting Mission Bay in half. Here two strict standards require that an acre of park space must be created for every 1000 residents. Other public infrastructure for the area included roads, lights, sidewalks, bike paths, a library, a police and fire stations, school, and a light rail line. To pay for the public investments San Francisco created a special tax district to float tax exempt municipal bonds. The developer buys the bonds and thus provides up-front financing for the citys infrastructure improvements and then gets reimburses from the tax districts revenues backing the bonds. As the development matures the increase in taxes are used to make the bond payments. As of 2010 3,126 housing units, including 674 affordable units, have been constructed in Mission Bay. An additional 319 units are under construction.1.7 million sq. ft. of office and biotech space has been leased and UCSF has built five buildings totaling 1.1 million sq. ft. Also the library, police station, and light rail line have also been completed.
Common Themes and Findings

In most instances, planning, approval and construction generally took far longer than originally envisioned. Most had several false starts and went through multiple plans before development was approved and construction started. Complete build-out of approved projects generally stretched over several years, even decades, and multiple business cycles. Battery Park City, Roosevelt Island, Times Square, Columbus Circle, Riverside South and Mission Bay are all examples of where one or more development schemes needed to be scratched, whether due to financial infeasibility, political opposition or changes in developers or political leaders. Even after plans are approved and the project is under construction, the project can undergo major changes in scope, timing and program. Both Times Square and Atlantic Yards, for example, experienced major changes shortly after their ambitious and controversial plans were approved. Evaluating the success of these efforts is extremely difficult, in part because the time frames are so long and the effects so diffuse. Even tallying the costs can be difficult when projects require public infrastructure investments or regulatory changes that impact more than the individual project. There is also little consensus on how to measure or weight a wide range of outcomes, particularly through a sustainability lens that looks at economic, social equity and environmental outcomes over an extended time frame. A good example of a project that can be viewed as a success or failure depending on time frames and perspective is the original World Trade Center. Never loved by most planners, it took many years to fill with private tenants and arguably depressed Lower Manhattan real estate values in its early years. Yet by the time of the September 11 attacks, it was an anchor for global financial businesses and a New York icon.
Consideration of environmental and community benefits is evolving. The growing emphasis on energy efficiency and other sustainability outcomes can be seen in the increasing inclusion of environmental criteria in Battery Park Citys design guidelines from the 1980s to the present. Similarly, the negotiations for affordable housing, public spaces and other community benefits in more recent projects like Riverside South, Atlantic Yards, Willets Point, Coney Island and Mission Baywhile controversial and with uneven resultsare a far cry from more top-down models of Lincoln Center and other earlier projects. However, environmental and community benefits are still often secondary to city, state and developer economic and financial goals. Robust public processes early in the planning process tend to produce greater political consensus and better and more enduring outcomes. Bostons Seaport redevelopment was shaped by over 200 community meetings and an advisory committee of government, business, labor and neighborhood representatives, and led to a vibrant waterfront accommodating multiple needs and emphasizing public waterfront access. In Riverside South, a controversial project with strong community opposition was approved and built only after a coalition of city and community civic organizations was able to negotiate density, housing, open space and waterfront access concessions. Multiple and overlapping jurisdictions by different city, state and federal agencies can often make for an inconsistent and confusing set of rules governing the development of different projects. The result can be time-consuming resolution of regulatory and jurisdictional issues in some instances and insufficient public review in others. Much of the land for these large projects is owned by either city or state agencies, or is subject to provisions which allow the state to override local zoning and land use regulations. The city, state and federal agencies have different environmental review processes, different eminent domain and bonding authority. The state has a more constricted public review process than the citys Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), and property owned by the federal and state governments and state-controlled authorities such as the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA) are exempt from ULURP. This can lead to vastly different processes that range from a city-controlled project like Coney Island to the UDC-led Times Square project to the PA-governed World Trade Center. The different scale and impact of these projects provide some rationale for varying processes, but mostly they are determined by different ownership structures or governing authorities. Projects of this scale benefit from continuous public sector involvement and a shared financial stake with the private sector. Because projects can change so drastically from plan to completion, and because it so difficult to calculate the return on public investments, the public interest is often best protected by ensuring its continuing role in the development. Battery Park City may offer the best example of long-term public oversight, flexible guidelines to respond to market demand, and a steady return from development fees and payments in lieu of taxes. Most of these projects attempted to build on their proximity to existing or planned transit services and improve surface vehicular and pedestrian circulation, some more successfully than others. Lincoln Center created a direct underground connection between the arts complex and the IRT subway station,
and the Columbus Circle redevelopment funded various station circulation improvements and a new entrance. The Times Square redevelopment plan mandated building easements to construct several new subway entrances to replace existing sidewalk locations, increasing surface space for pedestrians. A tramway and new subway station were constructed for Roosevelt Island and a new PATH station was built as part of the original World Trade Center development, along with new underground connections to three existing subway lines. Riverside South and Atlantic Yards are examples of large projects that have done little to improve the accessibility or capacity of existing transit services, yet both projects are large auto trip generators. Battery Park also initially failed to incorporate connections to transit and improvements to surface mobility as part of its master plan, separating BPC from the rest of Lower Manhattan. Recent changes to calm Route 9A and the planned underground passage connecting the World Financial Center to the new WTC Transportation and Fulton Street Transit hubs help to remedy the earlier omissions.
II. Current and Future Projects

This chapter describes several current and future economic development projects that could help shape the future of New York City and the metropolitan region. It does not include every potential project, and is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it is meant to describe several high-profile projects that could benefit from the lessons learned from past developments. These include: Greenwich South Sunnyside Yards BAM Cultural District Staten Island North Shore Seward Park Jamaica Center
Greenwich South
The area between the World Trade Center Site and Battery Park City, two very distinctive areas, has remained characterless. As the construction on the World Trade Center site is moving forward, many are looking to form a comprehensive development plan for the Greenwich South area to bring together the surrounding neighborhoods. The Greenwich South area covers 41 acres of lower Manhattan. The World Trade Center site is to the north, Battery Park City is to the west, the financial district is to the east, and Battery Park is to the south. The southern half of the site is currently occupied by the Manhattan portal of the BrooklynBattery Tunnel. Greenwich South is a neighborhood that has an enormous potential thanks to the current development at the World Trade Center site and the infrastructure investment in the Battery Park transportation hub (Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island ferries) and the World Trade Center Transit Hub (NYC subway system, PATH train). In addition, lower Manhattan is one of the fastest growing districts in all of New York City. However the area is currently impaired by the superblock that was created for the World Trade Center Site and the multi-lane entrance to the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel. The superblock obstructs the northsouth flow of traffic and the entrance to the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel blocks east-west traffic. The Downtown Alliance has been the major force in promoting the revitalization of Greenwich South. The objectives of the revitalization are described in the Alliances report: Five Principles for Greenwich South which summarizes the research findings of the urban research and architecture firm, Architecture Research Office (ARO), in association with the Downtown Alliance. ARO conducted market research and held a 12-firm charette to brainstorm ideas for Greenwich South. According to this report, the five principles for redevelopment in the area are: To encourage an intense mix of uses To reconnect Greenwich Street To connect the east and the west To build for density and design for people To create a reason for people to come to the neighborhood and stay in the neighborhood
In addition to reconnecting the neighborhood with its surroundings, the Downtown Alliance has proposed a Special Zoning District to allow the transfer of air rights from the BrooklynBattery tunnel and the existing historic buildings to other areas of the district to create higher density living. Greenwich South has the potential to do very well due to its strategic location between three successful areas (Battery Park City, the Financial District and Battery Park) and the redevelopment of the World Trade Center to the north. Development in Greenwich South would serve the professionals from the Financial District, the residents of Battery Park City, and out-of-town tourists. Many parties are involved in the effort to revitalize Greenwich South, most notably the Downtown Alliance. The visioning document commissioned by the Downtown Alliance drew the support of the AIA, the Battery Conservancy, and Trinity Wall Street. The preliminary research and design documentation was done by Architecture Research Office, Beyer Blinder Belle, and Open. A successful revitalization would not only help the property owners in Greenwich South, the Downtown Lower Manhattan Business Improvement District, and the surrounding neighborhoods, but it would also serve to raise the standing of the area.
Sunnyside Yards
Sunnyside Yards in Queens commands a prime location for future development given its proximity to mass transit, downtown Queens, and the waterfront. However since the yards are actively used, significant investment will be required to construct a platform and enable development on top of the tracks. The site area is 1.75 miles from west to east and .3 miles across at its widest point from north to south. The land consists of 167 acres and 14 parcels which are currently zoned as a manufacturing district. In 2008 the City Council adopted zoning map changes for 40 blocks of the Dutch Kills neighborhood and provided for incentives for affordable housing and mixed use residential buildings. The adjoining neighborhoods include Astoria, Woodside, and Long Island City. Sunnyside Yards is owned by Amtrak but is also used by NJTransit as a storage facility and the Long Island Rail Road as a shared platform. Additionally, the Long Island Rail Road has a storage area and maintenance shop north of Sunnyside Yards. Over the years many uses have been proposed for the site, however due to the complex nature of the functioning tracks and the vast amount of infrastructure investment needed, development has been slow. In 1997 the site was included in New York Citys Olympic bid plan and in May of 2006 Alex Garvin and Associates conducted a survey on the quantity of housing the site could support. The study proposed building a platform over the yards in three phases and changing the zoning to R7A, R8 and R9 which would allow for an estimated 82,200 housing units. In 2007 several parties suggested moving the Jacob Javits Center to Sunnyside Yards. As part of its Long Island City Vision, the New York Economic Development Corporation has been trying to attract development to the surrounding areas of Hunters Point, Queens West and Northern Hunters Point though zoning changes and physical design improvements. This part of Queens has been a target for redevelopment recently and municipal support has been committed to encourage development - the City of New York has allocated $30 million to the area in addition to the $50 million in infrastructure investments from federal funding.
The MTAs East Side Access project, which is currently under construction, will have a dramatic effect on the Sunnyside Yards area. Once the project is completed, trains bound for Grand Central Terminal from Long Island will pass directly under Sunnyside Yards, which will not only bring additional traffic to the area but it will also increase the demand for residential units. Due to Sunnyside Yards central location, there are many stakeholders in the future of the area, including mass transit entities (the Metropolitan Transit Authority, Long Island Rail Road, NJTransit, Amtrak, institutional land holders (the State of New York, the City of New York, and approximately 30 private landholders.
BAM Cultural District

The Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM) cultural district was initiated by the office of the Mayor, the New York Economic Development Corporation, the Department of Cultural Affairs, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the Department of City Planning and the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership in 2000. The BAM Cultural District spans several blocks in downtown Brooklyn. The adjoining neighborhoods include Boerum Hill, Fulton Street and Fort Green. The BAM Cultural District master plan includes performance and rehearsal space, public open space, mixed income housing, office and commercial space. In 2006 then-Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff renewed interest in the district by changing the leadership of the BAM Local Development Corporation and incorporating it into the umbrella organization Downtown Brooklyn Partnership. The development of the district has proceeded in two phases. The first phase was completed in 2004 and included the renovation of 80 Arts: James E. Davis Arts building. The second phase is currently in progress and includes the housing and public space components as well as the Theatre for a New Audience, the Strand theatre, BAM Fisher Building and the South Site Mixed Use Building. Because of the weakened economy since 2007, many elements have been put on hold until 2009. However six projects broke ground in 2010 signaling that development is beginning to pick up again. The City of New York has committed $100 million in capital funding to the district to make it a lively arts center. Some of the major stakeholders for the project include: 3 Business Improvement Districts: Court-LivingstonSchermerhorn BID, Fulton Mall Improvement Association, MetroTech BID Downtown Brooklyn Partnership City of New York New York Economic Development Corporation
Kill Van Kull waterfront, deep-rooted neighborhoods and town centers, historic streets and the former North Shore Railroad, have helped define the area. The area is a five mile stretch of Staten Islands shoreline along the Kill Van Kull. The area extends from the New York Container Terminal on the west to the St. George Ferry Terminal on the east. Planning efforts are not only concentrated on the waterfront but also on the network of roadways that serve the coastline. The neighborhoods adjacent to the study area include Elm Park, Port Richmond, West Brighton, New Brighton and St George. These assets have been targeted for coordinated improvements to help unlock the areas significant potential and to provide residents, businesses and visitors with quality jobs, improved transportation connections and needed services. The main thoroughfare along the north shore is Richmond Terrace, a two-lane east-west road. Narrow sidewalks, sharp turns, traffic congestion and dangerous crossings are common on this 6.6 mile stretch, making it a dangerous for commuters. Based on Census data, 44% of north shore commutes are 45 minutes or more. Waterfront access is also a problem. Currently there are only three public access points: North Shore Esplanade in St George, Snug Harbor and Faber Park in Port Richmond. The NYCEDC and the New York Department of City Planning have led planning for the area through the North Shore 2030 plan that builds upon current and planned City and regional investments being made in Staten Island, including the expansion of the New York Container terminal, the Goethals Bridge expansion, redevelopment at the Stapleton Waterfront and the former Coast Guard site, new public open space at the former Blissenbach Marina, expanded cultural uses at Snug Harbor, improvements to the St. George Ferry Terminal and individual investments by the areas maritime businesses. The projects planning agenda was released in December 2011 an outlines initiatives from city agencies that, along with private investment, are designed to move the North Shore 2030 vision forward. This vision was developed with hundreds of citizens and governmental partners and identifies 51 initiatives. Included are both new ongoing initiatives that are intended to create quality jobs and workplaces, reconnect people with the working waterfront, expand neighborhood choices, and improve connections and mobility. The City led plan outlines specific commitments and clarifies public agency responsibilities to implement this vision. The action plan is being coordinated with the MTAs North Shore Alternative Analysis Study which is evaluating the North Shore Rail right of way, a railroad that was created to connect New Jersey to Staten Island. Ever since passenger service ended in the 1950s, and freight service stopped in the late 1980s, the railway has fallen into disrepair and the abandoned tracks cut off the upland neighborhoods from the waterfront. The purpose of the MTA North Shore Alternatives Analysis Study is to assess whether the railway can be used to provide transportation alternatives.
Seward Park
Seward Park is one of the few sites in Manhattan that has remained undeveloped for over 40 years. In early 2011 the first steps towards development were taken with the approval of development guidelines for the site.
Staten Island North Shore

The north shore is twice as dense as the rest of Staten Island and has the highest concentration of maritime support services in the whole New York harbor. The area has strong development potential and a need for job creation which may create opportunities for improved transportation connections and increased opportunities for waterfront access. The areas major assets, including the
Seward Park encompasses six parcels over ten acres of land in the Lower East Side near the Williamsburg Bridge. The parcels are located between Delancey Street and Grand Street and east of Essex Street. Adjacent neighborhoods include the Lower East Side, Little Italy and Chinatown. In 1967 the government cleared the 14 block area to create the Seward Park Extension Urban Renewal Area (SPEURA), displacing approximately 1,800 residents. The site remained empty for the next 40 years due to lack of community consensus on the sites future and failed development proposals. In late 2008, SPEURA Matters, a year-long initiative involving several non-profit organizations, began the process of establishing a community consensus through community outreach. The objective of the SPEURA Matters initiative was to generate interest in the area and to have the diverse community come to an agreement about the sites development and integration into the urban fabric of the surrounding neighborhoods. In January 2011, Community Board 3 approved a set development guidelines that call for approximately 1,000 housing units based on a City initiated public process. About half of these units are required to be set aside for middle- to low-income residents. The guidelines also stipulate that there must be a community, cultural and/or institutional facility and that sufficient land should be set aside for a public primary or secondary school. This Community Board decision was a result of a ground breaking effort by the New York City Economic Development Corporation to create a voluntary participatory process that would provide ample opportunities for the community to identify priorities for the project.
Jamaica Center
Downtown Jamaica, once a shopping center serving much of Queens and parts of Long Island, experienced serious economic problems in a short ten-year period in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Its three anchor department stores closed with major job losses and impacts on the viability of local retail. Two banks moved their headquarters to Long Island and built major facilities there, causing operations of related supportive financial services to follow. Finally the Long Island Press, a prominent afternoon daily with a large circulation and many jobs closed. Concurrently, demographic change accelerated, caused by white flight and general uncertainty about Jamaicas future. Today, Jamaica Center is at the nexus of a robust transit network, including the Long Island Rail Road, five subway routes, some two dozen bus routes and the JFK AirTrain. This transportation access assets are expected to improve even further by 2016 with the opening of the LIRRs East Side Access project (ESA), which will bring trains directly into Grand Central Terminal in East Midtown. The project will bring Manhattans east side to less than 20 minutes away from Jamaica, establishing a strong link to the nations largest concentration of jobs, and offer Jamaica as an affordable and accessible location alternative for businesses and residents. One ancillary benefit of ESA will be the frequent train service on the Atlantic Branch of the LIRR between Downtown Brooklyn and Jamaica Center. Currently, the LIRR operates relatively infrequently in that corridor. With this operational change, Jamaica will be able to attract substantially more employees from many areas of Brooklyn. The JFK AirTrain has been a major and unsung success. It continues to attract more and more air passengers and employees, even as air passenger activity declined during the recent recession. As air traffic rebounded and AirTrain traffic contin-
ues to grow, service frequency will increase, creating and even more compelling reason to establish airport-related activities in Jamaica. The three transportation infrastructure improvements in the area surrounding the Jamaica Station/AirTrain complex, currently in design or construction, will make Jamaica Center more desirable for locational decisions, and help reposition it as a revitalized Central Business District. The impact of these improvements could promote airport-related development in Jamaica by capitalizing on Jamaicas proximity to JFK Airport and the opportunities for business and real estate activities that support it. This process should build on the Citys 2007 Jamaica Plan that included a four year community visioning process that led to the creation of this plan. The impact of these improvements needs to be leveraged with ongoing investments in the infrastructure around the Jamaica Station area that will promote more economic activity. Together, these projects have a combined value of $90 million. The first project is Sutphin Underpass rehabilitation. The Underpass reconstruction is nearly complete, and creates a more attractive street-level, pedestrian experience directly across the street from the Air Train Terminal in the passage running below the Long Island Railroad tracks. The Atlantic Avenue Extension project, currently in design, will extend Atlantic Avenue and connect it with 95th Avenue, creating a new gateway to Downtown Jamaica and a new public park. The project includes improved traffic patterns, open space and landscaping. Finally, the Station Plaza project will realign Archer Avenue at the intersection with Sutphin Boulevard, in order to create a safe inter-modal transfer for passengers using the bus and subway systems. The project creates two new public plazas, wider sidewalks, and eases traffic congestion by creating separate bus loading and off-loading lanes.
III. Sources
Lincoln Center
Dietrich, G. (2004). Landmark Wests Report to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Economic Development Research Group, The Economic Role & Impact of Lincoln Center. Hostetter, M. (2003, August 25). Lessons from Lincoln Center for the Ground Zero Cultural Center. Gotham Gazette. Markowitz, M. (2003, August 25). Lincoln Center. Gotham Gazette.
World Trade Center

Clark, M. L. (2005). Lessons From the World Trade Center For Open Space Planning Generally and Bostons Big Dig Specifically. Environmental Affairs, 32(301). Anderson, B. (2001, Autumn). The Twin Towers Project: A Cautionary Tale. City Journal. Johnson, D., & Ross, S. (n.d.). World Trade Center History: Infoplease. Retrieved from Infoplease web site: http://www. infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html
Corporation, R. I. (2010). History: Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation. Retrieved from Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation of the State of New York: http://www.rioc.com/ history.htm Roosevelt Island Operating Corp. (2010). The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation Corporate Overview. Retrieved from the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation of the State of New York: http://www.rioc.com/overview.htm Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation. (1995). A Rather Brief Briefing on Roosevelt Island. Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation. (2008). Roosevelt Island, Manhattans Other Island. Stern, R., Mellins, T., & Fishman, D. (1997). New York 1960: Architecture and Urbanism between the Second World War and the Bicentennial. Unknown. (1973). Roosevelt Island Dedicated. Roosevelt Island Main Street.
Times Square
Bagli, C. V. (2006). Planned Tower Would Cap Off Revitalization of Times Square. New York Times. Bagli, C. V. (2010). After 30 Years, Times Square Rebirth is Complete. New York Times. Fainstein, S., Reichl, A., & Sagalyn, L. (2006). Learning From Time Square. Journal of Urban History, 32(2), 302-313. Gratz, R. (2011, January 4). Times Square Development Completed. Huffington Post. Sagalyn, L. (2001). Times Square Roulette. Stern, W. J. (1999). The Unexpected Lessons of Time Squares Comeback. City Journal. Stern, W. J. (2009). The Truth about Time Square. Perspectives, 1-10.
Riverside South
Mosher, D. (1999, February). Riverside South: Greeting a New West Side Presence. The Cooperator. Riverside South Planning Corporation. (2009). History of Riverside South Development: Riverside South Planning Corporation. Retrieved from Riverside South Planning Corporation web site: http://www.riverside-south.org/history.html Rivoli, D. (2010, March 24). Extell Scales Back Riverside South Plan. The Westside Spirit. Vitullo-Martin, J. (2004, January). The West Side Rethinks Donald Trumps Riverside South. Manhattan Institutes Monthly Newsletter.
Columbus Circle
Anonymous. (1998, July 29). New Hope for Columbus Circle. New York Times. Chira, S. (1989, May 5). Board of Estimates Approves Project for Columbus Circle. New York Times. Finder, A. (1987, February 6). Huge project on Columbus Circle is approved by Board of Estimate. New York Times. Iovine, J. (2004, January 22). On Columbus Circle, Fighting a Face Lift. New York Times. Kirby, D. (1999, May 2). Columbus Circle: Will This Island be Rediscovered. New York Times. Lueck, T. (1996, July 24). Official Offer Expanded Plans to Rebuild Columbus Circle. New York Times. Newman, A. (1996, August 11). Traffic on Columbus Circle Finally Comes, Well, Full Circle. New York Times. Purnick, J. (1987, December 17). Why Columbus Circle Plan is Shaky, 1987. New York Times. Stoler, M. (2007, February 22). Columbus Circle Rebounds. New York Sun.
Battery Park City

Fung, A. (2010, November 5). Giddy spending seen at Battery Park City agency. Crains New York Business. Hammer, S., & Hinge, A. (2009). Mayors Training Program Case Study; Battery Park City Green Building Guidelines. Krupa, F. (1993). Battery Park City: Luring Back the UpperMiddle Class. Urban Land Institute. (2010). 2010 ULI Awards for Excellence: Battery Park City. Retrieved from Urban Land Institute Website.
Roosevelt Island
Brown, E. (2010, November 29). On Roosevelt Island, A Move to Go Private. Wall Street Journal.
Boston Seaport
Boston Redevelopment Authority. (n.d.). South Boston Municipal Harbor Plan: Boston Redevelopment Authority. Retrieved from Boston Redevelopment Authority web site: http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/Planning/ PlanningInitsIndividual.asp?action=ViewInit&InitID=4 Boston Redevelopment Authority. (n.d.). South Boston Waterfront District Municipal Harbor Plan Amendment: Boston Redevelopment Authority. Retrieved from Boston Redevelopment Authority web site: http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/Planning/PlanningInitsIndividual. asp?action=ViewInit&InitID=118 Kodama, T. (1996). Public Access to Shoreline: The California Coast and Bostons Waterfront.
Millennium Park
Bruner Foundation. (2009). 2009 Rudy Bruner Award: Silver Medal Winner Millennium Park. City of Chicago. (n.d.). Park History: Millennium Park. Retrieved from Millennium Park Chicago: http://www.millenniumpark.org/parkhistory/ Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs. (2009). Millennium Park Chicago Guide. Kamin, B. (2004, July 15). Other projects around the world beset with delays and budget overruns. Chicago Tribune.
NA (2008, April 16). Willets Point Development Plan: Generic Environmental Impact Statement Final Scope of Work. Barron, J. (2010, August 20). Judge Rejects Challenge Against Willets Point Project. New York Times. Downtown Flushing Development Framework. (2004, May). Development Framework: Downtown Flushing. City Environmental Quality Review. Environmental Assessment Statement: Part I, General Information. New York City Department of City Planning. (2009, April 22). Article XII: Special Purpose Districts. Zoning Resolution. New York City Department of City Planning. Zoning Map 10B. New York City Economic Development Corporation. (2008, May 5). Willets Point Redevelopment Community Board Presentation. New York City Economic Development Corporation. Willets Point Redevelopment. Retrieved from the New York City Economic Development Corporation website: http://www. nycedc.com/ProjectsOpportunities/CurrentProjects/Queens/ WilletsPointDevelopmentDistrict/Pages/WilletsPointDevelopmentDistrict.aspx Santos, F. (2010, August 12). E-mails Show State Officials Skepticism About Willets Point Project. New York Times. The City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development. (2008, April). Urban Renewal Plan: Willets Point Urban Renewal Area, Queens, Community District No. 7.
Mission Bay
California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2010). Mission Bay, City of San Francisco Gold Level Catalyst Community Association of Bay Area Governments Designee. In C. D. Development, Catalyst Projects For California Sustainable Communities. City of San Francisco. (2005). Mission Bay Land Use Plan. King, J. (2000, October 23). Groundbreaking Today for Big Chunk of Mission Bay. San Francisco Chronicle. Marshall, T. (2008, Fall). Mission Bay Redevelopment in the Heart of San Francisco. Development. Prowler, D. (2009, January 8). Public/Private Partnerships 101: Managing Public/Private Development Projects. SPUR Newsletter. San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. (2009). Mission Bay Affordable Housing. San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. (2010). Mission Bay: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Retrieved from San Francisco Redevelopment Agency: http://www.sfredevelopment. org/index.aspx?page=61
Atlantic Yards
NA (2009, June). Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project. Technical Memorandum. NA (2009, December 21). Amended Memorandum of Environmental Commitments for the Atlantic Yards Project. NA (2006, November). Brooklyn Arena & Atlantic Yards Design Guidelines. NA. ND. Determination and Findings by the New York State Urban Development Corporation d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation Pursuant to EDPL Section 204 with Respect to the Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project. NA (2007, September 12). Funding Agreement between New York State Development Corporation, as ESDC and Brooklyn Arena, LLC and Atlantic Yards Development Company LLC. AKRF, Inc. (2006, July). Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project: Blight Study. Prepared for the Empire State Development Corporation. Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project EIS. (2006, November). Executive Summary and Project Description. Bagli, C.V. (2011, March 16). Prefabricated Tower May Rise at Brooklyns Atlantic Yards. New York Times. Bagli, C.V. (2011, March 17). With Federal Case and Modular Building Plan, New Attention for Atlantic Yards Project. New York Times. Empire State Development Corporation. (2006, December 8). SEQRA Findings Statement: Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project.
Willets Point
NA. ND. Convention Center Overview: Willets Point Development Plan. NA. ND. Willets Point Executive Summary. NA. ND. Project Description. Willets Point Development Plan.
KPMG LLP. (2009, August 31). Review of the Development Model and Absorption Period for the Residential Components of the Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project. Prepared for Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and the Empire State Development Corporation. New York State Urban Development Corporation. (2009, June 23). Atlantic Yards Land Use Improvement and Civic Project: Modified General Project Plan. New York City Department of City Planning. Brooklyn Community District 2 Profile. New York City Department of City Planning. Zoning Map 16C.
Coney Island
NA (2008, September 17). Coney Island Rezoning Framework: Presentation to MAS. Associated Press. (2010, November 1). Coney Island Losing Longtime Boardwalk Vendors. Crains New York Business. Associated Press. (2009, June 17). Protesters Disrupt Vote on Coney Island Plan. Crains New York Business. Associated Press. (2008, November 17). Municipal Art Society Wants Year-Round Coney. Crains New York Business. Bagli, C. V. (2010, November 1). As the Boardwalk is Remade, 9 Fixtures are Told to Leave. New York Times. Calder, R. (2009, March 15). Coney Island Developer Forcing Through Zoning Changes. New York Post. Chaban, M. (2011, January 19). Big Kids Coney Island Breaks Ground. New York Observer. Chatelain, R. (2009, February 5). Coney Island Hopes Rezoning will give Economy a Jolt. AM New York. Coney Island Development Corporation. Coney Islands Next Act: A Glorious past Meets a Timeless Future. Coney Island Development Corporation. Projects & Initiatives and Strategic Plan. Retrieved from the Coney Island Development Corporation website: http://www.thecidc.org/. Draft Scope of Work for an Environmental Impact Statement: Coney Island Rezoning. CEQR De Avila, J. (2011, March 4). Coney Island Lot on Market. Wall Street Journal. Economics Research Associates. Amusement Parks White Paper. Fahim, K. (2008, November 17). Fanciful Visions for Coney Islands Future. New York Times. Fahim, K. (2009, January 20). Nathans says its Coney Island Flagship will stay put. New York Times. Fung, A. (2009, April 2). Developer Promises Coney Amusements Come May. Crains New York Business. McLaughlin, M. (2009, March 10). CB13 Panel Backs- and Bucks- the Mayor on Coney Rezoney. The Brooklyn Paper. Sederstrom, J. (2009, January 28). Reentry for Coney Island Rocket. Daily News. Sollars, M. (2009, March 9). Doubts Mount Over Citys Coney Island Plan. Crains New York Business. Sollars, M. (2009, January 28). Coney Island Rocket Donated to City. Crains New York Business. New York City Department of City Planning. Brooklyn Community District 13 Profile.
New York City Department of City Planning. (2004, September 9). Article X: Special Purpose Districts, Chapter 6 Special Coney Island Mixed Use District. Zoning Resolution. New York City Department of City Planning. (2009, July 29). Article XII: Special Purpose Districts, Chapter 1 Special Coney Island Mixed Use District. Zoning Resolution. New York City Department of City Planning, New York City Economic Development Corporation, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, New York City Department of Small Business Services and New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services. (2009, January). Coney Island Comprehensive Plan Presentation. New York City Department of City Planning Press Release. (2009, January 20). City Planning Begin Public Review on Rezoning of Coney Island: Part of Citys Comprehensive Strategy to Save and Expand on Amusements as Year Round Destination and Revitalize Surrounding Neighborhood. New York City Department of City Planning Press Release. (2009, July 30). Statement of Commissioner Amanda Burden on the Adoption of the Coney Island Revitalization Plan. New York City Department of City Planning. Coney Island. Retrieved from the New York City Department of City Planning website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/coney_ island/coneyisland3.shtml. New York City Economic Development Corporation Press Release. (2009, March 31). Deputy Mayor Robert C. Lieber and Premier Rides, Inc. President Jim Seay Launch the Coney Island Amusement Advisory Panel.
Greenwich South
Beane, G. (2009, October 1). Can Greenwich South Revitalize the Lower West Side Metropolis Mag. Downtown Alliance. Five Principles for Greenwich South: A Model for Lower Manhattan. Retrieved from the Downtown Alliance website: http://www.downtownny.com/sites/all/ themes/nyda/greenwichsouth/files/5/5_Five_Principles_for_ Greenwich_South.pdf Downtown Alliance. A Greenwich South Timeline. Retrieved from the Downtown Alliance Website: http://www.downtownny.com/sites/all/themes/nyda/greenwichsouth/files/3/3_ Greenwich_South_Timeline.pdf Downtown Alliance. What Could This Look Like. Retrieved from the Downtown Alliance Website: http://www.downtownny.com/sites/all/themes/nyda/greenwichsouth/files/6/6_ What_Could_This_Look_Like.pdf Downtown Alliance. Greenwich South Existing Conditions. Retrieved from the Downtown Alliance Website: http:// www.downtownny.com/sites/all/themes/nyda/greenwichsouth/files/4/4_Greenwich_South_Existing_Conditions.pdf Downtown Alliance. Priority Initiatives for Greenwich South. Retrieved from the Downtown Alliance Website: http://www. downtownny.com/sites/all/themes/nyda/greenwichsouth/ files/7/7_Priority_Initiatives_for_Greenwich_South.pdf New York Department of City Planning. Manhattan Community District 1 Profile. New York City Department of City Planning. Zoning Map 12B.
Sunnyside Yards Alex Garvin and Associates Inc. (2006, May 26) Visions for New York City: Housing and the Public Realm. Cole, M. (2011, January 9). Sunnysides Cloudy View of Pawnshop: Queens Community Thinks Store Sends Wrong Signals About the Neighborhood. Crains New York Business. New York City Department of City Planning. Queens Community District 2 Profile. New York City Department of City Planning. Zoning Map 9B. New York City Economic Development Corporation. (2011) Long Island City Central Business District Fact Sheet. Retrieved from the New York Economic Development Corporation website: http://www.nycedc.com/SupportingYourBusiness/CentralBusinessDistricts/LongIslandCityCBD/Documents/CBD_1Q10_LIC.pdf. New York City Economic Development Corporation. Long Island City Vision. Retrieved from the New York City Economic Development Corporation website: http://www. nycedc.com/NewsPublications/Brochures/Documents/ LICVision.pdf Oser, A. S. (1989, May 28). PERSPECTIVES: The Sunnyside Yards; Amtraks Grand Vision for its Air rights. The New York Times. BAM Cultural District Downtown Brooklyn Partnership. BAM Cultural District. Retrieved from Downtown Brooklyn Partnership website: http://www.dbpartnership.org/lookingahead/bamcd Downtown Brooklyn Partnership. BAM Cultural District Map. Retrieved from Downtown Brooklyn Partnership website: http://www.dbpartnership.org/utils/imgshow.aspx?id=148 Downtown Brooklyn Partnership. Business Improvement District Map. Retrieved from Downtown Brooklyn Partnership website: http://www.dbpartnership.org/utils/imgshow. aspx?id=136 McKeough, T. (2009, June). BAM Cultural District: Brooklyn Arts District Plods Ahead. Architectural Record. New York City Department of City Planning. Brooklyn Community District 2 Profile. New York City Department of City Planning. Zoning Map 16C. New York City Economic Development Corporation. BAM Cultural District. Retrieved from the New York City Economic Development Corporation website: http://www. nycedc.com/PROJECTSOPPORTUNITIES/CURRENTPROJECTS/BROOKLYN/BAMCULTURALDISTRICT/ Pages/BAMCulturalDistrict.aspx New York City Economic Development Corporation. Downtown Brooklyn Plan. Retrieved from New York City Economic Development Corporation website: http://www.nyc. gov/html/dcp/pdf/dwnbklyn2/dwnbklyn.pdf Pogrebin, R. (2006, August 15). City Expands Its Role in Brooklyn Cultural District. New York Times.
Basile, Baumann, Prost, Cole & Associates, inc for Parsons Brinckerhoff. (2009, February) Staten Island North Shore Land Use and Transportation Study: Market Analysis Executive Summary. New York City Department of City Planning. Staten Island Community District 1 Profile. New York City Department of City Planning. Staten Island North Shore- Land Use & Transportation Study. Retrieved from the New York City Department of City Planning website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/north_shore/index. shtml. New York City Department of City Planning. (2009, November). North Shore Land Use and Transportation Study Mock Budget Game. Retrieved from the New York City Department of City Planning website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ dcp/pdf/north_shore/budget_game_november.pdf New York City Department of City Planning. Zoning Maps 20A, 20C, 21A and 21C. New York City Department of City Planning and New York City Economic Development Corporation. (2010, November 3 and 4) North Shore 2030: A Proposed Action Plan. Presentation. New York City Economic Development Corporation. North Shore 2030. Improving and Reconnecting the Nrth shores Unique and Historic Assets. December 2011 (2008, July 22) Staten Island North Shore and West Shore Light Rails. PlanNYC.
Seward Park
Buckley, C. (2010, December 15). Agreement Seems Near on Long-Stalled Lower East Side Project. New York Times. New York City Department of City Planning. Zoning Map 12C. New York City Economic Development Corporation. (2009, September 10). Presentation to Manhattan Community Board 3 Economic Development, Zoning and Planning Committees. New York City Economic Development Corporation. Seward Park. Retrieved from the New York City Economic Development Corporation website: http://www.nycedc.com/ProjectsOpportunities/CurrentProjects/Manhattan/SewardPark/ Pages/SewardPark.aspx. New York City Economic Development Corporation. (2009, June 8). Seward Park Overview: Presentation to Manhattan Community Board 3 Economic Development, Planning and Zoning Committee. New York City Economic Development Corporation. (2010, March 8). Seward Park Overview, Presentation to Manhattan Community Board 3 Land Use, Zoning, Public and Private Housing Committee. Pratt Center for Community Development. (2009, September 15). Community Voices and the Future of the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area. Shapiro, J. and Eve Baron. (2010, April 20). Seward Park Planning Process Presentation. Shapiro, J. and Eve Baron. (2010, June 21). Seward Park Planning Process Presentation.
Staten Island North Shore

Alex Garvin and Associates Inc. (2006, May 26). Visions for New York City: Housing and the Public Realm.
Shapiro, J. and Eve Baron. (2010, July 29). Seward Park Planning Process Presentation. Shapiro, J. and Eve Baron. (2010, October 20). Seward Park Planning Process Presentation. Shapiro, J. and Eve Baron. (2010, November 16). Seward Park Planning Process Presentation.
Jamaica Center
Bay Area Economics (2009, July 10) Market and Financial Analysis: Transit-Oriented Development Opportunities Jamaica AirTrain Station Greater Jamaica Development Corporation. Vision for Jamaica Center: A Planning Framework for Development & Transportation Greater Jamaica Development Corporation. Historic Jamaica Walking Tour and Guide Greater Jamaica Development Corporation. Building the Heart of a Community. Greater Jamaica Development Corporation. (2005) Jamaica Transportation Center. Developer Handbook Urban Design Guidelines. Greater Jamaica Development Corporation (2010) Jamaica. Chairmans Report. Greater Jamaica Development Corporation (2011, April) Downtown Jamaica. Greater Jamaica Development Corporation (2011, August 22). The Case for Jamaica Center New York City Economic Development Corporation. Central Business Districts Project for Public Spaces. Change at Jamaica. Creating & Improving Public spaces in Jamaica Center

RPA Building The Next NY Appendix

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

RPA Building The Next NY Appendix

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

w w w . r p a .

Building the Next New York

The Original World Trade Center

Battery Park City

Comparative Case Studies

Common Themes and Findings

II. Current and Future Projects

BAM Cultural District

Staten Island North Shore

World Trade Center

Battery Park City

Staten Island North Shore

Você também pode gostar