July 2006
Prepared for:
Empire State Development Corporation
633 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Prepared by:
AKRF, Inc.
Atlantic Yards Arena and
Redevelopment Project
Blight Study
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... i
A. Introduction and Analysis Framework .............................................................................................................A-1
B. Historical Context and Overview of Current Conditions .........................................................................B-1
C. Physical and Use Characteristics of Properties on Project Site ............................................................... C-1
D. Crime Rates ......................................................................................................................................................... D-1
E. Benefi ts of the Proposed Project ..................................................................................................................... E-1
F. Property Ownership ........................................................................................................................................... F-1
Appendices
Appendix A: Summaries of Structural Condition Surveys (LZA Technology)
Appendix B: Supporting Tables
Appendix C: Brooklyn Heights Courier Article
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
iJULY 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report fi nds that the 22-acre area proposed for the Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project
(“project site”) is characterized by blighted conditions that are unlikely to be removed without public
action.
As described in the report, fi ve of the eight blocks on the project site (Blocks 927, 1118, 1119, 1120,
and 1121), comprising approximately 63 percent of the total square footage of the site, are located
within the boundaries of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (ATURA). Created in 1968 as an
expansion of the 1963 Fort Greene Urban Renewal Plan, the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Plan
found approximately 104 acres of land to be sub-standard and unsanitary in a variety of ways and aimed
to eradicate the blighted conditions through actions such as: removal of structurally unsafe, substandard
and deteriorated and deteriorating buildings, elimination of negative environmental conditions, removal
of impediments to land development (i.e., multiplicity of ownership), and provision of new housing for
low and moderate income families built to high standards of design.
The City has issued a series of amendments to the original ATURA Plan since its creation in 1968, but
the basic goal of eradicating blight has remained the same. In 2004, the City issued the tenth and most
recent amendment to the Plan. The 10th amendment cites a continued presence of blighted conditions
in parts of ATURA and extends the duration of ATURA for another 40 years. The goals outlined in that
tenth amendment, which are similar to the goals outlined in earlier versions of the Plan, include:
Redevelop the Area in a comprehensive manner, removing blight and maximizing appropriate land
use.
Remove or rehabilitate substandard and insanitary structures.
Remove impediments to land assemblage and orderly development.
Strengthen the tax base of the City by encouraging development and employment opportunities in
the Area.
Provide new housing of high quality and/or rehabilitated housing of upgraded quality.
Provide appropriate community facilities, parks and recreational uses, retail shopping, public park-
ing, and private parking.
Provide a stable environment with the Area which will not be a blighting infl uence on surrounding
neighborhoods.
Over the past four decades conditions throughout most of ATURA have greatly improved and achieved
the objectives of the earlier Urban Renewal Plans—fi rst through a series of public investments and
later, through public encouragement of private investment. ATURA blocks immediately north of At-
lantic Avenue, neglected for years prior to ATURA designation and slow to develop even after ATURA
designation, now contain the Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal shopping centers, the Bank of New
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—
Blight Study
iiJULY 2006
York offi ce tower, and several blocks of middle-income rowhouses built by the New York City Housing
Partnership.
In contrast, the southernmost blocks of ATURA, which include the active but sub-optimal and below-
grade Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)/Long Island Railroad (LIRR) Vanderbilt Yard,
have yet to be improved over the conditions that led the City to designate the area as blighted ap-
proximately 40 years ago. These blocks have had a blighting effect on adjacent blocks south of Pacifi c
Street—Blocks 1127, 1128, and 1129, which comprise the southern portion of the project site. The
physical deterioration, underutilization, and general failure of properties on the project site to meet the
objectives laid out in the earlier Urban Renewal Plans were one factor in the City’s 2004 decision to
extend the duration of ATURA for another 40 years.
One of the principal reasons why the project site has remained in a state of physical disrepair and rela-
tive economic inactivity while surrounding blocks have experienced signifi cant revitalization is the
presence of the open below-grade Vanderbilt Yard and the high cost of covering and building over the
yard. Early versions of ATURA plan called for construction of a deck over the rail yard to be used as
a main campus for Baruch College, but these plans were abandoned in the early 1970s as the cost of
building a platform became too costly for an institutional user such as a public university. The failure to
implement this plan and to acquire the rail yard as intended by the plan more than 30 years ago left in
place a deep physical divide that has contributed to the blighted conditions found in the adjacent blocks
in the project site today.
The gap in the urban landscape that is created by the below-grade rail yard creates an environment that
discourages street-level activity, and the inadequate street lighting surrounding the rail yard, in combi-
nation with vacant lots and deteriorating structures on the blocks south of the yard, creates a sense of
isolation that spans across the project site. This sense of isolation and lack of street life has resulted in
an increase in illegal activities on the project site. An analysis of crime statistics compiled by the NYPD
indicates that in 2004 and 2005, per capita crime rates on the project site and in surrounding blocks
were higher in 2004 and 2005 than for the broader precincts in which the project site is located. While it
is not possible to determine the number of crimes that occurred on the project site itself, the total crime
rate for the “sectors” (geographic areas comprised of several blocks, used by NYPD to track crime sta-
tistics at the sub-precinct level) that overlap the project site was substantially higher than the total crime
rate for the larger three-precinct area (precincts 77, 78, and 88) in both 2004 and 2005. And the total
crime rate for sector 88E, the sector in which the rail yard is located, was over three times the rate for
precinct 88 in both 2004 and 2005. These statistics indicate that residents and businesses on the project
site are more susceptible to crime than residents and businesses in surrounding areas.
As described throughout this report, the non-rail yard portion of the project site is characterized by
unsanitary and substandard conditions including vacant and underutilized buildings, vacant lots, ir-
regularly shaped lots, building facades that are in ill-repair (e.g., crumbling brickwork, graffi ti, fl aking
paint), and structures suffering from serious physical deterioration. As shown in Figure 1, 51 of the 73
parcels on the project site (70 percent) exhibit one or more blight characteristics, including: buildings or
lots that exhibit signs of signifi cant physical deterioration, buildings that are at least 50 percent vacant,
lots that are built to 60 percent or less of their allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) under current zoning;
and vacant lots. These 51 lots comprise approximately 86 percent of the land area on the project site.
Eleven of the 73 lots comprising the project site contained buildings that were found upon acquisition
by FCRC (the project sponsor) and its structural engineer (LZA Technology) to be so physically dete-
riorated that they were found to be structurally unsound and a threat to public safety. With agreement
from ESDC, the buildings on these eleven lots were slated for demolition by FCRC. Subsequently, a
lawsuit was fi led against ESDC and FCRC asserting that ESDC acted improperly in allowing FCRC
to demolish the buildings and seeking to prevent demolition of those buildings. In February 2006, the
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
DEAN S
T
.
5TH A
V
E.
PACIFIC S
T
.
6TH A
V
E.
ATLANTIC A
VE.
BERGEN S
T
.
FLATBUSH A
V
E.
CARLTON A
V
E.
VANDERBILT A
V
E.
FULTON S
T
.
CLERMONT A
V
E.
GATES A
V
E.
S. OXFORD S
T
.
4TH A
V
E.
CUMBERLAND S
T
.
ST MARKS P
L
.
FT. GREENE P
L
.
PROSPECT PL
.
WARREN S
T
.
S. PORTLAND A
V
E.
ACADEMY PARK P
L
.
S ELLIOTT P
L
.
BARUCH PL.
VANDERBILT A
V
E.
CARLTON A
V
E.
ATLANTIC A
VE.
5TH A
V
E.
6TH A
V
E.
1128
1129
1120
1121
1119
1127
927
1118
1128
1129
1120
1121
1119
1127
927
1118
7.10.06
Atlantic Yards Arena and
Redevelopment Project: Blight Study
N
SCALE
0 200 400 FEET
Overview of Blighted Conditions
Figure 1
Project Site
Serious Sidewalk Degradation
Properties Exhibiting One or More Blight Characteristics
iiiJULY 2006
Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the demo-
lition of the buildings, and in March 2006, the Appellate Division upheld that decision. The buildings
have since been demolished.
As stated above, one of the principal reasons why the project site has remained in a state of physical
disrepair and relative economic inactivity over the past several decades is the presence of the below-
grade open rail yard. However, an equally important reason for the continued blight is that the project
site has historically been held under the ownership of multiple parties, and this diversity of ownership
has hindered site assemblage that is necessary for redevelopment. Prior to 2003 and the announcement
of the proposed project, the project site was controlled by 76 different parties. Since 2003, the project
sponsor has been attempting to assemble the entire site for redevelopment. As of May 1, 2006, the
sponsor had gained whole or partial control over 97 tax lots, 80 percent of the lots on the project site.
However, 27 tax lots remain wholly or partially under the ownership of parties other than the project
sponsor, MTA/LIRR, or the City. This condition of multiple site ownership hinders site assemblage and
impedes the sound growth and development of the overall project site.
The Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project (“proposed project”) presents an opportunity not
only to meet many of the goals outlined in ATURA including the elimination of blight, but also to help
the City meet its long-term goals for accommodating residential and commercial growth and fostering
broad-based economic development. It would provide 2,250 affordable housing units and between
3,540 and 4,310 market-rate housing units. It would introduce between 606,000 and 1.8 million square
feet of new offi ce space, along with 247,000 square feet of neighborhood retail and community facility
space. It would introduce an arena that would create jobs and draw visitors to Brooklyn. And it would
provide at least 7 acres of publicly accessible open space. At the same time, the project would provide
an opportunity to upgrade the sub-optimal Vanderbilt Yard, which is an important component of the
LIRR rail system that carries thousands of commuters to and from the City each day.
The construction and operation of the project would offer substantial economic benefi ts to the City and
state. Under either of the two proposed project program variations, construction of the project would
create a total of approximately 27,000 person-years of employment in New York City and a total of ap-
proximately 33,000 person-years of employment in New York State, including New York City.
1
Taxes
paid to New York City, New York State, and the MTA during the construction of either variation would
be approximately $250 million, including about $80 million for New York City.
After the project is complete, its annual operation, depending on the variation developed, would sup-
port between approximately 8,430 and 18,180 direct and indirect jobs in New York City and a total
of between 10,190 and 22,080 jobs in New York State. Annual tax revenues (non-real estate taxes)
associated with the project would amount to between $85.6 million (with $32.0 million for New York
City) and $153.7 million (with $54.5 million for New York City). Considering its proximity to the third
largest transit hub in New York City and to Downtown Brooklyn, the City’s third largest central busi-
ness district, the project site is vastly underutilized in terms of the jobs, payroll, and taxes that it should
be producing for the City. The proposed project would take advantage of the site’s central location and
yield new development in accordance with the Tenth Amended Urban Renewal Plan that would help
accommodate the long-term projected growth in population and employment for the City, while produc-
ing substantial economic and fi scal benefi ts.
As described in detail throughout this report, the 22-acre project site is characterized by blighted condi-
tions including structurally unsound buildings, debris-fi lled vacant lots, environmental concerns, high
crime rates, and underutilization. These conditions have persisted for over 40 years, since the City fi rst
1 A person-year of employment is the equivalent of one person working full-time for one year. Viewed another way, the construc-
tion would create an average of 2,700 person-years of employment in New York City and 3,300 person years of employment in
New York State during each year of the 10-year construction period.
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
ivJULY 2006
designated the area as blighted and in need of revitalization. This continued blight is due in part to the
presence of the active, but below-grade open rail yard that creates a signifi cant visual and physical gap
in the urban landscape of the Atlantic Terminal area and creates a sense of desolation on the project site.
The proposed Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project would remove the blighted conditions
on the project site and replace them with productive land uses, including those parcels which will com-
plete the development of ATURA. Given the pattern of successful economic development in ATURA
north of Atlantic Avenue and general neglect on the project site, south of Atlantic Avenue, it is highly
unlikely that the blighted conditions currently present will be removed without public action.
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
A-1JULY 2006
A. INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
This report presents an evaluation of conditions in the area proposed for the Atlantic Yards Arena and
Redevelopment Project which themselves are evidence of blight or which may retard the sound growth
and development of surrounding areas. This report is appended to the General Project Plan (GPP) for
the proposed project.
The subject of this study (the “proposed project site”) is an area occupying approximately 22 acres,
roughly bounded by Flatbush and 4th Avenues to the west, Vanderbilt Avenue to the east, Atlantic Av-
enue to the north, and Dean Street to the south (see Figure 2). The affected parcels include: Block 927:
lots 1,16; Block 1118: lots 1, 5, 6, 21-25, 27; Block 1119: lots 1, 7, 64; Block 1120: lots 1, 19, 28, 35;
Block 1121: lots 1, 42, 47; Block 1127: lots 1, 10-13, 18-22, 29, 30, 33, 43, 45-48, 50, 51, 54-56, 1001-
1021 (a.k.a. lot 35), 1101-1131 (a.k.a. lot 27); Block 1128: lots 1, 2, 4, 85-89; and Block 1129: lots 1,
3-6, 13, 21, 25, 39, 43-46, 49, 50, 54, 62, 76, 81. Approximately 40 percent of the proposed project site
(about 9 of the 22 acres) is occupied by the Vanderbilt Yard, an active, open MTA/LIRR rail yard, and
an NYCT yard for retired busses. The remaining area is occupied by a mix of uses, including industrial
and warehouse buildings, auto repair shops and gas stations, parking lots, residential buildings, and
commercial uses as well as vacant lots.
Section 10(c) of the New York State Urban Development Corporation Act (the “UDC Act”) requires that
Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) fi nd, in the case of a land use improvement project, that:
“the area in which the Project is to be located is a substandard or insanitary area, or is
in danger of becoming a substandard or insanitary area and tends to impair or arrest the
sound growth and development of the municipality.”
Blight can appear in many forms, including physical deterioration, site underutilization, and land use
incompatibility. Not every parcel or property in an area need exhibit characteristics of blight in order
for the area as a whole to be considered blighted. The United State Supreme Court in Berman v. Parker,
348 U.S. 26, 34 (1954), found that it is permissible and appropriate for public agencies to combat blight
in an area rather than on a structure-by-structure basis stating, “if the community were to be healthy, if
it were not to revert again to a blighted or slum area, as though possessed of a congenital disease, the
area must be planned as a whole. ... [T]he piecemeal approach, the removal of individual structures
that were offensive, would be only a palliative. The entire area needed redesigning so that a balanced,
integrated plan could be developed . . . .”
This study describes blighted conditions on the project site using a combination of physical, land use,
and other indicators in order to paint a detailed and comprehensive picture of current conditions on the
project site and to compare conditions on the project site to conditions in surrounding areas.
The study focuses primarily on the physical condition (e.g., exterior and interior conditions) and use
characteristics (e.g., occupancy status and site utilization) of the parcels that make up the project site.
These characteristics are presented in Section B. Section C presents a detailed profi le of every property
on the project site, organized by tax block and lot. For purposes of this report, these physical and use
characteristics are considered to be the main determinants of blight.
The lot profi les are supplemented with additional analyses that provide a broader geographic and analyti-
cal context in which to evaluate conditions on the project site. Section D compares crime rates on the
project site to crime rates in surrounding communities. Section E discusses the benefi ts of the proposed
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project and describes its potential economic and fi scal impacts
on New York City and State. Section F discusses the multiplicity of property ownership that has hindered
site assemblage and impeded the sound growth and development of the proposed project site.
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
CARLTON A
V
E.
VANDERBILT A
V
E.
DEAN S
T
.
PACIFIC S
T
.
ATLANTIC AVE.
PACIFIC S
T
.
DEAN S
T
.
BERGEN S
T
.
5TH A
VE.
6TH A
V
E.
5TH A
V
E.
4TH A
V
E.
ATLANTIC A
V
E.
BERGEN S
T
.
CARLTON A
V
E.
VANDERBILT A
V
E.
CLINTON A
V
E.
FLATBUSH A
V
E.
CLERMONT A
V
E.
FULTON S
T
.
S. OXFORD S
T
.
ST. MARKS A
V
E.
WARREN S
T
.
CUMBERLAND S
T
.
ST. MARKS P
L
.
PROSPECT P
L
.
PARK P
L
.
BALTIC ST.
GATES A
V
E.
S. PORTLAND A
V
E.
S. ELLIOTT P
L
.
FORT GREENE P
L
.
1128
1129
1120
1121
1119
1127
927
1118
1128
1129
1120
1121
1119
1127
927
1118
6.29.06
Atlantic Yards Arena and
Redevelopment Project: Blight Study
N
SCALE
0 200 400 FEET
Project Site
Figure 2
Project Site
Lots
B-1JULY 2006
B. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW OF CURRENT
CONDITIONS
The proposed project site outlined in the General Project Plan is an area that has suffered from physical
deterioration and relative economic inactivity for at least four decades. Dominated by an approximately
9-acre open rail yard and otherwise generally characterized by dilapidated, vacant, and underutilized
properties, the site creates a clear visual and physical barrier between the neighborhoods north and
south of Atlantic Avenue. As described below, the northern portion of the proposed project site is part
of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (ATURA). A vast majority of blocks included in ATURA
have experienced signifi cant revitalization since the original URA designation in 1963 and have had
a markedly positive effect on adjacent blocks to the north, west, and east of ATURA boundary. In
contrast, the southernmost blocks of ATURA (Blocks 927, 1118, 1119, 1120, and 1121) which are part
of the proposed project site have yet to be improved over the conditions that led the City to designate
the area as blighted approximately 40 years ago. As described below, these southern blocks have had a
blighting effect on blocks south of Pacifi c Street (1127, 1128, and 1129). The result is an approximately
8-block area, comprising the proposed project site that has been physically blighted and underutilized
for decades.
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (ATURA)
Conditions Prior to Urban Renewal Designation
The area in the vicinity of the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue was identifi ed as
blighted and in need of revitalization more than 50 years ago. In 1954 the City Planning Commission
revised the City’s master plan and “designated fi fty sections of the City as being blighted or otherwise
suitable for new residential construction.”
1
The section along Atlantic Avenue and the LIRR right-of-
way was one of them. Again in 1958 the area around the LIRR Brooklyn terminal became the subject
for renewal plans. As hopes for a new Dodger stadium in the area faded, John Cashmore, Brooklyn
Borough President at the time, recommended to the Mayor’s Committee on Slum Clearance, headed by
Robert Moses, that a 21.5 acre site bounded by Hanson Place, Flatbush Avenue, Atlantic Avenue and
Cumberland Place be the location for a Title I project.
2
Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 gave cities the
power of eminent domain to facilitate clearance of slums and removal of blight.
In 1962, the City Planning Commission and the Brooklyn Borough President’s offi ce undertook a study
of the need for renewal in an area known as the “Hub” which contained a heavy concentration of rail-
road, subway, commercial and automobile facilities near the intersection of Atlantic Avenue, Flatbush
Avenue and Fourth Avenue. The area was described as an inharmonious mixture of proud buildings set
among old decaying tenements and blighted storefronts.
3
Aside from the transportation infrastructure,
the dominant land use in the area was the Fort Greene wholesale meat market which was described as
“congested and antiquated…consisting of sixty narrow two- to four-story buildings, most of which were
homes back in the gaslight era.”
4
Abe Stark, the Brooklyn Borough President at the time, hoped to see “government-aided” middle in-
come housing and private housing in the area as part of a projected $150 million improvement project
(which is the equivalent of about $1 billion in today’s dollars). The planners of that era recognized that
institutions like the Brooklyn Academy of Music and the Williamsburgh Savings Bank could serve as
anchors for the new neighborhood.
1 50 Sections Listed in Rehousing Plan, New York Times, December 31, 1954.
2 New York Times, December 8, 1958.
3 Renewal Studies in Brooklyn “Hub,” New York Times, August 3, 1962.
4 Ibid.
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
B-2JULY 2006
Designation of the Urban Renewal Plan
The growing concern for the blighted conditions in the hub area led to the City’s designation of a
20-block section of the Fort Greene neighborhood as the Fort Greene Market Urban Renewal Area in
1963. The New York City Planning Commission found the area to be “sub-standard and insanitary by
reason of deteriorated buildings, inadequate street design, and incompatible land uses,” and deemed the
area appropriate for urban renewal under the City’s Urban Renewal Law. The newly designated urban
renewal area was named the Fort Greene Market Urban Renewal Area after the Fort Greene meat mar-
ket, which was located just east of the LIRR Terminal. The area was bounded by State Street, Hanson
Place, Greene Avenue, Clermont Avenue, Fulton Street, Vanderbilt Avenue, Pacifi c Street, 4th Avenue,
Atlantic Avenue, and Third Avenue. As shown in Figure 3, several blocks of the proposed project site
(927, 1118, 1119, 1120, and 1121, comprising approximately 63 percent of the total square footage of
the project site) are located within the boundaries of this early Fort Greene Urban Renewal Area.
Despite the renewed interest in the area created by the urban renewal designation and the City’s master
plan, there was no immediate improvement. In September 1965, a New York Times article reported 43
vacant storefronts on Flatbush Avenue between DeKalb Avenue and Grand Army Plaza. Fourteen of
those deserted stores were located in the single block between Hanson Place and Schermerhorn Street,
where there had formerly been national chain stores such as Adler Shoes, Florsheim Shoes, and Craw-
ford Clothes.
In 1968, the urban renewal area was expanded to include three additional blocks and two partial blocks
at the northern and eastern sections of the Fort Greene Urban Renewal Area (see Figure 3). These addi-
tional blocks were added for various reasons, including: to eliminate blighting infl uence on surrounding
areas; to permit street widening; to provide for elimination of existing substandard conditions; and to
allow owners of substandard residential buildings to obtain Federal home improvement loans. With this
expansion, the Fort Greene Urban Renewal Area was renamed the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal
Area (ATURA). In total, ATURA comprises approximately 104 acres of land. Five of the eight blocks
that make up the proposed project site are located within the boundaries of ATURA. The project site
blocks make up approximately 13 percent of ATURA.
As stated in the 1968 Urban Renewal Plan (the Plan), the Plan’s objectives were:
Removal of structurally substandard buildings;
Elimination of negative environmental conditions;
Removal of impediments to land development (i.e., multiplicity of ownership);
Reorganization of the presently ineffi cient street pattern;
Rehabilitation of existing residential buildings wherever feasible;
Continuation of local employment opportunities through the retention of structurally sound non-
residential buildings wherever feasible;
Provision of new housing for low and moderate income families built to high standards of design,
privacy, light, air, and open space;
Provision of compact, effi cient local retail commercial areas;
Provision of land for public, recreational, and community facilities; and
Provision of off-street parking to relieve traffi c congestion.
Among other efforts, the Plan called for the relocation of the Fort Greene meat market (which had
persistently failed to meet federal meat packing standards), the demolition of approximately 800 dwell-
ing units, and the creation of 2,400 dwelling units and a new Baruch College campus to be constructed
using air rights over a portion of Atlantic Avenue near Flatbush Avenue and the LIRR tracks south of
Atlantic Avenue (on Block 1119, the westernmost of the three blocks that comprise the rail yard por-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
4TH AVE.
5TH AVE.
6TH AVE.
ATLANTIC AVE.
BERGEN ST.
DEAN ST.
PACIFIC ST.
3RD AVE.
BALTIC ST.
LIVINGSTON ST.
ASHLAND PL.
SCHERMERHORN ST.
S. ELLIOTT PL.
FT. GREENE PL.
DOUGLASS ST.
CUMBERLAND ST.
S. PORTLAND AVE.
ST. FELIX ST.
HANSON PL.
ST. MARKS PL.
STATE ST.
WARREN ST.
S. OXFORD ST.
FLATBUSH AVE.
CARLTON A
V
E.
VANDERBILT A
V
E.
PACIFIC S
T
.
DEAN S
T
.
BERGEN S
T
.
CARLTON A
V
E.
VANDERBILT A
V
E.
CLINTON A
V
E.
CLERMONT A
V
E.
FULTON S
T
.
GATES A
V
E.
GREENE A
V
E.
LAFAYETTE A
V
E.
6.29.06
Atlantic Yards Arena and
Redevelopment Project: Blight Study
N
SCALE
0 300 600 FEET
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (ATURA)
and 1963 Fort Greene Market Urban Renewal Area
Figure 3
1128
1129
1120
1121
1119
1127
927
1118
1128
1129
1120
1121
1119
1127
927
1118
Project Site
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area Bounday
1963 Fort Greene Market Urban Renewal Area Boundary
B-3JULY 2006
tion of the present day proposed project site). The decade of the 60’s ended with hope and promise for
ATURA, but no action and no physical improvement of the area.
The Public Sector Role in Urban Renewal
The urban renewal plan proposed the site over the railroad tracks for a main campus for Baruch Col-
lege. However, resistance to moving the college to this site grew during the early 1970s, as the high cost
of platforming over the rail yard became evident. According to a 1973 New York Times article, Baruch
College ultimately rejected the site because “...such construction would have involved an additional ex-
penditure of $27 million, over and above the cost of the building itself.”
5
In 1975, the Third Amendment
to the Plan changed the college’s proposed location to a site north of Atlantic Avenue, but the campus
was never built in ATURA and that second site intended for Baruch College is now occupied by the
Atlantic Center commercial complex and a series of low-rise rowhouses administered by the New York
City Housing Partnership. In addition, the amendment removed all of the railroad sites (Blocks 1119,
1120, and 1121) from the list of sites to be acquired for redevelopment.
But as the ambitious plan for constructing Baruch College stalled, the public sector stepped forward
to make substantial investments in public education, public housing, and moderate income coopera-
tives. The urban renewal plan allowed for a change in the City Map that demapped and later closed
Cumberland Street between Fulton Street and Atlantic Avenue. In 1972, Sterling High School, a special
education school, was built in the super-block between Fulton Street, Carlton Avenue, Atlantic Avenue
and Clermont Avenue. In 1974 the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) started construction
of over 300 units of public housing in the same block just north of the high school. At about the same
time the private sector responded to the housing demand by building over 300 units of cooperative
apartments along Fulton Street in the same block, using the provisions of Mitchell Lama program, a low
interest mortgage program to spur the development of moderate income home ownership. About 200
additional coop units were under construction during the same time period in the block between Hanson
Place, S. Elliott Place, Atlantic Avenue and S. Portland Street.
By the mid-1970s a fi nancial crisis gripped the City and delayed redevelopment in ATURA. The
economy of the City and the nation was initially shaken by the oil embargo instituted by oil produc-
ing countries in 1973. By 1975 the City’s budget was in disarray, and the state stepped in to facilitate
borrowing by establishing a Financial Control Board which was to act as a fi scal watchdog and help
contain the defi cit. The only urban renewal activity that the City could muster in the last half of the
1970s was demolition, including the Fort Greene Meat Market, a large portion of the LIRR Brooklyn
Terminal, and substandard housing that covered the remaining portion of ATURA. As the decade closed
the only development in ATURA besides the earlier housing construction was a temporary parking lot
for the Daily News building.
The Private Sector Role in Urban Renewal
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s private sector investment in ATURA lagged behind public sector
investment. Until the most recent Amendment to the Plan (the 10th Amendment, issued in 2004), prop-
erties within ATURA designated as Q properties, including the railroad yards as mentioned above, were
subject to Rehabilitation Standards. The 8th amended version of the plan, issued in 1985, indicates that
“all properties designated (Q) ‘Not to be Acquired’. . . are not to be acquired but are to be kept at a high
level of maintenance.” The plan indicates that Q properties must meet specifi c criteria and that “any
property designated for rehabilitation which is not improved to the standards set forth [in the document]
within a reasonable time shall be subject to acquisition, through condemnation, pursuant to the Urban
Renewal Plan.”
6
5 New York Times, “City Wants College At Renewal Site,” Pranay Gupte, February 4, 1973.
6 Section C4a, Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Plan, July 1985.
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
B-4JULY 2006
The 1985 amended plan goes on to state the purpose of the Rehabilitation Standards:
The intent of the Standards is to assure a high level of rehabilitation for health, safety, and fi re pro-
tection, light ventilation, cleanliness, repair and maintenance, and structural stability for properties
designated for rehabilitation, as well as to prevent adequate or salvageable housing or non-residen-
tial structures from deteriorating below minimum levels that impair the comfort and appearance of
the property and the attractiveness of the entire neighborhood.
The Rehabilitation Standards stated that Q properties must comply with all applicable New York City
and State codes, ordinances, and regulations (such as the NYC Building Code and Electrical Code and
the NYS Multiple Dwelling Law) and should meet additional standards of exterior and interior build-
ing and grounds maintenance. It is apparent that these rehabilitation standards have not been met on
many parcels. Photographs M and N, discussed later in this section, show sidewalk conditions along the
southern portion of the rail yard. As illustrated by the pictures, physical conditions along the perimeter
of the rail yard properties, which were designated as Q properties and therefore subject to rehabilitation
standards, are characterized by overgrown weeds, crumbling sidewalks, trash and other debris, and
barbed wire fencing.
It was nearly a decade after the construction of the home ownership units and public housing before
there was any renewed interest in development in ATURA. With the railroad yards removed from the
list of properties to be acquired, development plans concentrated on the portion of ATURA north of At-
lantic Avenue. In 1983 Rose Associates proposed an ambitious plan, calling for 1.8 million square feet
of offi ce space, about 200,000 square feet of retail space, a multiscreen cinema, a large supermarket,
and parking garage. In addition there were plans for more than 600 units of affordable housing. Again,
the public sector played a key role in encouraging private development in ATURA by providing ap-
proximately $18 million in public fi nancing through the city and an Urban Development Action Grant
(UDAG). Although the project received the necessary public approvals in 1986, it became embroiled in
litigation with some neighborhood groups, resulting in a delay of several years that included the stock
market crash in October 1987, and the ensuing downturn in the local, regional and national economy
that plagued the City through the early 1990s. Once again, economic conditions put the development of
ATURA on hold.
As the City began to emerge from the economic doldrums, Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC)
took control of a portion of the proposed redevelopment in ATURA. In 1996 the Atlantic Center Mall
opened, bringing nearly 400,000 square feet of commercial space to ATURA between Fort Greene
Place, Atlantic Avenue, S. Elliott Place, and Hanson Place. FCRC persuaded national chain retailers
to return to the area near the junction of Flatbush Avenue and Atlantic Avenue with stores such as the
Sports Authority, Marshall’s, Old Navy and Pathmark. At about the same time the New York City Hous-
ing Partnership began to sponsor affordable low-rise home ownership development within ATURA,
helping to create a mixed-use neighborhood of residents and shopping where there had been slums,
abandonment and blighted conditions 40 years earlier.
The revitalization of ATURA north of Atlantic Avenue continued with the opening of Atlantic Terminal
in March 2004. The newest mixed use project added 370,000 square feet of retail space, including an-
other national chain store, Target, as well as a major employer in the 470,000 square foot Bank of New
York Building.
The 10th and most recent amendment to the Plan (issued in 2004) eliminated all Q designations and
associated rehabilitation requirements from parcels included in ATURA. However, the amendment
also extended the duration of the Plan so that it would remain in effect for 40 years from the date of
the amendment’s approval. In the amendment, the City Planning Commission and City Council cite
the area’s continued eligibility for designation as an urban renewal area, stating that various insanitary
and substandard conditions continue to adversely affect the quality of life in ATURA and its immediate
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
B-5JULY 2006
vicinity. These conditions include, among other things: “abandoned vacant, substandard, underutilized,
and/or obsolete buildings and structures characterized by physical deterioration, high levels of code
violations, defective construction, outmoded design, lack of proper sanitary facilities, and/or inadequate
fi re or safety protection”; “abandoned, vacant, underutilized, substandard, and/or insanitary lots”; and
“hazardous or detrimental industrial uses.”
7
The City’s recognition in 2004 that ATURA remained eligible for designation as an urban renewal
area is necessarily focused on the portion of the urban renewal area south of Atlantic Avenue where
abandoned, vacant, substandard, underutilized, and/or obsolete buildings and structures continue to
adversely affect the quality of life in ATURA and its immediate vicinity.
Current Conditions: ATURA and Proposed Project Site
Over the past several years, a variety of new residential and commercial development projects have
been completed within the boundaries of ATURA. Among them are: Atlantic Center (395,000 sf of
retail), opened in 1996; Atlantic Terminal (470,000 sf of retail and 425,000 sf of offi ce), opened in 2004
over the Atlantic Terminal transit hub; and a large number of rowhouses recently constructed north of
Atlantic Avenue along South Portland Avenue and South Oxford, Cumberland, and Carlton Streets, that
are currently administered by the New York City Housing Partnership.
Today, the ATURA area north of Atlantic Avenue has become a vibrant retail, offi ce, and residential area.
However, as noted above, portions of ATURA south of Atlantic Avenue remain characterized by unsani-
tary and substandard conditions, including abandoned, vacant, underutilized, and/or obsolete buildings
and structures characterized by physical deterioration and outmoded design, among others, and these
conditions continue to adversely affect the quality of life in the urban renewal area and its immediate
vicinity. As a result, the Tenth Amended Urban Renewal Plan (2004) extended the area’s eligibility as
an urban renewal area.
8
As this study illustrates, this is particularly true for those blocks that are located
within the proposed project site. For example, Blocks 1119, 1120, and 1121 contain the LIRR Vander-
bilt Yards which are sub-optimal from an operational standpoint. Although the LIRR Atlantic Terminal
provides accessibility for commuters to employment centers in the vicinity of Downtown Brooklyn
(and a transfer point for Long Island commuters heading to downtown Manhattan), the current condi-
tion of the storage and maintenance yard hampers service. The confi guration of the nearly century-old
Vanderbilt Yard is not optimal to handle the demands of modern commuter rail operations. Currently,
there is no direct connection between the yard and the terminal. Trains leaving the terminal and head-
ing for the yard have to move eastward under Atlantic Avenue, then stop and reverse direction to move
onto a track leading to the yard. Once there, the trains are stored on parallel tracks that are too close to
one another to allow servicing of any except the trains on the outer tracks. To clean the cars and empty
waste, the trains must be moved in and out of position until each train has had its turn on an outer track.
The confi guration of the rail yard thus makes the movement of trains and their maintenance slow and
cumbersome. In order to create a layout that produces effi cient movement and ease of maintenance in
the yard and allows the LIRR to utilize modern equipment, the entire rail yard needs to be reconfi gured
and rebuilt.
Not only are the Vanderbilt Yards sub-optimal, but their below-grade location creates a major physical
and visual gap in the urban landscape that prevents the blocks in ATURA south of Atlantic Avenue
from achieving the objectives in the urban renewal plan that have already been achieved to the north.
These objectives include providing new housing of high quality, providing community facilities, parks,
recreational uses, retail shopping and parking, providing employment opportunities, and providing a
stable environment with the urban renewal area that will not be a blighting infl uence on surrounding
7 Section A5, Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Plan, Revised April 2004.
8 Atlantic Terminal Renewal Project, Tenth Amended Urban Renewal Plan, Revised April 2004, pp. 5 And 6.
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
B-6
JULY 2006
Photograph A: View east over rail yard on Block 1119
Photograph B: View north across rail yard and Atlantic Avenue from Block 1119
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
B-7
JULY 2006
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
Photograph D: View east on Atlantic Avenue from Flatbush Avenue
Photograph C: View east on Pacifi c Street from Block 1119
B-8JULY 2006
neighborhoods.
9
In addition, the rail yard creates a barrier between the redeveloped area of ATURA
north of Atlantic Avenue and the relatively isolated streets in the proposed project area south of Atlan-
tic Avenue. As indicated by crime statistics described in more detail in this study, this gap in the urban
landscape has created conditions where crime rates on the proposed project site are higher than in the
blocks in other parts of ATURA and the police precincts that incorporate the urban renewal area.
A remedy that would achieve the urban renewal plan’s goals of new residential, commercial and rec-
reational uses, and new employment opportunities is to fi ll the gap with a deck over the rail yard, as
proposed in 1968 Plan for ATURA. Covering the rail yard at grade would provide a foundation for the
desired and needed redevelopment of the area, and at the same time connect all of the neighborhoods
that come together near the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue. The creation of a new
street-level urban environment would eliminate the conditions in the rail yard and on the sidewalks
around the rail yard that have had a blighting infl uence on adjacent blocks. Photograph A illustrates the
gap in the continuity of the urban landscape within ATURA caused by the rail yard (Block 1119, Lot 7),
and how the vast expanse of desolate tracks is an impediment to achieving the objectives of the Tenth
Amended Urban Renewal Plan. Photograph B further illustrates how the Vanderbilt Yard in its current
confi guration makes it impossible to create the active urban environment intended by the urban renewal
plan on the south side of Atlantic Avenue. Photograph C illustrates how the rail yard and the sidewalks
around the rail yard have had a blighting infl uence on the adjacent block south of Pacifi c Street (Block
1127) where four buildings were demolished by the project sponsors with approval from ESDC because
they were found to be unsafe and unsound, and where there are several vacant buildings and a vacant lot.
Thus, instead of having a vibrant and active street life and productive land uses as called for in the ur-
ban renewal plan, as found on the north side of Atlantic Avenue, the blocks in the proposed project site
south of Atlantic Avenue have been unable to achieve the goals of the urban renewal plan some 50 years
after the area was designated as blighted and in need of revitalization. For example, Block 1118, at the
southeast corner of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues, contains an overgrown lot strewn with debris and
surrounded by a chain link fence topped in barbed wire. Prior to Spring 2006, the block also contained a
series of vacant, structurally unsound warehouse buildings fronting on Atlantic Avenue. These buildings
were found to be a threat to health and safety and were demolished in Spring 2006 with consent from
ESDC. Block 1119, just across Atlantic Avenue from the bustling Atlantic Center shopping complex,
hosts a U-Haul truck rental facility and the western end of the rail yard, both surrounded by chain link
fences with portions topped in barbed wire. Moving to the east along Atlantic Avenue, Blocks 1120 and
1121 host the middle and eastern portions of the rail yard, two warehousing and storage facilities, along
with two gas stations and a 21,330 square foot vacant lot. Again, none of the land uses or businesses in
these blocks supports, promotes or achieves the objectives of the urban renewal plan. The vacant prop-
erty and warehousing uses in Block 1120, together with the below-grade rail maintenance facility that
occupies the remainder of Block 1120 and bus storage that occupies most of Block 1121 do not generate
the employment opportunities called for in the urban renewal plan, nor have they encouraged the cre-
ation of employment opportunities or residential uses in the project site just outside the urban renewal
area. Indeed, most of the commercial and industrial buildings in the proposed project site in Blocks
1128 and 1129 are vacant or substantially vacant, and most of the residential buildings do not provide
rehabilitated housing of upgraded quality, as sought by the urban renewal plan.
The contrast between these southernmost blocks of ATURA and the blocks north of Atlantic Avenue is
dramatic. As illustrated in Photographs D and E, the blocks south of Atlantic Avenue bear little resem-
blance in their condition and use to the blocks north of the avenue. A person unfamiliar with the area
would never guess, viewing separate pictures of the north and south sides of Atlantic Avenue that the
images belong to adjacent blocks.
9 Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Project, Tenth Amended Urban Renewal Plan, Revised April 2004, pp. 5 and 6.
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
B-9
JULY 2006
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
Photograph F: View south on S. Portland Avenue from S. Elliot Place
Photograph E: View north on 5th Avenue from Pacifi c Street
B-10
JULY 2006
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
Photograph H: View west on Pacifi c Street from eastern end of Block 1129
Photograph G: View west on Fulton Street from Carlton Avenue
B-11
JULY 2006
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
Photograph J: View south over Block 1119 (rail yard) to Block 1127
Photograph I: View west on Pacifi c Street from western end of Block 1129
B-12JULY 2006
Photograph D contrasts the Atlantic Center shopping center on the north of Atlantic Avenue (left) with
the aforementioned vacant, debris-strewn lot on the south (Block 1118, lot 6) ringed by barbed wire,
and vacant warehouse buildings beyond (Block 1118, lots 21-27). The foreground in Photograph E
shows underutilized parcels in the blocks south of Atlantic Avenue—including a parking lot for U-Haul
trucks on the right (Block 1119, lots 1 and 64) and a vacant auto repair shop on the left (Block 1118, lot
1) with the vacant warehouse buildings (Block 1118, lots 21-27) behind. In contrast, the background in
Photograph E shows the redeveloped area north of Atlantic Avenue—Atlantic Center on the right, the
Atlantic Terminal offi ce tower (which houses the Bank of New York) in the center, and the Williams-
burgh Savings Bank building (which is slated for residential conversion) on the left.
Comparing conditions in Photographs F and G with conditions depicted in Photographs H and I further
illustrates the progress in removing blight from ATURA north of Atlantic Avenue compared to contin-
ued unsanitary conditions and underutilization of the properties south of Atlantic Avenue immediately
adjacent to ATURA. Photographs F and G depict streets and buildings that are typical to the revitalized
areas of ATURA north of Atlantic Avenue. Photograph F shows some of the recently completed multi-
family housing administered by the New York City Housing Partnership (left) and the eastern façade of
the Atlantic Center mall (right). The bridge that crosses the rail yard between Blocks 1119 and 1120 is
visible in the picture’s background. Photograph G shows more recently constructed multi-family hous-
ing at the corner of Fulton Street and Carlton Avenue, one block north of Atlantic Avenue.
In contrast, as illustrated by Photographs H and I, the blocks south of Atlantic Avenue host a combina-
tion of vacant, underutilized, and physically deteriorating structures and vacant lots, and are lined with
cracked and crumbling sidewalks that are overgrown with weeds and strewn with trash. Photograph
H shows the fenced rail yard and deteriorated sidewalk to the right (Block 1121, lot 1) and an old
warehouse building (Block 1129, lot 25) to the left. Further west along that same block, Photograph
I shows the fenced rail yard to the right and a primarily vacant warehouse building (Block 1129, lot
13) to the left. In the background of the picture, beyond lot 13, is a market rate condominium building
(Newswalk), which is not part of the proposed project site. Other market rate condominium buildings
in the immediate vicinity include: 618 Dean Street on the south side of Dean Street between Carlton
and Vanderbilt Avenues (not part of the project site) and 636 Pacifi c Street and 24 6th Avenue (part of
the proposed project site). The proximity of these market-rate condo buildings to the blighted properties
profi led in this study indicates that, although some isolated redevelopment has occurred on blocks just
south of the ATURA boundary, most of the residents in this area continue to live among conditions that
are unsanitary and unsafe.
Photograph J, taken from the north side of Atlantic Avenue looking south over the rail yard on Block
1119, again demonstrates the contrast between redevelopment of ATURA north of Atlantic Avenue and
continuing blighted conditions to the south of Atlantic Avenue, particularly along Pacifi c Street adjacent
to the rail yard. Photograph J illustrates the relative underutilization of the Block 1119 and the physi-
cally deteriorating buildings that lie just south of the ATURA boundary. The contrast between the blocks
shown in the photograph and the blocks north of Atlantic Avenue (at the photographer’s back), which
include a revitalized mixed-use neighborhood within the ATURA boundary, is remarkable.
The presence of the rail yard and other dilapidated, vacant, or underutilized properties on the south side
of Atlantic Avenue within ATURA create a visual and physical barrier between the redeveloped areas to
the north of Atlantic Avenue and other properties south of the avenue, adjacent to ATURA. Photographs
K and L and the aerial photograph shown in Figure 5 illustrate the scale of the rail yard and provide a
sense of how they serve as a conspicuous gap in the residential, commercial, and institutional fabric of
the area.
As this study will show, the southernmost blocks of ATURA—which have yet to be improved over the
conditions that led the City to designate the area as blighted over 40 years ago—have had a blighting
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
1128
1129
1120
1121
1119
1127
927
1118
1128
1129
1120
1121
1119
1127
927
1118
6.29.06
N
SCALE
0 400 FEET
Key to Photographs
Figure 4
Atlantic Yards Arena and
Redevelopment Project: Blight Study
D
E
L
J
F
G
C
A
B
I
H
K
Project Site
Lots
View Letter and Direction
A
CARLTON A
V
E
VANDERBILT A
V
E
DEAN S
T
PACIFIC S
T
5TH A
V
E
6TH A
V
E
ATLANTIC A
V
E
BERGEN S
T
CARLTON A
V
E
VANDERBILT A
V
E
FLATBUSH A
V
E
CLERMONT A
V
E
FULTON S
T
S OXFORD S
T
ST MARKS A
V
E
WARREN S
T
CUMBERLAND S
T
PROSPECT P
L
GATES A
V
E
S PORTLAND A
V
E
S ELLIOTT P
L
6.29.06
Aerial Photograph (2004)
Figure 5
Atlantic Yards Arena and
Redevelopment Project: Blight Study
N
SCALE
0 400 FEET
Project Boundary
Rail Yard
B-13
JULY 2006
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study
Photograph L: View south over Block 1119
Photograph K: View west over Block 1121
B-14JULY 2006
effect on adjacent blocks south of Pacifi c Street (Blocks 1127, 1128, and 1129). Those blocks, which
comprise the southern portion of the proposed project site, are not included in ATURA. Therefore,
unlike the blocks north of Atlantic Avenue, they have not benefi ted from deliberate, publicly guided
redevelopment efforts. Both stretches face an open rail yard that has created a sense of isolation on the
project site and has remained a barrier to economic development for decades. The redevelopment of
the blocks north of Atlantic Avenue is a direct result of their ATURA designation. The blocks south of
Atlantic Avenue have generally been neglected and left in a state of deterioration for the past 40 years.
Given this pattern of successful economic development to the north and neglect to the south, it is highly
unlikely that the blighted conditions currently present on the proposed project site will be removed
without public action.
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project—Blight Study