Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Study: Hunter College Department of Urban Affairs & Planning

BEF O RE AF T ER
Hunter College
Department of Urban Affairs & Planning
Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Study
Spring Studio 2006
Table of Contents
Executive Summary Page 6
Chapter 1: New York City Redevelopment & Land Use Policy Study
Introduction Page 11
Findings Page 13
The Boundary Question Page 14
The Tenth Amended Version of ATURA (2004) Page 15
The Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning (2004) Page 15
The Eighth Amended Version of ATURA (1985) Page 16
Economic Development: The New Urban Renewal Page 17
City Policy & Neighborhood Character Page 19
Conclusion Page 20
Chapter 2: Alternatives Analysis – The Ratner, Extell, Pacific, and UNITY

Proposals
The Proposals Page 23
Forest City Ratner Page 23
The UNITY Plan Page 25
Extell Development Company Page 27
The Pacific Plans Page 28
Alternative Arena Locations Page 30
Atlantic Terminal Mall Page 30
Brooklyn Navy Yard Page 31
Coney Island Page 32
Conclusion Page 33
Chapter 3: Neighborhood Character – A Study of Area Demographics, Affordable

Housing and Schools
The Neighborhoods Page 34
Study Area Demographic Trends: 1950 – 2000 Page 35
Population Page 39
Racial Composition Page 40
Median Household Income Page 43
Housing Page 44
Affordable Housing Page 46
School Enrollment Page 48
Conclusions & Recommendations Page 50
Chapter 4: Bringing Balance to Brooklyn Streets – A Transportation, Transit, and

Pedestrian Study
Transportation & Trip Generation Page 54
Downtown Brooklyn Blueprint Page 55
Pedestrian Impacts Page 57
Atlantic Yards Final Environmental Impact Statement Scope Page 57
Analysis of Proposed Street Closures Page 58
Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 2 of 88

Table of Contents
Analysis of Proposed Drop-off Lanes for the Arena Page 59
Analysis of Proposed Pedestrian Improvements Page 60
Current and Projected Pedestrian Counts Page 63
Future Impacts Page 64
Arena Trip Generation Page 64
Residential and Commercial Trip Generation Page 65
Design Recommendations Page 67
Policy Recommendations Page 70
Conclusion Page 71
Chapter 5: Security & Anti-Terrorism Measures & Issues

Terrorism
Arenas and Transportation Systems as Terrorist Targets Page 74
Best Practices: Anti-Terrorism Measures Through Design & Policy Page 76
National Capital Planning Commission Design Standards Page 76
DoD Unified Facilities Criteria Page 77
Threat/vulnerability assessments and risk analysis Page 79
Anti-Terrorism Related Literature Page 81
Security Page 81
Security in Large-Scale Housing Projects Page 81
Security in Transportation Systems Page 82
Best Practices: Incorporating Security, Design, and Policy Page 82
Urban Design & Theory Page 82
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Page 83
New York City & State Policies & Regulations Page 84
Opportunities for Incorporating Measures into Policy Page 84
City & State Environmental Quality Review Page 84
New York City Building Code Regulations Page 85
Recommendations Page 86

Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Timeline of the urban renewal plans for ATURA Page 13
Table 1.2: Objectives of the Urban Renewal Plans Page 18

Proposals
Figure 2.1: Forest City Ratner Plan vs. Pacific Plan III Page 29

Housing and Schools
Table 3.1 Population Trends Page 40
Table 3.2: Housing Unit Trends Page 45

Pedestrian Study
Table 4.1: Survey Count Findings Page 63
Figure 4.2: New York Mets modal split Page 64
Figure 4.3: Impact Analysis Page 66

Table 5.1: Chapters of an Environmental Impact Statement Page 85
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: ATURA Boundary 1968-2006 Page 14
Figure 1.2: ATURA Blocks in 2004 Downtown Rezoning Page 16
Figure 1.3: Phase III HPD, Three Family Townhouses Page 20
Figure 1.4: Brooklyn’s low-rise brownstones Page 20

Proposals
Figure 2.1: Rendering of Gehry’s Miss Brooklyn Page 23
Figure 2.2: Rendering of UNITY Plan Page 25
Figure 2.3: Rendering of Extell Plan Page 27
Figure 2.4: Rendering of Pacific Plan Page 28

Housing and Schools
Figure 3.1: One Mile Study Area Page 35
Figure 3.2: Neighborhoods Included in the One Mile Study Area Page 36
Figure 3.3: Race Trends Page 41
Figure 3.4: Year 2000 Race Map Page 42
Figure 3.5: Median Household Income Page 43
Figure 3.6: Year 2000 Income Map Page 44
Figure 3.7: Year 2000 Majority Income Group by Census Tract Page 42
List of Tables & Figures
Figure 3.8: Public School and Private School Enrollment Page 47

Pedestrian Study
Figure 4.1: Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint Page 56
Figure 4.2: MetroTech Photograph Page 58
Figure 4.3: Atlantic Center Mall Photograph Page 59
Figure 4.4: Pedestrian Shortcuts Aerial Page 60
Figure 4.5: Intersection of Flatbush and 4th Avenues Page 60
Figure 4.6: Atlantic Avenue Photograph Page 61
Figure 4.7: Sidewalk Photograph Page 61
Figure 4.8: Sidewalk Photograph Page 61
Figure 4.9: Pedestrian Crash Diagram Page 62
Figure 4.10: Pedestrian Improvement Photograph Page 69
Figure 4.11: Pedestrian Improvement Photograph Page 69

Figure 5.1: Hardened Sidewalk Rendering Page 76
Figure 5.1: Matrix Identifying Levels of Threat Page 80
Figure 5.2: Interpretation of Risk Ratings Page 80

List of Tables & Figures
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NYC REDEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE POLICY STUDY
The Atlantic Terminal site in Brooklyn, New York (ATURA) was originally designated an
urban renewal area in 1968. Between 1968 and 2004, the Department of Housing
Preservation and Development amended the urban renewal plan for ATURA ten times.
Findings in this study are based primarily on a comprehensive analysis of these eleven
urban renewal plans, which represent 38 years of city redevelopment policy. Our initial
review of ATURA plans led us to question how Forest City Ratner’s plan corresponds to
the city’s urban renewal and zoning policy more generally. We analyzed the relationship
between key policy trends over ATURA’s history and the Forest City Ratner project.
We conclude that there are striking asymmetries between 38 years of city

redevelopment and land use policy and Forest City Ratner's “Nets Project”. Since much
of the Forest City Ratner project is proposed for land within ATURA, one would expect
the city to have anticipated any new development on the site through either amendments
to the urban renewal plans or zoning changes, but neither was the case. Furthermore, it
appears that a number of key aspects of the Ratner plan are, in fact, at odds with city
policy.
In sum, we found that:
• Throughout the history of ATURA the City never considered the area beyond the
Vanderbilt Rail Yards and Pacific Street, now part of the FCR plan, to be blighted.
Although the City revised the ATURA plan ten times, they made only one change
in the area’s boundary and never considered expanding the urban renewal area
beyond the rail yards.
• Previous plans to develop over the rail yards never included development beyond
Pacific Street.
• The City’s Downtown Brooklyn Development Plan and rezoning did not include the
FCR site. Industrial zoning on the FCR footprint was not changed to facilitate
residential development or the development of an arena.
• The last amendment to the ATURA plan in 2004 did not include the FCR plan,
which was announced in 2003.
• In the 9th Amended version of the ATURA Plan, the City reduced proposed housing
in the area adjacent to the FCR footprint from 6-stories to 3-stories because they
considered higher buildings incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The
change was made in response to community concern about the impact of the
proposed development. Thus, the City endorsed the policy of low-rise housing in
the area near Atlantic Avenue.
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS
• If the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project is developed as outlined in the final scoping
document, it will exacerbate recent trends toward racial and income divides

Executive Summary
within one mile of the project footprint, especially in the eight census tracts
directly bordering the footprint.
• Our research found that the population changes within the one mile study area
and the eight tracts surrounding the FCR footprint were more severe than the
changes that occurred in Brooklyn as a whole. During the last decade of the
study, growth within the eight tracts surrounding the BAY considerably outpaced
growth in the one mile study area and Brooklyn as a whole.
• The FCR development of the BAY is likely to cause changes in the current racial
trends in the study area. As of 2000, Flatbush Avenue has served as a racial
divide between the area’s different racial groups and a project on the scale of
BAY is likely to reinforce that divide.
• The one mile study area and the eight tracts surrounding the FCR footprint have
reported significantly higher median household incomes than Brooklyn as a
whole. The four majority Black moderate-income tracts and the four majority
White and racially mixed middle-income tracts around the FCR project are
separated by a primary thoroughfare running through the BAY development,
Atlantic Avenue.
• We recommend that FCR use the area median income for Brooklyn and not the
New York Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area when determining affordability for
area residents. The income used for the PMSA is significantly higher than the
income for Brooklyn and does not represent the income of those currently living
near the BAY.
• Our research found that only 12 of the 68 census tracts in the study area, or 18%
of the total, have an average household size of two people or less.
• Thus there is a greater need for larger housing units in the study area than studio
or one bedroom units. Additionally, the need is more pronounced in the
neighborhoods surrounding the BAY footprint.
• FCR is not now obligated to fund increased measures to accommodate added
students in Brooklyn’s public school system for the development. We
recommend that FCR be held liable for funding new public school construction
and/or the use of satellite locations to accommodate increases in public school
students.
TRANSPORTATION
Traffic problems in Downtown Brooklyn cannot be solved by targeting FCR’s proposed

development alone. Trends show transit ridership and car use has grown and will
continue to grow. The FCR project will add to this growth. In order to deal with
transportation issues, a comprehensive plan with significant traffic improvements is
needed for the entire area to deal with existing conditions as well as future demand.
As our research shows, travel demand is growing and will continue to grow in Downtown
Brooklyn. Our study highlights the dangerous and unpleasant pedestrian situation that
currently exists. The proposal for the FCR development will only serve as a catalyst for
increased transportation demand. In order to address this issue, new urban design and
transportation policies need to be considered. Community involvement is necessary for
a successful process that results in redeveloped streets and public spaces that
accommodate people as well as vehicles.

Executive Summary
Some strategies to consider are:
• Congestion pricing – tolls on bridges that are increased during peak travel times
could lessen the number of commuters using their automobiles for daily travel,
lessening the congestion on the streets.
• Limit vehicles during peak hours / no single occupancy – not allowing

automobiles carrying only one passenger during peak travel times could also
lessen the number of vehicles on the road and help ease congestion.
• Light Rail – could be considered as another mode of transportation to the area in

conjunction with limiting automobiles. This is a more efficient form of
transportation in a high density area.
• Special game departures on subway and LIRR for arena travelers to limit auto
use – providing a convenient alternative to driving for basketball fans traveling to
and from games could encourage transit use, lessening additional congestion on
the streets.
• Limited Parking – By making parking less convenient, the appeal of driving to the
area may be lessened and therefore decrease the number of automobiles
contributing to existing congestion.
• Less drop off space for the arena – By not allowing three sides of the arena block
to be surrounded by drop off lanes, there will be less congestion in the streets,
more people will be encouraged to use mass transit.
ALTERNATIVES
• The four varying development proposals for the BAY provide an insightful yet
differing view of the agendas of developers and those of neighborhood residents.
• The UNITY Plan acts as the backdrop for the Principles for Responsible
Community Development. These are principles that any developer should follow
when designing a development proposal for the BAY.
• The Pacific Plan III most appropriately addresses community concerns. This plan
represents a middle ground between all the proposals and is a practical mixed-use
development.
• An independent economic feasibility study should be conducted to determine which
arena location offers the most benefits while incurring the fewest negative impacts.
To ensure that this study is conducted, evidence from previous Brooklyn arena
studies should be considered.
• If an arena is to be built in Brooklyn, it should replace the existing Atlantic Terminal
Mall in Downtown Brooklyn. Given its centrality and accessibility by public
transportation, downtown Brooklyn remains an attractive location for Brooklyn’s
long-awaited sports facility.

Executive Summary
If an arena is built, the management of the facilities needs to ensure the public
that good, high tech screening devices will be implemented to the greatest extent
possible at the arena entrances. The public should encourage the management
to develop an evacuation plan in conjunction with the community members,
especially those who will be living directly next to the arena.
SECURITY AND TERRORISM
These recommendations for the FCR development area range from urban design
measures to regulatory and policy changes.
Urge the New York City Office of Environmental Coordination and New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation to explore creating a new or
special chapter in the EIS process. The chapter on Public Health could be
expanded to include issues of security, terrorism, and design. The EIS should
disclose risks and propose mitigations similar to how the issues of air quality,
shadows, and traffic are analyzed in the DEIS and therefore, could be
commented on by the public before the document is finalized.
Urge New York City Department of City Planning to utilize New York City zoning
regulations to create overlay districts for land uses that are “at risk” both
terrorism-wise and safety-wise. Specific land uses could be targeted as
dangerous or “at risk” and therefore would be under greater scrutiny and
obligation to have disaster mitigation plans for their developments, and could
include specific measures like special setback and height restrictions on new
buildings.
Encourage New York City Department of City Planning to require aesthetically

pleasing design features such as benches, bollards, and/or streetlights in
addition to other furniture which are built into the urban character of the area and
which do not impede pedestrian activity.
Encourage New York City Department of Buildings to incorporate security and

safe building measures into the New York City Building Code. This would strictly
outline requirements for construction materials and techniques, as well as the
overall design and structure of buildings constructed in “at risk” areas.
Encourage the Department of Buildings to analyze the Unified Facilities Criteria

put forth by the federal Department of Defense. It outlined several piecemeal
steps that can be taken to make the space safer. Special care and attention
should be placed on integrating the following measures suitable for this project
with good urban design and the creation of healthy open spaces.
− Drive up / Drop off lanes

− Access roads
− Structural isolation
− Exterior masonry wall construction
− Window/Door glazing

Executive Summary
− Roof access
− Air intakes
− Emergency air distribution shutoff
− Under building access
Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / 10 December 2006

Executive Summary
New York City Redevelopment &
Land Use Policy Study
Study Authors: Lishawn Alexander and Allison Dean
Hunter College Department of Urban Affairs & Planning
The Atlantic Terminal site in Brooklyn, New York (ATURA) was originally designated an
urban renewal area in 1968. Between 1968 and 2004, the Department of Housing
Preservation and Development amended the urban renewal plan for ATURA ten times.
Findings in this study are based primarily on a comprehensive analysis of these eleven
urban renewal plans, which represent 38 years of city redevelopment policy. Our initial
review of ATURA plans led us to question how Forest City Ratner’s plan corresponds to
the city’s urban renewal and zoning policy more generally. We analyzed the relationship
between key policy trends over ATURA’s history and the Forest City Ratner project.
We conclude that there are striking asymmetries between 38 years of city

redevelopment and land use policy and Forest City Ratner's “Nets Project”. Since much
of the Forest City Ratner project is proposed for land within ATURA, one would expect
the city to have anticipated any new development on the site through either amendments
to the urban renewal plans or zoning changes, but neither was the case. Furthermore, it
appears that a number of key aspects of the Forest City Ratner plan are, in fact, at odds
with city policy.
INTRODUCTION
A key motivation for this study stemmed from the fact that, in its current form, just over
half of Forest City Ratner’s “Nets Project” is slated to occupy land within the Atlantic
Terminal Urban Renewal Area (henceforth referred to as “ATURA”), while the remainder
of the project will be situated on land that borders it. We felt it would be useful to uncover
how this potential new development fits into the site’s history as an urban renewal area,
since this history represents the city’s redevelopment policy over a significant time span.
We also looked at recent zoning in the area in order to understand how the city’s land
use policies coordinate with Ratner’s plan.
The original purpose of this study was to provide research on issues of blight
determination and eminent domain that would support DDDB’s legal challenge to certain
bad faith aspects of the development process. Under Eminent Domain laws, in order to
condemn land and force the relocation of tenants who refuse to sell, New York State’s
Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the public agency sponsoring the
project, must make a case that the land within the footprint is “blighted.” Our initial goal
in obtaining the ATURA plans was to see if they would provide us with clues about the
city’s blight determination methodology. We hoped that we would eventually be able to
compare this methodology with the methodology used by Forest City Ratner and the
ESDC to determine blight in the area.
This initial emphasis on blight determination ultimately proved unfruitful. We asked

Thehbia Hiwot, an official at HPD, what the city’s methodology is for determining blight.
In an email response, Hiwot asked us whether we had looked at the Urban Renewal
Law, saying that “§505 and §504 are referenced throughout URA plans.” We
subsequently realized that the city’s methodology for determining blight was just as
ATURA & Land Use Study
vague and indeterminate in the urban renewal plans as it is in the federal statutes. Under
the heading “Eligibility” on page one, the Ninth Amended Version of ATURA (1997)
states:
The Area is eligible for designation as an urban renewal area pursuant to the Urban
Renewal Law. The following insanitary [sic] or substandard conditions adversely
affect the quality of life in the Area and its immediate vicinity:
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 fire safety or protection. (HPD: 1997, p. 1)
In addition to the above description, the plan lists the following conditions for eligibility:
• Abandoned, vacant, underutilized, substandard, and/or insanitary [sic] lots

• Inadequate open space
• Hazardous or detrimental commercial/residential uses.
• Blocks and lots of irregular form or shape or of insufficient size, width, depth, or
multiplicity of ownership
• Poorly or improperly designed street patterns and intersections
• Lack of suitable off street parking
• Unsuitable topography, subsoil, or other physical conditions
Interestingly, the word “blight” is not used in any of the plans until the Ninth Amended
Version (1997), which states as an objective:
• Redevelop the area in a comprehensive manner, removing blight and maximizing

appropriate land use
We will discuss how the objectives of the urban renewal plans evolved over time at a
later point in the study.
In addition to the city, we attempted to obtain information from the ESDC about blight
studies that may have been conducted at the site. Our intention was to compare the city
and the state’s methodologies for determining blight. Our only success was a brief e-mail
exchange with an official from the ESDC named Ann Hulka, who informed us that:
...at this point, there is no publicly available blight study. We [the ESDC] are
currently studying the existence of blighted conditions in the Atlantic Yards
area. Later in the process, sometime this summer, it is likely that a report analyzing
blight in the area will be made public. Until that happens, we have no report to give
you. (Personal communication; see appendix for the full contents of this exchange)
In the end, our initial review of ATURA plans led us to questions about how Forest City
Ratner’s plan corresponds to the city’s urban renewal and zoning policy more generally.
While the primary focus of our study shifted, our findings still have important implications
for questions of blight and Eminent Domain.
The Atlantic Terminal site was originally designated an urban renewal area in 1968,
subsequent to which there were ten amended versions of the plan. The total eleven

plans cover a date range from 1968 to 2004. Together, these documents represent 38
years of city redevelopment policy. The objective of this was to understand the
relationship between key policy trends over ATURA’s history and the Forest City Ratner
project.
To a lesser extent, we also looked at zoning policy, since a portion of ATURA was
included in the 2004 downtown Brooklyn rezoning. Our zoning study did not include a
significant historical dimension, however, as was the case with the urban renewal study.
Finally, we also analyzed various official documents including City Planning Reports and
ULURP (Uniform Land Use Review Process) Reports. Due to time constraints of the
study, these documents played a largely supplementary role in helping us to obtain a
fuller sense of how various modifications to the plans were justified in policy terms—
something that is not always possible to ascertain from the urban renewal plans alone—
and what kinds of support and/or opposition they faced. We also conducted
informational interviews with various key figures, such as officials from the Borough
President’s office and HPD. A brief exploration of journalistic representations of these
events and topics helped us to further contextualize city policy decisions more generally
in terms of the politics surrounding development on the site at various historical
junctures.
FINDINGS
Our study reveals striking asymmetries between 38 years of city redevelopment and
land use policy and Forest City Ratner's “Nets Project”. As we noted above, given that
much of the Forest City Ratner project is proposed for land within ATURA, one would
expect the city to have anticipated any new development on the site through
amendments to the urban renewal plans or through zoning changes, but neither was the
case. Furthermore, it appears that a number of key aspects of the Ratner plan are, in
fact, at odds with city policy. Given this, the Mayor, the Borough President, and other key
city officials can be viewed as throwing their full support behind a project and a
redevelopment process that not only ignores, but contradicts the city’s own longstanding
policies. In the following paragraphs, we will present numerous examples and arguments
in support of these points.
One of our first basic investigative tasks was to obtain all eleven urban renewal plans for
ATURA from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development
(HPD). See Table 1.1. These urban renewal plans date from 1968—2004 and, simply
put, are the city’s redevelopment policy. This has nothing to do with New York State
policy. Zoning resolutions represent the city’s land use policy, and again, do not involve
the state.
Table 1.1: Timeline of the urban renewal plans for ATURA

First Amended Version 1970
Second Amended Version 1972
Third Amended Version 1974
Fourth Amended Version 1976
Fifth Amended Version 1978
Sixth Amended Version 1982
Seventh Amended Version 1983
Eighth Amended Version 1985*

Ninth Amended Version 1996**
Tenth Amended Version 2004
An asterisk next to a plan indicates that it was drafted in response to significant

development proposed for the urban renewal area (URA). Double asterisks indicate
major policy changes.
The Boundary Question
Figure 1 (below) shows the Atlantic Center Urban Renewal Area (ATURA) bounded in
red, and the footprint of the Forest City Ratner project bounded in blue. This map
demonstrates where the Forest City Ratner project overlaps with the urban renewal
area. We tracked changes in the ATURA boundary over time, and found that it was
altered only once, in the 1982 Sixth Amended Version of the plan. This alteration is
represented by the green shaded area on Figure 1.1. The boundary was extended
along ATURA’s northern edge in order to acquire property on lot 1 within block 2119:
This constitutes a new site, i.e.: Site 21, which involves acquisition of the former
Brooklyn Eye and Ear Hospital, located at 29 Greene Avenue. This property will be
developed into residential housing. (ATURA fact sheet, February 7, 1983; attached
to a communication from Charles Reiss, Deputy Commissioner, HPD to Hon.
Herbert F. Sturz, Chairman, DCP)
Figure 1.1: ATURA Boundary 1968-2006
This was the only boundary change from 1968—2004; therefore, the boundary
represented in the map is still current today. It is important to note that slightly less than
half of the Forest City Ratner footprint lies just outside the current ATURA boundary.
This poses the question: Why didn’t HPD expand the boundary again in anticipation of
this new development?

The Tenth Amended Version of ATURA (2004)
Not only does the most recent amendment to ATURA lack a boundary change that
would incorporate additional lots within the Forest City Ratner footprint, it does not
incorporate the Forest City Ratner plan. The Tenth Amended Version of ATURA
represents the city’s most recent development policy for the site. It was initiated in
September 2003, while the Forest City Ratner plan was announced in December of the
same year. Given these dates, the city could claim that it was too late to take the Forest
City Ratner’s plan into consideration, since its own review process— including ULURP—
would have already been underway.
We maintain, however, that even if it was too late for the city to incorporate the Forest
City Ratner plan into the Tenth Amended Version, HPD could have initiated an additional
amendment, which was not done. Throughout the history of ATURA, amendments to the
URA were initiated in response to potential development—not the other way around. The
precedent has been for the city to amend its own policies if there is the momentum for
development to occur. Furthermore— and perhaps more striking— if the city knew about
the Forest City Ratner plan as the Tenth Amended Version of ATURA was going through
ULURP, then doesn’t this make a mockery of the public review process? Again, Forest
City Ratner’s plan was announced approximately three months after the Tenth Amended
Version was initiated, and ULURP takes over six months. This suggests that the city
may have been in backroom negotiations with Forest City Ratner and the state whilst its
own, separate policy for ATURA was being put through ULURP, presumably in good
faith.
In addition to ULURP, what about the approval process of city agencies like the
Department of City Planning? Even if Forest City Ratner’s plan was announced a few
months after reviewing of the Tenth Amended Version was initiated, it was definitely well
known to the city by the time the amendment was approved by the City Planning
Commission in April 2004. Did the city officially approve a policy for ATURA through its
own agencies, while simultaneously supporting a plan that had nothing to do with that
policy?
The Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning (2004)
As we have already noted, nothing even approaching the scope of the Ratner project
was anticipated in the Tenth Amended Version of ATURA. The stated purpose of the
Tenth Amended Version was to:
…facilitate the proposed Downtown Brooklyn Development Plan. The Economic

Development Corporation (EDC) and the Department of City Planning (DCP) are
proposing a major redevelopment plan, which calls for rezoning of a 60-block area in
Downtown Brooklyn. The purpose of the development plan is to keep Downtown
Brooklyn competitive by stimulating new commercial, residential, retail, academic,
and cultural uses. (Fact Sheet, Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area Tenth
Amended Plan, September, 2003; Revised April, 2004).

1
Figure 1.2: Blocks within or near ATURA included in 2004 Downtown Rezoning
The Downtown Brooklyn Development
Plan, approved by the City Planning
Commission on May 10, 2004 and
adopted by the City Council on June 28,
2004 entailed a series of rezoning efforts
that included two smaller blocks in the
area, one of which is within ATURA. (See
Figure 1.2) The ATURA block, which is
triangular shaped and located on
Flatbush Avenue between Atlantic
Avenue and Pacific Street, is also
included in the Forest City Ratner
footprint. Both of these parcels were
rezoned from C6-1 (6 commercial FAR
/3.44 residential FAR) to C6-2 (6 FAR),
which, according to DCP, was supposed
to “encourage new residential
development on these two blocks, and
support development surrounding Atlantic Terminal2.”
But part of the block that falls within both ATURA and the footprint will be taken up by
Forest City Ratner’s 20,000-seat arena. To be sure, Forest City Ratner has some
residential development planned around the arena that will occur within this block.
Nevertheless, the city’s policy of encouraging new residential development is clear
enough, and there is no mention of a sports arena. Forest City Ratner’s plan therefore
contradicts not only the city’s redevelopment policy as we discussed earlier, but also its
land use policy as it is laid forth in the downtown rezoning
We have already pointed out how the city didn’t extend the ATURA boundary in
anticipation of the Ratner plan. One big question here is why, if the city supported the
Forest City Ratner plan, didn’t it bother to rezone the whole footprint instead of just a
single block?
The Eighth Amended Version of ATURA (1985)
We now turn our attention to a set of questions raised by the Eighth Amended Version of
ATURA (1985).
In the mid 1980s, Forest City Ratner entered into a partnership with Jonathan Rose of
Rose Associates—a development firm—to redevelop ATURA. In 1985, HPD revised the
ATURA plan in anticipation of this redevelopment. Mayor Koch announced the $255
million project in 1985. As stated in the Eighth Amended Version of ATURA:
Commercial uses are expected to include approximately two million square feet
of office and retail space, a multi screen movie theater, a large supermarket, and
a 1,000 car parking garage. Approximately 900 units of assisted housing has
been provided to date in medium and high-rise buildings, and an estimated 950
1
New York City Department of City Planning Website: (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/home.html)
2
See http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/dwnbklyn2/dwnbklynplan9.shtml
mostly governmentally assisted units are planned in low and medium rise
buildings. Institutional and public facilities to be provided include a new
elementary school and public open space. The plan also provides for a revision
of the street system. (HPD: 1985, p 5)
The plan called for two 25 story towers, 255,000 sq ft retail space, 53,000 sq ft health &
recreational facility, and an eight-story above-ground parking facility. The city promised
$18.3 million of its own money plus tax benefits, and invested 16.2 million in demolition
and site improvements. The Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) was to be the
anchor tenant for the office development (Fainstein: 1994, p 161). In addition, the Rose
plan had the backing of the New York City Partnership, a group representing the
interests of New York City’s business community, chaired by David Rockefeller. Other
influential members included John Whitehead, then head of Goldman & Sachs, and
Jonathan Rose himself. One Partnership member, Perry Davis, referred to the Rose
Plan as “one of NYC’s most ambitious construction projects.” (David: 1986, p 87)
While the Rose Plan was significantly smaller than Forest City Ratner’s current plan,
these plans represent the two largest developments ever proposed for the area. And yet,
despite the scale of the Rose Plan and the political will behind it, HPD did not see fit to
extend the ATURA boundary to incorporate additional areas of blight. If the areas
outside the boundary—which has not been extended since 1983—that Forest City
Ratner now wants to develop were not blighted enough to include in ATURA in 1985,
trends indicate that they are even less likely to be blighted now (see “Neighborhood
Character Study”).
In addition, we note that the city, in initiating the Eighth Amended Version of ATURA,
brought its own policy in line with a major redevelopment proposal. This can be viewed
as a precedent in which the city worked in partnership with multiple sectors, including
developers and the business community, to anticipated future development in
coordination with its own policies. But nothing could be further from what happened with
the Forest City Ratner plan. The city’s policies say one thing, while the mayor and other
elected officials say, and do, another.
Economic Development: The New Urban Renewal
In analyzing the eleven plans over time, we were able to trace a clear shift in urban
renewal practices beginning in the 1970s. The initial focus on blight elimination, low-
income housing, and social welfare and community facilities was gradually downplayed
in favor of economic development. This is often reflected in small but significant changes
in the language of the plans over time. For instance, Amended Versions 1—5 (1968—
1978) contained the following provision:
The new housing to be constructed on redevelopment parcels shall be [italics

added] for occupancy by families and individuals of low and moderate income…
However, the Sixth Amended Version (1982) is revised as follows:
The new housing to be constructed on redevelopment parcels may be for occupancy

by families and individuals of low and moderate income…”

Table 1.2 compares the dramatic shift in objectives that took place with the Ninth
Amended Version of ATURA. Through the Eighth Amended Version of the plan, these
objectives stayed relatively stable with little or no change. With the Ninth Amended
Version (1997), however, the shift toward a policy of Economic Development is
crystallized with a dramatic overhaul of the plan’s language. According to the City
Planning Commission Report (September, 1997/Calendar No. 38), one of the major
purposes of the Ninth Amendment was to “reorganize the objectives of the URP [Urban
Renewal Plan] and to eliminate and consolidate certain objectives…and to update the
language of the plan to conform to current standards.” Particularly notable is new
emphasis on building the city’s tax base, as well as the total elimination of low-income
housing as an objective.
Table 1.2: Comparing the Shift in Objectives of the Urban Renewal Plans
Objectives: Objectives:
th th
8 Amended Version (1985) 9th & 10 (1997, 2004) Amended Versions
b. Remove or rehabilitate substandard and
insanitary structures
a. Remove structurally substandard
a. Redevelop the area in a comprehensive
buildings
manner, removing blight, and maximizing
appropriate land use
g. Provide a stable environment within the area

b. Eliminate negative environmental
which will not be a blighting influence on
conditions
surrounding neighborhoods
c. Remove impediments to land

redevelopment (i.e. multiplicity of ownership) c. Remove impediments to land assemblage
d. Reorganize the presently inefficient street and orderly development
pattern
e. Continue local employment

opportunities, through the retention of d. Strengthen the tax base of city by
structurally sound non-residential encouraging development and employment
buildings whenever feasible opportunities in the area
f. Provide a substantial number of housing

units of low and moderate cost on land to e. Provide new housing of high quality
be disposed of for residential purposes and/or rehabilitated housing of upgraded
built to high standards of design, privacy, quality
light, air, and open space

h. Provide land for public, recreational, and
community facilities
g. Provide compact, efficient, local retail,
commercial areas f. Provide appropriate community facilities,
i. Provide off-street parking to relieve traffic parks, and recreational uses, retail shopping,
congestion public parking, and private parking
j. Rehabilitate certain buildings to strengthen
an existing facility use by providing accessory
social and welfare space
We have given just a few examples of how this shift toward Economic Development as
the guiding redevelopment policy is reflected in the urban renewal plans. We point this
out simply to note that the city did shift its policies in this regard. Some may argue that
Forest City Ratner’s plan fits in with economic development goals, as they are generally
understood, and that in this sense the city’s support of the plan is in keeping with its own
policies. However, the Forest City plan includes “affordable housing,” which would
appear to be consistent with the old city policies that were eliminated in 1997, and not a
part of current city redevelopment policy, and its affordable housing is neither consistent
with city land use policy, as shown in the next section of this report, nor would it
necessarily be built in the urban renewal area. This is another example of the striking
asymmetries between the city and Forest City Ratner’s plan.
There are still many gaps and unanswered questions that need to be considered given
the unprecedented nature of the process by which Forest City Ratner is attempting to
achieve his plans.
City Policy & Neighborhood Character
Despite the shift toward economic development, the city maintained a concern for
neighborhood character in its policy. In the City Planning Report associated with the 9th
Amended Version (1997), there is much concern over how development will fit with the
overall existing neighborhood character: For instance, one purpose of the 9th amended
version was to “facilitate 3rd phase of Atlantic Center housing development within
ATURA” (see Figures 1.3 and 1.4). Initially, the new housing units, which were intended
for low- and moderate-income residents, were to be built six stories high. But according
to the City Planning Report, even buildings of this height were deemed incompatible with
the character of the surrounding neighborhoods:
Based on extensive community input, this [6 story] development was replaced by

a 3-story townhouse development; more in keeping with the surrounding
brownstone communities…these red brick clad townhouses are architecturally
appropriate and compatible with the surrounding communities of Fort Greene,
Clinton Hill, and Boerum Hill. (DCP: 1997)

Figure 1.3: Phase III Housing Preservation Department (HPD) Three Family Townhouses
Figure 1.4: Brooklyn’s low-rise brownstones
Figure 1.3 above is an example of conforming architecture that can be used to keep the
neighborhood character intact in this particular part of Brooklyn. Figure 1.4 is a
photograph of traditional Brooklyn brownstone buildings that the redevelopment in
Figure 1.3 was based on. The Forest City Ratner project is wildly out of scale with
traditional Brooklyn brownstones directly adjacent to the project site, and contradicts the
city’s established land use policy. Furthermore, the Forest City Ratner plan includes an
arena, while the New York City Zoning Resolution does not allow arenas within 200 feet
of residential districts.
CONCLUSION
We maintain that the redevelopment policy for ATURA and the surrounding lots which
Forest City Ratner intends to develop is not being worked out in partnership with the city,

and this cuts two ways. Our emphasis here has been on how the city appears to be
actively supporting a plan that contradicts the policies being put forth by its own
agencies. These raise important questions about whether or not city officials have acted
in good faith in approving one set of policies while, behind closed doors, supporting the
Forest City Ratner plan. If the city knew about the plan, why didn’t they extend the
ATURA boundary or rezone the area accordingly?
On the other hand, Forest City Ratner is actively evading city policy through the use of
the ESDC. The current process amounts to a situation in which a developer is colluding
with the state in order to circumvent policy on the city level. As Susan Fainstein, a
prominent scholar at Harvard points out, Forest City Ratner’s use of the ESDC insulates
the developer him from community input by allowing them to avoid the city’s ULURP
process—and we can understand the motivation for this. Stringent citizen participation
requirements in the federal urban renewal program made it more difficult for business
interests to control the planning process (Fainstein: 2005). The ULURP process requires
four votes and four public hearings. Given all that we have uncovered here, it is clear
that the Mayor, the Borough President, and other key city officials can be viewed as
throwing their full support behind a project and a redevelopment process that not only
ignores but contradicts the city’s own longstanding policies. Our research will hopefully
assist DDDB in supporting this claim.

REFERENCES
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Project, City of New York, Urban Renewal Plan,
(1968).
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Project, City of New York, First Amended Urban
Renewal Plan, (1970).
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Project, City of New York, Second Amended Urban
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Project, City of New York, Third Amended Urban
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Project, City of New York, Fourth Urban Renewal
Plan, (1976).
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Project, City of New York Department of Housing
Preservation and Development, Fifth Urban Renewal Plan, (1978).
Preservation and Development, Sixth Urban Renewal Plan, (1982).
Preservation and Development, Seventh Urban Renewal Plan, (1983).
Preservation and Development, Eight Urban Renewal Plan, (1985).
Preservation and Development, Ninth Urban Renewal Plan, (1997).
Preservation and Development, Tenth Urban Renewal Plan, (2004).
Brooklyn Center, City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and

Development, Fifth Amended Urban Renewal Plan, (2004).
City Planning Commission Report C 040175 HUK May 10, 2004. Calendar No. 9.
City Planning Commission Report C 970287 HUK September 3, 1997. Calendar No. 38.
City Planning Commission Report C 860201 HUK August 18, 1986/Calendar No.1.
Davis, Perry. “Partners for Downtown Development: Creating a New Central

Business District in Brooklyn." Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science
36, No. 2(1986): pp 87-99. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/view/00650684/ap040089/04a00090/0
Fainstein, Susan. "The Return of Urban Renewal." Harvard DesignMagazine, no. 22
(2005): 1-5.
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/back/22_Fainstein.html
New York City Department of City Planning http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/home.html

(2006).
Uniform Land Use Review Application, Department of City Planning, 030514MMK –

030517MK, 0401712MK – 040185PSK.

Alternatives Analysis:
The Ratner, Extell, Pacific, and UNITY Proposals
Study Author: Dara Braitman
INTRODUCTION
Concerned that the Forest City Ratner (FCR) proposal for the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards
(BAY) will induce a variety of negative impacts both within the study area and the
neighborhoods directly surrounding the footprint, a number of alternative plans have
been drafted. Building on community concerns and later the Principals for Responsible
Community Development, these alternative plans seek to fill the gaps created by the
apparent shortcomings of the FCR proposal.
Many area residents fear that the FCR plan will divide the community rather than
strengthen it. As a result, the alternative proposals have sought to address the primary
concerns - namely traffic congestion, a waning infrastructure, the use of eminent
domain, the existing public transportation overload, shadows, and economic impacts -
afflicting area residents and those that are likely to cause community divisions under the
FCR plan. Ranging from 8.5 to 22.5 acres, the four proposals for the BAY provide an
insightful yet differing view of the agendas of developers and those of neighborhood
residents.
The following provides an analysis of the four development proposals and the expected
impacts incurred by each. This chapter will outline the limitations and/or positive
elements of each as well as the potential for an alternative arena location. It is the belief
that in examining the feasibility of each using a number of constant indicators, such as
those presumed negative impacts, that new ideas can be incorporated to develop the
BAY in a way that most appropriately satisfies existing need. This chapter identifies the
most recent Pacific Plan as the preferred option yet encourages and entertains the
notion of locating the Arena on the current site of the Atlantic Terminal Mall.
THE PROPOSALS
Forest City Ratner
Figure 2.1: Rendering of Miss Brooklyn Gehry

Building as posted on Gothamist website.
Having drawn much criticism from community

groups, urban planners, area residents as well
as a number of other corners, FCR’s bid to
purchase the MTA BAY has raised countless
questions and fears about the avenues guiding
Brooklyn’s fate. Given that prior to the release
of the DEIS much of the negotiations between FCR and various government entities,
including the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), were conducted behind
closed doors, area residents were left largely uninformed as to exactly how much

Alternatives Analysis
taxpayer money would be involved in bringing this plan to fruition. The economic
analyses conducted by Andrew Zimbalist, Kim and Peebles, and the New York City
Independent Budget Office (IBO), each using different figures and assumptions, come to
different conclusions.
Ranging from 19 to 58 stories, the FCR proposal includes just less than eight million
square feet of commercial, retail and residential space. The current breakdown is as
follows: an 850,000 SF Arena; 606,000 SF of office space; a 165,000 SF Hotel; 6.8
million SF of residential space totaling almost 7,000 units; 7 acres for public open space
and 1 acre for private open space.
Considered by critics to be wildly out of scale with the existing architecture of Downtown
Brooklyn, in particular that of the Williamsburg Savings Bank, the design by world-
renowned architect Frank Gehry will redefine the downtown Brooklyn landscape for
years to come. In seeking a stronger case for development of this scale, the FCR
website cites that independent of the bid for the BAY, the Brooklyn City Council has
recently approved zoning for buildings up to 600 feet high (approximately 56 stories) in
the Downtown Brooklyn Plan.
The following presents a brief overview of the primary shortcomings of the FCR proposal
as defined by project opponents, community groups, and residents.
• Building scale and shadows – If built according to the original proposal size, the
floor area ratio (FAR) of close to 8.0 would make the census tract in which the BAY
is located the densest in the country. The 16 buildings, minus the Arena, in the
development proposal would dwarf all existing buildings in the area. Shadows cast
by such a large development would prohibit sunlight during many hours of the day.
• Transportation – The Atlantic Avenue Subway Station already experiences
exceedingly high volumes of pedestrian traffic. The addition of approximately
6,800 housing units, in addition to Arena traffic, would further tax the already
waning infrastructure.
• Traffic congestion – As evidenced in the Transportation, Transit & Pedestrian
Study of this analysis, traffic congestion, pedestrian access, and accidents in the
area directly adjacent to the footprint already suffer as a result of high traffic
volumes and inadequate street improvements. The level of service (LOS) at many
of the intersections is expected to decrease with the significant increase of housing
in the area and during times of Arena activity. Brooklyn Borough President Marty
Markowitz has further indicated that the DEIS examination of existing traffic
bottlenecking does not include many streets and intersections within the immediate
vicinity of the BAY that are already plagued by high traffic volumes.
• Primary and secondary displacement – The use of eminent domain to make way
for the Arena will lead many residents and businesses to be displaced.
Additionally, there are more than 1,200 rent-stabilized buildings within a ½ mile of
the BAY. Gradually, these residences run the risk of becoming destabilized with
the building of new housing, namely market rate condos. Local businesses are
also at risk of displacement as more chain stores move to the area.
• Environmental impacts – Environmental impacts such as air, noise, and light
pollution are likely to have detrimental affects within the area. As of late, FCR says
that all buildings will be LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
certified. Nevertheless, the considerable increase of residential dwellings,
commercial activity, and traffic will exacerbate current pollution problems.

• Open and public space – The incorporation of open and public space within the
FCR development has come under intense fire by project opponents. While the
FCR proposal offers the largest percentage of open and public space as compared
to the alternative proposals, the use and therefore, accessibility of this space
remains in question. Since much of this space will be located within the confines of
the development, it is questionable how much of this space will be utilized by area
residents. In a recent article published in the Gotham Gazette, Anne Schwartz
notes that the additional residents in the area will decrease the amount of open
space available for residents within ½ mile of the footprint to .28 acre per 1,000
people.3
Since its first release, the overall square footage of the FCR plan has changed
numerous times. Many of these changes have increased rather than decreased the
project scale. It has been difficult for the public to follow the course of the development
as it continuously fluctuates. The most recent change to downsize the overall project
has been welcomed by some yet even with this, the FCR proposal remains the largest,
most dense development of the four proposals. It is often believed that developers,
when designing such grandiose proposals, release such large plans because they
anticipate a 20 percent overall downsizing. Brooklyn Borough President Marty
Markowitz, after many months of strongly endorsing FCR has argued that in order to
bring this proposal to fruition, all buildings must respect the architectural integrity of the
Williamsburg Savings Bank.
Historically Community Benefit Agreements (CBA’s) have been negotiated between a

number of community groups, including but not limited to local unions, school districts,
and community groups. These groups, often times strange bedfellows, align together to
create bargaining power used during negotiations with the developer. This has not been
the case with the FCR CBA - the first of its kind in New York City. It was signed by a
mere eight groups, four of which were created by FCR. While the CBA offers a number
of programs that have the potential to positively affect the area, the lack of disclosure of
costs by FCR, and the possible location of these amenities outside the project site, has
made further analysis difficult.
UNITY Plan (Understanding Imagining and Transforming the Yards)
Figure 2.2: Rendering of UNITY Plan as posted on

Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn’s website.
Designed at the behest of Brooklyn Councilwoman

Letitia James, the UNITY Plan acts as the backdrop
for future development proposals at the BAY. As it
responds to many community concerns – shadows,
scale, eminent domain, and open space – the UNITY
Plan acts as a strong foundation from which other
development plans can be molded to best address
community concerns.
3
Schwartz, A. (2006, August). Open space in the Atlantic Yards development. Gotham Gazette.
As the smallest of the proposals, the UNITY Plan only calls for the platforming and
development of the three blocks over the MTA BAY. Therefore, the use of eminent
domain would not be necessary and thus primary displacement would not be incurred.
With an overall FAR of 6.5, the proposal calls for 2,300 housing units, 260,000 square
feet of office space, 300,000 square feet of retail space, and 40,000 square feet for
community facilities. Additionally, the proposal calls for the retention of 14 percent of the
8 acres for open and public space, most of which would come by means of a greenway
through the center of the development. While this greenway could act as a viable open
and public space, given its placement in the center of the development, some are
concerned that it would create a public space similar to that seen in the FCR proposal
and ultimately prove uninviting to area residents.
With its small scale and lack of a budget, the strongest element of the UNITY Plan is that
it acts as the foundation for the Principles for Responsible Community Development.
These principles define and outline the guidelines that request that both government
agencies and developers adhere to when designing future land uses for the BAY. Below
are a few of the Principles that have stemmed from the UNITY Plan.
Guidelines for any developer that responds to the RFP

• Disavow taking private property through eminent domain.
• Volunteer to adhere to the Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP) to allow
for
maximum input by residents, community boards, City Planning Commission and
elected officials.
• Maximize percentage of affordable housing and offer community preferences.
• Maximize local job opportunities.
• Maximize opportunities for local contractors and subcontractors.
• Respect the context and scale of the existing architecture in host communities.
• Propose development that benefits the surrounding neighborhoods and residents
culturally, economically and environmentally.
• Include a diversity of uses (mixed retail, residential, commercial, active and
passive recreation).
• Agree to community benefits through participation by a broad-based stakeholder
group.
Guidelines for government agencies involved in the planning process

• Disavow taking private property by eminent domain.
• Create a level financial playing field for all potential developers by offering similar
subsidies while also achieving the maximum benefit for the community and the
City.
• Mandate transparency and accountability during the planning, bidding and
implementation process.
• Foster competition and maximize public benefit by bidding the rail yards through
an
RFP (Request for Proposals) or RFEI (Request for Expressions of Interest)
process developed with extensive community participation.
• Bid the rail yards out as multiple parcels if it maximizes the benefit to the MTA.
• Commit to financial transparency (disclosure of governmental subsidies de facto
and de jure) and independent fiscal review by the City Independent Budget Office
including a cost/benefit analysis for New York City.
• Adhere to the Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP) to allow for maximum
input by residents, community boards, City Planning Commission and elected
officials.
• Ensure a thorough environmental review. The EIS needs to include meaningful
mitigations for all negative impacts. An EIS that concludes that negative impacts
“cannot be mitigated” is not acceptable.
• Mandate an EIS scope that takes into account all current and future development
projects proposed for downtown Brooklyn, whether through specific building
proposals or made possible by rezoning plans. It should not treat the development
of the rail yards as an isolated event.
• Commit to community involvement in scoping for the draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
• Budget for meaningful community participation in planning, scoping and
monitoring.2
Extell Development Company
Figure 2.3: Rendering of Extell Plan.
Answering the Request for Proposal (RFP)

drafted by the MTA, the Extell Development
Company has designed a plan that not only
incorporates the Principles for Responsible
Community Development as outlined by
Brooklyn community groups but offers $50
million more for the MTA BAY than FCR.
Following the path of the tracks below ground,

the design elements of the Extell plan respect
the existing street grid and the architectural scale
of the Williamsburg Saving Bank. Additionally, the development does not require the
use of eminent domain, the building of an arena or the use of superblocks, and retains
more than 16 percent for open and public space. This space has been incorporated into
the design around retail corridors and Atlantic Avenue with the anticipation of future
commercial and residential growth within the immediate vicinity. Some disapprove the
way Extell incorporates open and public space into the design, which they believe, like
the FCR and UNITY plans, creates an environment that is uninviting to area residents.
To others, the appropriate resolution would be to maintain building size and design, but
reconfigure the buildings within the existing site to create the desired open spaces and
therefore improve accessibility and sense of community.
Predominantly residential in nature, the development calls for just under 2,000 housing
units. The plan also includes 1,000 parking spaces, a new school, and 75,000 square
feet of community facility space. This community facility space is approximately 30,000
square feet larger than allocated in the Pacific Plan (to be outlined below) and almost 3
times that proposed by FCR.
2
Principles for Responsible Community Development on the Vanderbilt Rail Yards. Accessed
May 1, 2006 from http://www.dddb.net.

Not only does the Extell proposal abide by the Principles for Responsible Community
Development but also agrees to the terms outlined in the CBA and provides a detailed
20 year pro forma outlining all costs associated with financing, permits, construction,
land use, and track improvements associated with project execution. With a complete
pro forma, one is able to determine both the financial and social implications of the plan.
The plan overall has many positive elements and should be given ample consideration
as a viable option for the BAY.
Pacific Plan
Figure 2.4: Rendering of

Pacific Plan by R. Douglas
Hamilton.
In attending community
meetings and listening to the
concerns of area residents,
Brooklyn resident and urban
designer R. Douglas
Hamilton has designed an
alternative development
proposal that acts as a
middle ground between the FCR and Extell proposals. While not currently endorsed by
any developers, Mr. Hamilton offers his plan to either project opponents or advocates as
a viable option for the development of the contested land. His most recent proposal
released in May of this year incorporates many community concerns as well as the
retention of an arena, with the hope of creating a development that not only meets public
interest but will ultimately prove to be economically beneficial for the developer.
When first released earlier this year, there were three varying Pacific Plan design
proposals, two of which required an arena. In May 2006, Mr. Hamilton chose Pacific
Plan III as the primary design for further development. The actual project site of 19.5
acres is just smaller than the 22.5 acres proposed by FCR. When Mr. Hamilton first
drafted his proposal, Site 5 (the location of the existing P.C. Richard’s and Modell’s) was
not included, yet when he began to assemble the pro forma this site was included to
more accurately match that of the FCR Plan. Pacific Plan III includes the building of an
Arena yet at 6.2, the overall FAR is the lowest of any of the development proposals.
The Pacific Plan III encompasses the following design elements: 3,650 residential units
of which 2,373 would be rental units; a 670,000 SF arena; 638,000 SF of office space;
2.7 acres of open and public space; 236,850 SF of retail; a 180 room hotel; 46,120 SF of
community facilities; 46,500 SF of light industrial; and a 60,800 SF cinema.
Aware that opposition groups are concerned with the use of eminent domain to make
way for an arena, Mr. Hamilton proposes that the old soup factory located adjacent to
the Eastern boundary of site to be converted into apartments to house residents who
have remained on the project site since FCR began acquiring property. This would
reduce the number of those affected by the use of eminent domain significantly.

The Pacific Plan seeks to address some of the design elements of the FCR Plan that
have been cited as flawed. In moving the entrance of the Arena off the main
thoroughfare to Pacific Street and Sixth Avenue, the Pacific Plan III seeks to ease some
of the congestion caused by Arena activity. Additionally, the Plan offers arena visitors
more than one route for exiting, which will help clear the area in a more timely fashion
and help diminish some of the obstacles currently endured by pedestrians.
In respecting the current street grid, the Pacific Plan III does not call for the creation of
superblocks. All residential development will take place along Pacific Street while all
retail activity will run along Atlantic Avenue. As a result, Pacific Street will largely serve
residential purposes except during arena events. At 32 stories, the tallest building in the
Pacific Plan respects the height of the existing Williamsburg Savings Bank. In order to
more appropriately match the buildings in adjoining neighborhoods, building heights will
decrease moving East along the site. Additionally, in order to match the existing row
house style on Carlton Avenue, new residences will be built in a similar architectural
style, no higher than six stories.
While the Pacific Plan III has a smaller percentage of overall space designated as open
and public space, Mr. Hamilton is able to incorporate it in a way that is welcoming to
area residents and tenants alike. Differing from the three other plans that propose open
space throughout the building configuration, the Pacific Plan III calls for splitting Block
1120 into three sections. Divided by streets, the westernmost block, which is just under
1 acre, would be a park.
In further detailing Pacific Plan III, Mr. Hamilton has provided a pro forma using the
same costs of construction per square foot as FCR. All of the below costs are calculated
to the nearest thousand.
Table 2.1: Forest City Ratner Plan vs. Pacific Plan III
Forest City Ratner Co. Pacific Plan III
Land Acquisition: Public/Private $269,399 $199,908
New Public Streets: Paving $0.0 $172.8
New Public Streets: Curbs $0.0 $187.2
Upgraded & New Sidewalks $900.0 $984.0
Street trees and planters $1,050.0 $1,148.0
Street Lighting $1,237.5 $1,353.0
Demolition of Public Streets and
$315.6 $93.6
Utilities
Demolition of Existing Structures $20,075.0 $8,725.0
Source: Hamilton, R. Douglas. Comparative Cost Estimate & Pro Forma, 2006.
The Pacific Plan calls for the paving and curbing of 46,000 square feet of new public
streets as well as 7,200 square feet of infrastructure for new storm drains, domestic
water, sanitary, gas, and/or electric services. The pro forma reveals that the FCR
proposal does not include these necessary facility upgrades nor the paving and curbing
of new public streets. In addition to neighborhood beautification, the Pacific Plan notes
the importance of security and safety with a significantly higher number of new street
planters, trees, and lights. Lastly, while still significantly less than the Extell Plan, the
Pacific Plan calls for almost twice as much community facility space as the FCR plan.

One of the strongest elements of the Pacific Plan is the proposed lowering of the
maximum annual income to qualify for affordable housing. In lowering the amount
necessary to qualify for such housing, there would likely be less opposition as this will
more closely match the average median income of Brooklyn residents as opposed to the
New York MSA standard currently used by the FCR plan. The Pacific Plan III offers
some very solid benefits and alternatives that ought to be considered by both project
opponents and advocates.
ALTERNATIVE ARENA LOCATIONS
Many project opponents claim that it is not the building of an arena they are opposed to
but rather the use of eminent domain required to build the Arena. In fact, few would
argue that bringing a professional sports team back to Brooklyn would not generate
positive results, both economic and cultural. While sports facilities themselves have
proven to be money losers – again reiterated in Andrew Zimbalist’s economic analysis of
the FCR proposal as a whole - they have the potential to act as an economic engine for
many local businesses.
Alternative arena locations such as Coney Island, the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and the site
of the existing Atlantic Terminal Mall have all been cited as potential areas for such a
venue by DDDB and other community groups. Past initiatives that have proposed sports
facilities in Brooklyn include: New York City’s bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, the
1984 Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development Brooklyn
Sports Study, and the 1994 Brooklyn Sportsplex Development Plan.
Given its centrality and accessibility by public transportation, downtown Brooklyn

remains an attractive area for Brooklyn’s long-awaited sports facility. Understanding that
the use of eminent domain is unacceptable to many, this alternative arena location
analysis will examine the feasibility of the other above-mentioned locations. This
analysis will simply evaluate the pros and cons of each location but also recommends an
independent comprehensive economic feasibility study to determine the capacity of
each.
This study should be prepared by an outside agency that specializes in economic

development and like projects and has no relation to either of the opposing parties. This
should include an analysis of all existing transportation modes including current usage
and/or ridership, accessibility, maximum capacity, and forecasts of usage/ridership
during arena activity. Additionally, forecasts should provide figures based on build and
no-build alternatives. These forecasts should also factor in the number of additional
subways and/or ferries, as the case may be, necessary to move visitors in and out in a
timely fashion. Current season ticket holders and their place of residence should also be
factored in as a means to determine the percentage lost or gained based on arena
location and accessibility.
Atlantic Terminal Mall
Located within the immediate vicinity of the Atlantic Avenue Subway Station, the Atlantic
Terminal Mall is a viable location for the proposed arena. This space is already owned
by FCR, and has proved to be a poorly designed retail enclave that has further
deepened the hole in the center of downtown Brooklyn. In his article Atlantic Yards:
Staving Off a Scar for Decades, Pratt Professor Ron Shiffman rightly argues that the
area has been subject to “developers blight,” which cannot and should not be used to
justify the use of eminent domain to make way for an arena. Conversely, FCR claims
that the proposed development would enhance the character of the area and help tie
together the many neighborhoods that converge at the boundaries of the project
footprint. If the proposed development is anything like the Atlantic Terminal Mall, this
claim would be a false one.
Shiffman further points out that the Atlantic Terminal Mall is “a failed design with a
limited life expectancy that constitutes a major blighting on the border of Fort Greene,
near the proposed Atlantic Yards site.”3 If this is true, then conversion of this site to an
arena should be considered. It is located directly opposite the BAY, and this site would
offer the same economic advantages proposed by FCR and would not require the use of
eminent domain.
Located at the heart of Brooklyn and the third largest transportation hub in the City, the
building of an arena to replace the existing Atlantic Terminal Mall would, in fact, generate
a stronger sense of civic pride than locating the Arena in another more removed
location, such as Coney Island. An Arena in downtown Brooklyn offers the most public
transportation options. If in fact moving a sports team to Brooklyn is to act as a
generator of borough and city pride, accessibility to area residents is one of the most
important elements to be factored into the equation.
While it is understood that area residents are concerned with traffic congestion that
would likely occur during games times, there are a variety of both public transportation
and infrastructure improvements that can help ease the flow of traffic. An arena located
at the Atlantic Terminal Mall would:
…necessitate the reconstruction of the Atlantic Avenue Subway Station,
including the development of a concourse to accommodate larger
numbers of people, the development of an enhanced transit strategy
focused on regulating auto access, maximizing pedestrian access, and
emphasizing public mass transit access within Brooklyn, as well as
between Brooklyn, Long Island, New Jersey, and other parts of the city.4
When purchasing tickets, both season ticket holders and single game tickets should
receive public transit discounts, which would help discourage would-be drivers. While
studies have shown that parking at off-site locations such as Metro Tech would only
contribute to traffic congestion, there may be other options. For example, contracts
between the developer, private parking lot owners, and the city should be entertained. If
parking lots and garages were to charge higher fees during game times, the surcharge
could then be returned to the city for transportation and pedestrian improvements. This
has the potential to also encourage would-be drivers to utilize the many transit links at
the Atlantic Avenue Subway Station.
Brooklyn Navy Yard
Given the amount of available space, the Brooklyn Navy Yard remains an attractive site
for development. In fact, the 2012 bid to host the Olympic Games included the
3
Shiffman, Ron. Atlantic Yards: Staving Off a Scar for Decades. Accessed October 1, 2006 from
http://www.dddb.net.
4
Ibid.
development of this site to include an arena, green buildings (environmentally friendly),
both residential and commercial, and approximately 25,000 new parking spaces. If, and
when residential development takes place, ferry services will be installed to shuttle
people to and from other parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan. Despite the inclusion of an
arena in that plan and the availability of space, this site is limited in that there is little
access by public transportation and it could face legal battles if potential historic
landmarks are at risk. Additionally, it is likely that an arena would face strong opposition
from existing tenants who would like the space to remain for industrial and commercial
activity.
Coney Island
The continued interest in bringing a professional sports team back to Brooklyn has led to
a number of studies over the past three decades: the 1984 Brooklyn Sports Study:
Phase 1 Locational Analysis, the 1994 Brooklyn Sportsplex Development Plan, and the
less public Coney Island Arena Project prepared by the Pratt Institute Urban Planning
Studio taught by retired Professor Ralph Perfecto. The studies include a comprehensive
market analysis, acquisition plan, environmental impacts, traffic and transportation
impacts and accessibility, financing, and cost estimates. All consider Coney Island a
prime location for such a development. As noted in a variety of responses to the Atlantic
Yards DEIS, the claim that further examination of this site not be included as an
alternative because as “the land is no longer available” is simply not true.
According to Norman Oder’s weblog the Atlantic Yards Report, in the year prior to the
announcement of the FCR plan, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz was
advocating for a professional sports team to relocate to Coney Island. 5 Furthermore,
Brian Hatch, the former Salt Lake City deputy mayor who helped Utah prepare for the
2002 Winter Games and a regular analyst of New York City’s sports facilities, agrees
that an Arena would help revitalize the Coney Island area. The success of Keyspan
Park, both in terms of ticket sales and area redevelopment, is further indication of the
feasibility of a Coney Island Arena. Given that both basketball and baseball seasons fall
during the warmer months, high visitor volumes would presumably generate higher
revenues for seasonal attractions in the area.
While not located as centrally as the Atlantic Terminal Mall, Coney Island is accessible
by the D, F, N, and Q subway lines as well as the Belt Parkway, which connects to Long
Island, Queens, and Brooklyn and to Staten Island via the Verazzano Bridge. The
recent upgrades to the Stillwell Avenue subway terminal would be able to accommodate
the large influx of riders during game time. Despite its accessibility by public transit,
Coney Island is 45-60 minutes by car or train from Manhattan. If Coney Island is to
remain an attractive option for the Arena, more express trains would need to be added
during game times. The possibility of express trains leaving from primary subway
terminals, such as Times Square, should be explored in order to maintain optimum
attractiveness.
Given its proximity to the Belt Parkway, which connects with the BQE, locating the arena
at Coney Island could help retain existing Nets season ticket holders from New Jersey
and Connecticut. It is estimated that approximately 30 percent of current season ticket
holders would remain if the Nets moved to Brooklyn. However, the BQE already
5
Atlantic Yards Report: http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/
experiences high volumes and countless hours of slow moving traffic. There are
numerous viable parking options such as the city owned land adjacent to Astroland Park.
A monorail could be installed to shuttle people to and from the Arena, Keyspan Park,
and Astroland Park.
Despite the attractiveness of locating the Arena at Coney Island, in order to truly make
the Brooklyn Nets a Brooklyn team, the Arena location should be more central and
accessible to area residents.
CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS
• The four varying development proposals for the BAY provide an insightful yet
differing view of the agendas of developers and those of neighborhood residents.
• The UNITY Plan acts as the backdrop for the Principles for Responsible
Community Development. These are principles that any developer should follow
when designing a development proposal for the BAY.
• The Pacific Plan III most appropriately addresses community concerns. This plan
represents a middle ground between all the proposals and is a practical mixed-use
development.
• An independent economic feasibility study should be conducted to determine which
arena location offers the most benefits while incurring the fewest negative impacts.
To ensure that this study is conducted, evidence from previous Brooklyn arena
studies should be considered.
• If an arena is to be built in Brooklyn, it should replace the existing Atlantic Terminal
Mall in Downtown Brooklyn.

Neighborhood Character:
A Study of Area Demographics, Affordable
Housing and Schools
Study Authors: Darnell Sutton and Danielle Oglesby
INTRODUCTION
In December 2003, Forest City Ratner (FCR) announced its plan for a large scale mixed-
use development over the current Brooklyn Atlantic Yards (BAY) site and several
adjacent city blocks. The development plan includes 16 residential and commercial
towers reaching as high as 58 stories and an arena6. The proposed plan has raised
many concerns from area residents, because the scale is considerably larger than other
developments surrounding the site. This section of the Hunter Spring 2006 Atlantic
Yards Studio tries to address the questions related to how the existing character of the
neighborhoods surrounding the BAY will be affected by the proposed FCR development.
After initial review of U.S. Census data, four preliminary questions were formulated: 1)
what effect will this project have on the existing racial, ethnic, and income diversity of the
surrounding neighborhoods; 2) how can the proposed project coexist without
displacement of low- and moderate- income residents in the contiguous neighborhoods
around the rail yards; 3) will the proposed housing be affordable for the current
population; and 4) what effect will the proposed project have on schools within the
surrounding communities. In an attempt to answer these questions, this study analyzes
trends in population, race, income and housing based on decennial data from 1950 to
2000. Upon completion, we tried to determine how the trends would be impacted by
such a development.
METHODOLOGY
As requested by the community groups, the study area in this analysis encompasses a
one mile radius around the proposed FCR project footprint as displayed in figure 3.1.
We chose this radius in response to the Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) put
out by FCR which examined only those areas within a ¾ mile radius of the footprint.
Census tracts were incorporated into the study area if at least half of the tract was
located within one mile of the project site. The study area is comprised of 68 individual
census tracts, representing 11 different neighborhoods. Various socio-economic
indicators were compiled and analyzed for all the census tracts within the study area
from 1950 to 2000. The DEIS only considered data from 1980 to 2000, and community
groups felt that analysis of the project should take into account long-term historical
trends. Furthermore, trends were analyzed by studying the one mile radius area
independently, and then compared it to the entire borough of Brooklyn and the eight tract
area within or directly abutting the proposed project footprint. These eight tracts are
outlined in red in figure 3.2.
6
Atlantic Yards Website: http://www.atlanticyards.com/html/ay/atlanticyards.html
Neighborhood Character Study
Figure 3.1: One Mile Study Area
Our analysis suggests that if the Atlantic Yards project is developed as outlined in the
final scoping document, it will exacerbate recent trends toward racial and income
divides within the study area, most significantly in the eight census tracts directly
bordering the footprint of the proposed project site. Research also finds that the
affordable housing component of the proposed project does not come close to meeting
the housing needs of the large percentage of low- and moderate- income residents living
in study area. The unit sizes in the affordable housing component do not reflect
household size in the study area. We believe that the project can preserve existing
racial and economic diversity and prevent further divides by assuring there would be no
displacement of low- and moderate- income residents from the study area and more
specifically from the eight tracts directly bordering the FCR project site.
The Neighborhoods
As mentioned above, the study area is comprised of portions of eleven different

neighborhoods. Although the boundaries of the various neighborhoods may cross one
another, the below listed communities are represented within the Neighborhood
Character Study.

Figure 3.2: Neighborhoods Included in the One Mile Study Area
Brooklyn Heights
Originally called Brooklyn Village, Brooklyn Heights is bordered on the east by Court
Street and Cadman Plaza, on the west by the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, on the
south by Atlantic Avenue, and on the north by the Brooklyn Bridge. Brooklyn Heights
adjoins Downtown Brooklyn, Cobble Hill and the DUMBO areas of Brooklyn. As the
closest part of Brooklyn to Downtown Manhattan, which is easily accessible via the
Brooklyn Bridge and multiple subway lines, it was the first neighborhood protected by the
1965 Landmarks Preservation Law of New York City. This neighborhood is comprised
of mostly White residents and has a per capita income of $60,973. Although Brooklyn
Heights has a large percentage of upper income residents, 14% of residents in Brooklyn
Heights live in poverty.
Cobble Hill
In the 1930s and 1940s Cobble Hill was known as Red Hook. Since its inception in the
1950s, Cobble Hill has been a residential enclave for middle income professionals and

currently has a sizable population of senior citizens. The area consists of mostly White
upper income residents. Over the past few years, the Court Street commercial strip has
experienced an explosion of sidewalk cafes and Atlantic Avenue has become a popular
place for exotic foods, gifts and restaurants. The area’s real estate has soared due to
the high demand for housing in this neighborhood.
Carroll Gardens
Historically considered part of Red Hook or South Brooklyn, Carroll Gardens was
renamed in the 1960’s when the area underwent a period of gentrification. Primarily a
residential community, the neighborhood is characterized by narrow one way streets and
a series of unusually deep blocks featuring brownstone and brick-faced row houses with
deep front yards and standard back yards. The area was settled by Irish Americans in
the early 19th century and has since become home to Italian residents who have
remained the most prominent ethnic group in the neighborhood. In recent years Carroll
Gardens has experienced a renaissance that has yielded a new wave of restaurants and
high end specialty shops along side traditional Mom and Pop stores on Smith Street and
Court Street. The neighborhood has stayed predominantly White and many upper and
middle income residents live in the area.
Boerum Hill
Boerum Hill is a small segment of Brooklyn roughly bounded by State Street to the north,
3rd Avenue to the east, Court Street to the west, and Warren Street to the south. In the
late 1960s, many of the buildings in this area were slated for demolition. Historically a
Puerto Rican and African American neighborhood, Boerum Hill is now home to many
White residents and is attracting professionals in their twenties and thirties. Boerum Hill
is adjacent to many neighborhoods that have majority White populations. However, it is
home to a New York City Housing Authority property. Boerum Hill does have a large
White population but parts of this neighborhood have a mix of different racial groups.
The neighborhood does contain many upper and moderate income residents.
Park Slope
Park Slope is primarily a White middle and upper income residential neighborhood with
an array of massive apartment buildings, brick dwellings, mansions, churches and row
houses. It contains the borough’s largest historic district with various architectural styles
including: Romanesque Revival, Queen Anne, and Renaissance style brownstone row
houses, mansions and institutions. The population is mostly upper income and typically
young professionals and families attracted by the neighborhood’s proximity to
Manhattan. The lower Slope, around Fifth Avenue, is more economically and racially
diverse but in this area there are continuing displacement pressures.
Prospect Heights
Prospect Heights is centrally located within the study area, with the BAY located at its
northern border. The neighborhood, which historically consisted primarily of residential
brownstones, has seen numerous condo developments over the past few years. The
area is the most racially diverse neighborhood within the study area; however, Atlantic
Avenue separates the racial groups within the neighborhood. The north side of Atlantic
Avenue is mainly Black, while the south side which has been home to Blacks, Whites
and Hispanics, is gentrifying with an influx of young, predominately White residents.
The neighborhood is comprised of mostly moderate and middle-income households.
Prospect Heights is home the Brooklyn Public Library, Brooklyn Botanical Garden and
the Brooklyn Museum.
Fort Greene
Fort Greene is known for its tree-lined streets and elegant low-rise housing. The
neighborhood also includes a number of public housing developments which house a
large portion of the community’s low-income population. Fort Greene is a racially
diverse neighborhood characterized by pockets of primarily Black residents and other
areas that are home to a number of races but experiencing an influx of White residents.
Fort Greene is a mostly middle-income neighborhood, but has pockets of low- and
moderate-income households as well. The neighborhood is home to several important
cultural institutions like the Brooklyn Academy of Music, the Brooklyn Music School, The
Paul Robeson Theater, Urban Glass Works, Lafayette Church, and Fort Greene Park.
Clinton Hill
The Clinton Hill community was historically lined with rows of brownstones accented by
historic mansions. Today these structures are complimented by luxury townhouse and
condo developments. Clinton Hill has a mix of low- and middle-income residents
reflecting its current shift toward a higher income neighborhood. Portions of the
community have been predominately Black since the 1950s while other areas were more
diverse. Clinton Hill has been experiencing an increase of White, middle-income
residents since the 1980s. Clinton Hill is home to Pratt Institute, one of the leading art
schools in the United States.
Bedford Stuyvesant
Bedford-Stuyvesant began as an amalgam of two middle class communities of old

Brooklyn: Bedford and Stuyvesant Heights. Today it is a mixed income community and is
one of the city’s two major black enclaves. The southern and western portions comprise
masonry row housing by middle-income residents, while the northeastern section has
considerable numbers of public housing projects which are occupied by the low-income
population. Churches are the center of family life in the neighborhood. Major institutions
include The Center for Art and Culture of Bedford-Stuyvesant, Concord Baptist Church,
Billie Holiday Theatre, Akwaaba Mansion bed and breakfast, and the YMCA of Bedford-
Stuyvesant.
Crown Heights
The Crown Heights community originally housed a primarily Jewish population, which
declined and then was reinforced by a re-infusion of Orthodox Jews. Since the 1970s,
Crown Heights has also gained a large Black population, and has become home to
many West Indian immigrants. Residents of Crown Heights represent a diverse mix of
income levels including low-, moderate- and middle-income households.

Prospect Lefferts Garden
Prospect Lefferts Gardens is bordered by Empire Boulevard on the north, Clarkson

Avenue on the south, Ocean Avenue and Prospect Park on the west and New York
Avenue on the east. The neighborhood is named for a few of its attractions: Prospect
Park, the Lefferts family homestead, and the nearby Botanical Gardens. Prospect
Lefferts Gardens is home to many Black middle income people and many people of
West Indian descent.
STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS 1950 – 2000
Population
The population trends of those living within the one mile study area exhibit a consistent
decline from 1950 to 1980 at which time the trend reverses and population begins to
increase. Research also shows that these trends are consistent with those of the
Borough of Brooklyn; however the changes within the one mile study area and the eight
tracts bordering the FCR proposed development are more severe than that of the entire
borough.
Total population for the one mile study area decreased from 289,696 in 1950 to 211,500
in 2000. The population decline occurred primarily during 1970 to 1980. This decline
was primarily noted within Fort Greene, Bedford Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Park Slope,
and Clinton Hill. This is attributed to a declining White population, which comprised 47%
of the total study area’s population in 1970, and only 31% in 1980.
This declining trend began to reverse between 1990 and 2000, with each of the three
areas studied showing increasing populations by the last decade. While population
trends are consistent within the three previously mentioned areas, our research found
that the changes within the one mile study area and the eight tracts surrounding the FCR
footprint were more severe than the changes that occurred in Brooklyn as a whole. Most
noteworthy is that during the last decade of the study, growth within the eight tract
area considerably outpaced growth in the other two areas.

Population Trends
AREA 1950- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990-
2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Brooklyn -9.96% -4.02% -1.00% -14.26% 3.13% 7.16%
Study Area -27.92% -4.81% -8.77% -18.20% 2.71% 0.06%
Tracts -22.71% -4.02% -7.68% -17.46% -5.56% 11.89%

Surrounding
FCR
Footprint
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Table 3.1: Population Trends for Brooklyn, the One Mile Study Area, and the Eight Tracts
Surrounding the FCR Footprint
Table 3.1 shows that since 1980, the one mile study area has seen a population
increase, but the increase was greater in the eight census tracts directly bordering the
project footprint. This would not appear to be consistent with suggestions that the area
is “blighted.”
Racial Composition
Over the 50 year review period the study area experienced a dramatic change in racial
composition. As illustrated in figure 3.3, the study area changed from one of 80% White
and 20% Black in 1950 to 33% White, 51% Black, and 16% Other in 2000.7 We found
that most of the neighborhoods within the study area have always had one predominant
racial group which has constituted more than half of its total population. In some cases
the race constituting the majority of the population has remained the same while in other
cases, the majority race has changed over the course of the study period.
7
“Other” category is mainly comprised of Hispanic individuals of any origin.
Study Area Race Trends
100%
90%
80%
Percent of Total
70%
60%
Other
50%
Black
40%
White
30%
20%
10%
0%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 3.3: Race Trends for the One Mile Study Area
During the 50 year period, several of the neighborhoods within the study were
consistently comprised of a majority (greater than 50%) race. The neighborhoods of
Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill and Park Slope were consistently comprised of a majority
White population, while Bedford Stuyvesant and a portion of Clinton Hill remained largely
Black. With the exception of these neighborhoods, the study area experienced overall
changes in racial composition. The most notable change was during the 1970s when
the Black population increased and the White population decreased. Consequently,
Crown Heights, Clinton Hill, and parts of Fort Greene and Prospect Heights became
largely Black areas.
As seen in figure 3.4, the study area is highly segregated with respect to race. The green
tracts represent a majority White population, the blue tracts represent a majority Black
population, and the pink represents tracts where no one race constituted more than 50%
of the population. In 2000, more than 75% of the census tracts included within the one
mile study area were characterized by one race representing more than half of its
population. Flatbush Avenue serves as the dividing line between the different racial
groups where the neighborhoods east of Flatbush Avenue were primarily Black; while
neighborhoods west of Flatbush Avenue were primarily White.

Figure 3.4: Year 2000 Majority Race by Census Tract
Even with the noted segregation, in 2000 there were more census tracts where no one
race represented more than half of the total population than any previous census period
going back to 1950. Primarily located in Boerum Hill, Fort Greene, and Prospect
Heights, fifteen tracts or 22% of all tracts in the study area had no majority race in 2000.
After consistently declining as a proportion of the total population, the White population
within the one mile study area began to increase again in 1980, exhibiting an average
growth rate of 4.21% between 1980 and 2000. The eight census tracts adjacent to the
FCR project footprint experienced a significantly larger average increase in its White
population of 21.78% during the same time periods. Individual census tract growth rates
were as high as 59.12% (tract 129.01) in 1980-90 and 67.7% (tract 199) in 1990-2000.
The eight tracts surrounding the FCR project site have witnessed an increase in White
population and two of these tracts are racially mixed. The preservation of the limited
diversity that remains can be an important factor in any development which occurs in
Downtown Brooklyn.
Median Household Income
As seen in Figure 3.6, both the study area and the eight tracts abutting the FCR footprint
have significantly higher median household incomes than Brooklyn. The one mile study
area had an average median household income of approximately $10,000 more than

Brooklyn and the eight tracts had a median household income that exceeded Brooklyn’s
by more than $15,000. When comparing the study area’s population and income data for
2000, we see a direct correlation to an increase in the White population and median
household income, indicating neighborhood gentrification and economic prosperity even
without the proposed FCR development.
$60,000
$50,000
$48,642
$41,184
$40,000
Household Income
$32,125
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Brooklyn Study Area Tracts Surrounding FCR
Footprint
Source: U.S. Census
Figure 3.5: Median Household Income for Brooklyn, the One Mile Study Area, and the Eight
Tracts Surrounding the FCR Footprint, 2000
Figure 3.7 shows that most of the census tracts within the one mile study area have
middle- or upper-incomes when using the Brooklyn Area Median Income. Census tracts
in the study area that have lower incomes are located away from the center of the study
area.

Figure 3.6: Year 2000 Census Tract Income as Percent of Brooklyn Area Median Income
The map indicates that there is no income diversity within the eight tract area as all the
tracts have incomes >120% of Brooklyn’s median income. FCR’s proposed market rate
housing development will increase the number of upper income residents in the area,
which will continue to push low- and moderate- income residents away from the center
of the study area. We recommend that FCR use the area median income for
Brooklyn and not the area median income for the New York Primary Metropolitan
Statistical Area (PMSA). The income used for the PMSA is higher than the income
used for Brooklyn and does not represent the incomes of those currently living
near the BAY.
In 2000, there were 26 tracts within the one mile study area that had median household
incomes below that of Brooklyn. These tracts were located in Bedford Stuyvesant,
Clinton Hill, Boerum Hill and the northern border of Fort Greene. A decade earlier there
were 32 tracts within the study area that had a median household income below that of
Brooklyn ($25,684). These lower income tracts were located in Brooklyn Heights,
Boerum Hill, Crown Heights, Bedford Stuyvesant, and Prospect Lefferts Gardens.
Housing
Housing trends for the one mile study area are consistent with overall trends in Brooklyn.
Changes within the eight tracts were again more pronounced than the larger one mile
area and Brooklyn as a whole. The total housing units for the one mile area experienced
a net increase of 11.72%, from 85,734 units in 1950 to 95,784 units in 2000. The study
area experienced its largest increase in housing units during the 1950s when total units
increased by 15.35% to 98,898. Since that time housing units have decreased an
average of 2.55% percent each decade until 1990. Housing units increased 4.72%
between 1990 and 2000.
Illustrated in Table 3.2, the housing stock has grown over the last five decades. For each
of the three areas, the largest percentage increase occurred during the first decade of
the study. The eight tracts adjacent to the proposed Atlantic Yards project footprint
experienced the greatest percent increase in total units. As the number of units began
to increase during the 1990s, the growth occurring in the eight border tracts was
considerably greater than that of the one mile study area and Brooklyn. These
combined eight tracts experienced a net increase of 1,005 or 12.36% during the last
decade of the study period. This represents a concentration of 23% of all new units in
the entire one mile study area. Tract 203 in Prospect Heights is the only tract showing a
net decrease over the course of the study period. Interestingly, this tract shows a net
decrease in every decade except for the period from 1990 to 2000, where it experienced
the highest percentage increase of all eight tracts abutting the BAY.
Even though the study area as a whole experienced a net increase in total dwelling units
over the 50 year period, several neighborhoods experienced a significant net decrease
in their housing stock. The biggest losses occurred in the neighborhoods of Fort Greene
and Brooklyn Heights.
Housing Trends
Percent Change in Housing Units
AREA 1950- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990-
2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Brooklyn 14.34% 7.57% 3.07% -2.35% -0.87% 6.55%
Study Area 11.72% 15.35% -5.01% -2.03% -0.62% 4.72%
Tracts 24.03% 35.60% -9.47% -6.71% -3.60% 12.36%

Surrounding
FCR Footprint
Source: U.S> Census Bureau
Table 3.2: Housing Unit Trends for Brooklyn, the One Mile Study Area, and the Eight Tracts
Surrounding the FCR Footprint
The one mile study area was comprised of 87% renter occupied units and 13% owner
occupied units in 1950. Renter dominancy remained steady into the 1970’s when
renters made up 88% of all occupied housing units. The one mile study area witnessed
a shift to homeownership between 1980 and 2000. Between 1980 and 1990, Crown
Heights experienced the largest percent increase of homeownership, while the Brooklyn
Heights neighborhood experienced the largest percent increase of homeownership
between 1990 and 2000. Approximately 23% of occupied units in the one mile study
area were owner occupied by 2000. This is the highest percentage of homeownership
throughout the 50 year period. The neighborhoods with the largest increase in
homeownership were those which contained census tracts with majority Black and
mixed race populations. More recent homeownership rates prove that the study area is
thriving and that there is a higher demand for homeownership then ever before.
Affordable Housing
According to the Final Scope of Analysis, FCR proposes to build 6,860 residential
housing units within the development of which 4,500 would be rental apartments. The
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FCR and ACORN states that fifty
percent of these rental apartments will be allocated as affordable housing in accordance
with the ACORN/Atlantic Yards 50/50 Program. Generally, affordable rental projects use
median income guidelines set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development:
very low-income < 50% of area median income; low-income 51% - 80% of area median
income; moderate-income 81% - 100% of area median income. The guidelines outlined
in the MOU however, include incomes as high as 160% of area median income in its mix
of affordable rental units.
The study area is included within the New York PMSA, which had an area median
income of $56,200 in 2000. When comparing the one mile study area median
household income of $41,184 to the New York PMSA median income, the study area
median income is significantly lower. As illustrated by figure 3.7, when using the 2000
New York PMSA, 63% or 43 of 68 census tracts within the study area reported a
majority of low- or moderate household incomes. Notwithstanding, under the best-case
scenario of the ACORN/Atlantic Yards 50/50 Program, only 30% of all rental units will be
targeted to this population. Thus, the proportion of affordable housing allocated for low-
and moderate-income households is out of scale with the average median household
incomes of residents living in the study area. This means that large numbers of
residents currently living within a one mile radius of the BAY are at risk of being
displaced by rents that are out of their price range.

Figure 3.7: Year 2000 New York Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area Majority Income
Group by Census Tract
Our research found that most low- and moderate-income tracts were located in the
majority Black and racially mixed areas. Of the eight tracts abutting the proposed BAY
site, the four majority Black census tracts (35, 179, 199, 203) all reported moderate
household incomes, while the majority White and racially diverse tracts (129.01, 129.02,
161, 163) all reported middle household incomes. The four majority Black, moderate-
income tracts and the majority White and racially mixed middle-income tracts are
physically divided by Atlantic Avenue. This finding is indicative of the race and income
divides within the eight tracts surrounding the footprint. The FCR project has the
potential to further perpetuate area divisions in the future since Black, low and moderate-
income households will most likely suffer displacement resulting from the
disproportionate amount of units allocated for low and moderate-income households.
FCR’s affordable housing scenario outlines that 50% of the affordable rental units will be
studio and one bedroom apartments, and 50% will be two and three bedroom
apartments. Our research found that only 12 of the 68 census tracts in the study
area, or 18% of the total had an average household size of two people or less.

This suggests that the proposed mix of studio, one-, two- and three bedroom units is
also disproportionate to the average household size of residents currently living within
the one mile study area.
The percentage of housing units which experienced overcrowding in the study area
ranged between 4.75% and 34.51%. According to the U.S. Census, overcrowding is
defined as more than one person per room per dwelling unit. Significant overcrowding is
defined as more than 10% of all housing units reporting overcrowding. Most of the
census tracts within the one mile study area reported having significant overcrowding
between 1950 and 1970. This trend improved between 1990 and 2000, with close to
two third of all tracts reporting significant overcrowding in 1990, and less than half (43%)
in 2000. There is also a relationship between overcrowding and household income
levels. Overcrowding was concentrated in low income census tracts reporting a majority
Black population. In 2000, 28 of 29 tracts which reported significant overcrowding also
reported median household incomes in the low- or moderate-income brackets.
According to the 2000 Census data, overcrowding was most pronounced in the Bedford
Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Fort Greene and Clinton Hill neighborhoods. Additionally,
three of the eight census tracts adjacent to the proposed BAY site (35, 179, 203), all of
which are majority Black census tracts, also reported significant overcrowding. This
further illustrates that there is a greater need for larger units in the study area.
Additionally, the need is more pronounced in the neighborhoods surrounding the
BAY site.
School Enrollment
The FCR proposal includes building four charter schools which the Community Benefits
Agreement (CBA) states can be located anywhere within the surrounding community,
subject to appropriate government authorities. There are currently 47 public and private
schools and one charter school within the one mile study area serving students from
kindergarten through twelfth grade. In 2000, there were 29,685 public school students
and 5,188 private school students in grades K-12 in the study area. The study area only
showed an increase of public school enrollment between 1960 and 1970. Public school
enrollment declined every decade thereafter, with a 40% decline between 1970 and
2000. Private school enrollment declined every decade from 1960 through 1990
however, evidence shows that the study area has experienced an increase in private
school enrollment between 1990 and 2000. Figure 3.8 shows the change in school
enrollment for both public and private schools in the study area from 1960 to 2000.8
8
1950 school enrollment data was not available
One Mile Study Area
School Enrollment
60000
50000
49542
Number of Students Enrolled
43713
40000
32706 public school

30000
31335 private school
29685
20000
13801
10000
11109
7013 5188
4828
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Decade
Source: US Census
Figure 3.8: Public School and Private School Enrollment
The Brooklyn Heights neighborhood witnessed the largest enrollment of public school
students between 1990 to 2000, while Park Slope and Boerum Hill had the largest
private school enrollments. Brooklyn Heights witnessed the largest percent increase of
public school enrollment over the study period between 1960 and 1970 and the Bedford
Stuyvesant neighborhood had the largest percent increase of private school enrollment
between 1960 and 1970.
Brooklyn as a whole has experienced a large increase in student enrollment since 2000.
Borough President Marty Markowitz reported that in 2003, 93 primary and intermediate
school facilities in Brooklyn operated at or above capacity and 28% of Brooklyn's primary
and intermediate school students attended overcrowded schools. Very overcrowded
schools exceed capacity by 120% or more. Thirty of the reported 93 overcrowded
schools were found to be very overcrowded.9
The proposed FCR development is located within Community School District 13 which
includes: Brooklyn Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bedford Stuyvesant, and Prospect
Heights. Since 2000, the district has reported having 24 public schools with
approximately 14,685 students and is comprised of a majority Black population
representing 79% of the district’s total enrollment. Also located within the study area is
Community School District 15 which includes Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens,
Boerum Hill and four additional neighborhoods outside of the study area (Red Hook,
Sunset Park, Gowanus and Borough Park). District 15 includes 36 public schools and
9 th
May 29 Press Release: http://www.brooklyn-usa.org/Press/2003/may29.htm
approximately 20,754 students. More ethnically diverse than District 13, District 15
schools are comprised of the following: 51% of students are Hispanic, 21% White, 17%
Black, and 11% Other. Thirty seven percent of District 15 schools reported exceeding
their capacity, while only 1% of District 13 schools reported the same.10 Though FCR’s
proposed development is located in District 13, many of the schools within the entire
study area will be burdened by the added number of students, which should be
addressed prior to any development in the area. Currently, FCR is not obligated to
help pay for measures to accommodate added students in Brooklyn’s public
school system. We recommend that FCR be held liable for funding new public
school construction and/or the use of satellite locations for any increase of public
school enrollment.
As outlined in the CBA, FCR has agreed to provide four charter schools which will be
targeted for construction technology, sports management, information technology, and
music and film. These schools are not sufficient for serving elementary and intermediate
school students in the study area. FCR’s proposed development may cause
displacement to current residents and the new residents who can afford FCR’s market
rate units may opt to send their children to private schools. Further disinvestment in the
area’s public schools will have a detrimental affect on the school funding for lower
income populations who are able to continue living in the area. The FCR project can
also have the ability to move lower income people out of the neighborhoods surrounding
the Bay and leave public schools underutilized which would also have a negative affect
on school funding for the public schools located in Community School Districts 13 and
15.
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
• If the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project is developed as outlined in the final scoping
document, it will exacerbate recent trends toward racial and income divides
within one mile of the project footprint, especially in the eight census tracts
directly bordering the footprint.
• Our research found that the population changes within the one mile study area
and the eight tracts surrounding the FCR footprint were more severe than the
changes that occurred in Brooklyn as a whole. During the last decade of the
study, growth within the eight tracts surrounding the BAY considerably outpaced
growth in the one mile study area and Brooklyn as a whole.
• The FCR development of the BAY is likely to cause changes in the current racial
trends in the study area. As of 2000, Flatbush Avenue has served as a racial
divide between the area’s different racial groups and a project on the scale of
BAY is likely to reinforce that divide.
• The one mile study area and the eight tracts surrounding the FCR footprint have
reported significantly higher median household incomes than Brooklyn as a
whole. The four majority Black moderate-income tracts and the four majority
White and racially mixed middle-income tracts around the FCR project are
separated by a primary thoroughfare running through the BAY development,
Atlantic Avenue.
• We recommend that FCR use the area median income for Brooklyn and not the
New York Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area when determining affordability for
10
New York City Department of Education District Performance Profiles
area residents. The income used for the PMSA is significantly higher than the
income for Brooklyn and does not represent the income of those currently living
near the BAY.
• Our research found that none of the census tracts reported only 12 of the 68
census tracts in the study area, or 18% of the total, have an average household
size of two people or less.
• Thus there is a greater need for larger housing units in the study area than studio
or one bedroom units. Additionally, the need is more pronounced in the
neighborhoods surrounding the BAY footprint.
• FCR is not now obligated to fund increased measures to accommodate added
students in Brooklyn’s public school system for the development. We
recommend that FCR be held liable for funding new public school construction
and/or the use of satellite locations to accommodate increases in public school
students.

REFERENCES
Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
http://www.empire.state.ny.us.
Atlantic Yard Arena and Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Statement Final
Scope of Analysis. http://www.empire.state.ny.us.
Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) entered into by and among Atlantic Yards
Development Co. LLC; Brooklyn Arena LLC; All-Faith Council of Brooklyn;
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now; Brooklyn United for
Innovative Local Development; Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance;
Downtown Brooklyn Educational Consortium; First Atlantic Terminal Housing
Committee; New York State Association of Minority Contractors; and Public
Housing Communities. http://www.dddb.net, June 2005.
Gillison, Douglas. Neighborhoods Close-Up On: Boerum Hill. http://newyorkmag.com.
Haimson, Leonie. The City’s Resistance to Cutting Class Size Children First 2005 –
2009 Five-Year Capital Plan Proposed 2006 Amendment City of New York.
http://source.nycsca.org/pdf/may06plan-amendent_region_based.pdf. May 2006.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Atlantic yards Development Company,

LLC and Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
http://www.dddb.net, May 2005.
NYC Department of City Planning Community District Profiles, http://www.nyc.gov
US Census Bureau. Detailed Tables – American Fact Finder.

http://www.factfinder.census.gov, Accessed January 2006.
US Charter Schools – New York State Profile. http://www.UScharterschools.org,

Accessed May 2006.
White, Norval and Willensky, Elliot. AIA Guide to New York City: The Classic Guide to
New York's Architecture. Fourth Edition. Three Rivers Press. New York 2000.
New York City Department of Education, http://www.nycenet.edu/default.aspx, Accessed

May 2006.
Brooklyn Neighborhood Websites, http://web.honorscollege.cuny.edu/student-

projects/2005/neighborhoods, Accessed May 2006.
Press Release, http://www.brooklyn-usa.org/Press/2003/may29.htm, Accessed May 2006.
Atlantic Yards Project Website, http://www.atlanticyards.com/html/ay/atlanticyards.html,

Accessed May 2006.
U.S. Decennial Census, 1950-2000.

http://www. Oasisnyc.net October 2006.
http//www.brooklynheightsassociation.org/census.html October 2006.
http//www.nymag.com/realestate/articles/neighborhoods/cobblehill October 2006.

Bringing Balance to Brooklyn Streets:
A Transportation, Transit, and Pedestrian Study
Study Authors: Brooke Dubose, Karen London, and Steven Perrotta
INTRODUCTION
As Downtown Brooklyn undergoes an economic renaissance, many residents have been

more vocal about the lack of community involvement within different planning processes.
Several major development projects stand to significantly alter the urban landscape of
Downtown Brooklyn and the surrounding population. The proposed Forest City Ratner
(FCR) Brooklyn Atlantic Yards (FCR) development would certainly have a huge impact,
which the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will attempt to address. Community
activists who oppose this project, most notably Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB),
have cited major concerns over the scale of FCR’s development proposal. The
community has also expressed concern about the development’s impact on
transportation.
The Brooklyn Council of Neighborhoods (“Council”) Community Survey indicated that

transportation, including transit, traffic, and pedestrian issues, was the most important
concern with regard to the FCR proposed development. Our research demonstrates
that transportation demand is growing and will continue to do so. The proposed project
could only increase this demand. This is a critical opportunity to design safe and vital
public spaces with more sustainable transportation policies. In response to this concern,
we studied travel and pedestrian patterns in Downtown Brooklyn.
This study includes a critique of FCR’s proposed pedestrian improvements and the
revised EIS scope, and a summary of current pedestrian conditions around the FCR
footprint (specifically the proposed arena). Current conditions were studied using crash
data, pedestrian counts, and pedestrian behavior analysis. Pedestrian volumes were
projected where the FCR development will be built. This chapter concludes with design
and policy recommendations.
FINDINGS
Transportation/Trip Generation
Information from the Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint: Technical

Memorandum Existing and Anticipated Issues, May 2005, was used to contextualize the
issues and impacts of the proposed Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project.
FCR’s project description in the Final Scope of Analysis explains that the proposed
development involves the reconfiguration, improvement, and platforming of the storage
and inspection uses of the Long Island Railroad Vanderbilt Yard (“rail yard”) and the
clearance, planning, and reconstruction of streets in the project footprint. The proposed
development considers two program variations: residential mixed-use and commercial
mixed-use. The commercial mixed-use variation would provide flexibility in the
development plan to allow project sponsors to meet potential future demand for office
space in a location that will take advantage of the third largest transit hub in New York
Transportation, Transit & Pedestrians
City. This area is in close proximity to recent commercial development in Downtown
Brooklyn. The uses for three of the project’s 16 buildings are not fixed and mixture of
residential and commercial uses could vary.
At full build-out, the residential mixed-use variation would include approximately 606,000
gross square feet (gsf) of commercial office space, 165,000 gsf of hotel use
(approximately 180 rooms), 247,000 gsf of retail and community facility space, up to
6.79 million gsf of residential use (approximately 6,860 residential units), approximately
3,800 parking spaces, more than 7 acres of publicly accessible open space, and the
proposed 850,000 gsf arena, which would accommodate 18,000 to 20,500 seats and
provide approximately one acre of private open space on its roof. Additionally, the
proposed project would include an Urban Room, a publicly accessible covered
pedestrian space and connection to the Atlantic Terminal mass transit complex.
The development will create to new travel demand in the area. Residents are worried
that already congested streets will be forced to take on additional traffic, which they
cannot handle. In addition to the daily traffic from the multitude of new residents, as well
as those operating in the commercial areas, residents fear that special events held in the
proposed arena will draw unmanageable amounts of traffic from other areas of New
York City and New Jersey. People traveling from Manhattan will put massive strain on
the subway systems, while those from Long Island, Queens, outer Brooklyn and New
Jersey will fill the streets with additional automobiles.
The streets and subway lines of Downtown Brooklyn have experienced reoccurring
congestion for many years. The 1984 Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Factbook
produced by the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) identified
corridors and areas in the Downtown that experienced congestion and spillover traffic.
These problems continue to face Downtown Brooklyn today, and many of them are
getting worse as the Downtown continues to grow.
Downtown Brooklyn Blueprint
During the past twenty years, the growth in Downtown Brooklyn has been reflected in
increased transit ridership. The Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint Study
Area which includes the footprint of the FCR project experienced a 50% increase in
ridership from 1997 to 2002. This increase is attributed to rehabilitation efforts, fare
policies, and overall revitalization and job growth in Downtown. The trend is likely to
increase even without the addition of FCR’s project.

Figure 4.1: Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint Study Area
Even though alternative travel modes such as walking and bicycling have grown
significantly in the area, the percentage of commuters driving to work alone in the
downtown core has also grown since 1980. The Downtown Brooklyn Blueprint reported
that the percentage of single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuting trips increased from a
little over 21% in 1980 to 28% in 2000. It is likely that this trend will also increase, as
more residents move to the area and add vehicles to the streets. According to the
Downtown Brooklyn Blueprint and 2000 Census data, the 59% transit share of commuter
trips in Downtown Brooklyn already exceeds the transit share in several other major
downtowns in the country. The FCR project, with its added commercial and residential
development will increase stress on transit as well as add to already congested
automobile traffic.
The Downtown Blueprint indicates that:
The Flatbush Avenue corridor, one of Downtown Brooklyn’s main north-south arterials, experiences
recurring traffic congestion, particularly at its intersection with Atlantic Avenue/4th Avenue, and at
the intersection with Tillary Street, the gateway intersection for the Manhattan Bridge. There are
only a limited number of east-west through roadways such as Schermerhorn and Livingston Streets
and Atlantic Avenue. Fulton Street, one of the few east-west through streets, is closed to all but
transit and pedestrians.
According to the Draft Scope of Work, Forest City Ratner’s project “would entail a
number of permanent roadway closures.” FCR’s proposed road closures would mostly
affect side streets, limiting alternative routes through downtown, but this would also
increase the volume of traffic on main roads and potentially intensify already existing
congestion in the area.

Pedestrian Impacts
Aaron Naparstek, a long-time community activist on transportation issues in Brooklyn,

wrote an article titled, Seven Solutions to the Atlantic Yards Traffic Problem. His
recommendations include improving public transit facilities and service while creating
more incentives to use it, limiting parking, and managing transit through permits and
meters (following the work of U.S.C. transportation planning professor Donald Shoup),
moving forward with developing Bus Rapid Transit along Flatbush Avenue, implementing
congestion pricing for Manhattan, and improving the bicycle and pedestrian
environment11 around the FCR project. These ideas are either market-based strategies
to relieve auto congestion and provide incentives for people to make fewer auto trips and
use other forms of transportation. Such approaches are gaining support with many in the
transportation field who believe that the last fifty years of planning for and around
automobile mobility is no longer working. While many US cities still have the space or
money to widen roads in the effort to reduce congestion, New York City does not.
Instead, we have an opportunity to rethink our policy strategies toward a more
sustainable, balanced and safe transportation network. This is only possible through a
combination of efforts.
In 2005, Naparstek wrote an article called, Design a Great Pedestrian Environment. In

the article he states:
The intersection of Flatbush, Atlantic and 4th is, simply, a terrifying place to cross the street.
That is because the needs and requirements of vehicular traffic have, for years, been
prioritized above all else. With the amount of pedestrian traffic that an arena and other
development would bring, we need to redesign the Crossroads of Brooklyn with the needs and
priorities of pedestrians and transit users first in mind. The developer, city and state need to
ask themselves: How can we turn this intersection into a truly great public space?
The intersections around the proposed project are among the most dangerous and least
pedestrian-friendly in Downtown Brooklyn. The transportation issues lacking significant
attention in the final EIS scope for the FCR development are: the affects the future
development will have on pedestrian safety and comfort, and the impact street closures
and the creation of superblocks will have on the surrounding street life.
Atlantic Yards Environmental Impact Statement Final Scope of Analysis
This section presents a review and critique of FCR’s proposed street changes and
pedestrian improvements, as well as the final scope of the EIS. The critique is
substantiated with pedestrian crash data and original data collection including pedestrian
counts, behavior mapping, video footage, and photographs. FCR’s proposal currently
includes the following street changes:
1. Street closures:
- Pacific Street between Flatbush Avenue and 6th Avenue
- Pacific Street between Vanderbilt Avenue and Carlton Avenue
- Fifth Avenue between Flatbush Avenue and Atlantic Avenue
11
These recommendations are largely based on successful models from other cities such as
Chicago, London and Bogotá.
2. Drop-off lanes for arena:
- Widening of Flatbush Avenue at Atlantic Avenue by approximately 10 feet for
a 750 ft drop-off lane adjacent to the arena
- Widening Atlantic Avenue between Flatbush Avenue and 6th Avenue
- Widening of 6th Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue
- Widening of Pacific Street between 6th Avenue and Carlton Avenue to permit
two-way traffic circulation
3. Pedestrian improvements:
- 20 ft sidewalks on the south side of Atlantic Avenue between Flatbush
Avenue and Vanderbilt Avenue
- 20 ft sidewalks on east side of Flatbush Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and
Dean Street.
- New subway entrance at Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue
Analysis of Proposed Street Closures
FCR’s current development proposal includes closing and officially remapping sections of Pacific
Street and Fifth Avenue to accommodate the development of a superblock that would contain 16
high-rise buildings and a sports arena complex. This scenario mimics development patterns of
the mid to late 1960s in which developers cleared large blocks of land and built dozens of high
rise apartment buildings for mostly low-income residents and situated landscaped “plazas” or
open spaces throughout. FCR is also responsible for the MetroTech development in Downtown
Brooklyn which is known for this approach. A major criticism of FCR’s MetroTech is that the
closed streets cut off this development from the rest of the populated Downtown Brooklyn street
life and created an isolated enclave.
Figure 4.2: Metrotech
FCR’s MetroTech development is

situated in the heart of Downtown
Brooklyn and receives minimal foot
traffic. MetroTech has been
criticized for failing to create a
welcoming, healthy, and diverse
public space. On a site visit during
a weekend in April 2006, only 30
people were seen walking through
in a 30 minute period and not one
of the pedestrians stopped to sit on
one of the estimated 200 benches
in the development.

Figure 4.3:
Atlantic Center Mall
FCR’s Atlantic Center Mall is

situated adjacent to the proposed
FCR development site and is
commonly criticized for turning its
back to area residents, and
shoppers. Atlantic Terminal Mall,
as it is also referred to, is a
suburban strip mall retrofitted into
the exiting close-knit urban fabric
and is publicly viewed as an urban
design failure.
A major concern with FCR’s design practices is that the buildings turn their backs on the
streets, which creates an unfriendly and often hostile street life. The Atlantic Terminal
Mall complex has few windows and does not conform with or relate to the rest of the
building stock in the surrounding neighborhoods of Fort Greene, Prospect Heights, and
Park Slope. The buildings in the Atlantic Terminal Mall would look more appropriate in a
suburban mall setting rather than at the busy intersection of Atlantic Avenue, Flatbush
Avenue, and 4th Avenue, coincidentally caddy-cornered from the FCR project site in the
heart of urban Brooklyn.
Analysis of Proposed Drop-off Lanes for the Arena
FCR has proposed several drop-off lanes surrounding the proposed arena so that
through traffic is unaffected by loading and unloading passengers. Roadway widths
around the proposed arena are already excessively wide to safely manage pedestrian
traffic. Street observations around Atlantic Avenue, Flatbush Avenue, and 4th Avenue
intersections during peak commute times revealed that many pedestrians have to run to
make it to the other side of the street before the traffic light changes. Further,
pedestrians often cross mid-block to get to the mall and transit entrances more quickly
(see Figure 4.4). Conditions are already dangerous, particularly for seniors, children and
people with disabilities (see Figure 4.5).

th
Figure 4.4: Pedestrian shortcuts at the intersection of Atlantic, 4 and Flatbush Avenues
Figure 4.5: Pedestrian shortcut

th
at intersection of Atlantic, 4 ,
and Flatbush Avenues
Modal conflicts at the

th
intersection of Flatbush and 4
Avenues. Signals are often
ignored by both drivers and
pedestrians. Unsafe and illegal
mid-walk crossings were made
by pedestrians in order to try to
“make the light.”
Analysis of Proposed Pedestrian Improvements
While adequate sidewalk width is essential to accommodate future increases in foot

traffic, it is also important to consider basic questions of connectivity to adjoining
neighborhoods such as Fort Greene. For example, Atlantic Avenue will remain a major
through-route for trucks and private autos. How will simply widening a sidewalk to twenty
feet on the southern side improve pedestrian experience and safety? Atlantic Yards
residents will have to cross eight lanes of high-speed traffic to walk to subway stations

and other amenities in Fort Greene (see Figures 4.4 and 4.6). As documented in
several deserted areas around the footprint (see Figures 4.7 and 4.8), wide sidewalk
widths alone are not a recipe for safe and enjoyable pedestrian conditions. Careful land
use planning is a significant component in determining the success of public spaces.
Long stretches of blank wall along the Atlantic Mall and massive apartment buildings that
lack ground floor retail or other uses are of little interest to the pedestrian.
Ground-level and open space activity is needed to enliven the urban environment when
superblocks such as those proposed by FCR’s are developed. An important factor that
has not received much attention is the lack of street-level retail in the proposed project.
Diversifying the land uses in a large development is key to having pedestrians on the
street and interacting with their surroundings. FCR could follow Project for Public
Spaces guidelines and commit to making pedestrians a priority by adding markets, delis,
sidewalk cafes, food carts, and perhaps even an open-air market in the closed off streets
for successful pedestrian activity.
Figure 4.6 (below): Atlantic Yards residents will have to cross eight lanes of high-speed
traffic on Atlantic Avenue to walk to subway stations and other amenities in Fort Greene.
Figures 4.7 and 4.8 (below): Sidewalks around the FCR footprint
Sidewalks surrounding the Atlantic Terminal Mall and further north along Fulton Street are empty on
a beautiful Spring day. New development in the area can create more successful public spaces with
stronger consideration for issues of connectivity, pedestrian amenities and mixed land uses.
DEIS ANALYSIS

The Atlantic Yards EIS will examine three issues: subway entrances (stairways) at the
four closest stations (Atlantic Avenue, Pacific Street, Bergen Street and Lafayette
Avenue, as well as pedestrian circulation within the Atlantic Ave/Pacific St. station; it will
consider quantitative analysis of pedestrian conditions around the proposed arena
(sidewalks, corners and crosswalks); and review high-crash areas around the footprint
and assess affects of the future development on pedestrian safety.
The Final Scope of Analysis specifically states; “The analysis will focus on key
pedestrian facilities within an area bounded by Atlantic Avenue on the north, Dean Street
on the south, Vanderbilt Avenue on the east, and 4th Avenue on the west.” This area
only covers the footprint and only incorporates one existing subway station entrance.
The language in the scope is unclear and does not determine whether the study area
boundaries will extend to the opposite side of the street, the center line of the street, or
the innermost boundaries of the street. The scope does not clarify if the Pacific Street
station on the west side of 4th Avenue and pedestrian facilities on the furthest side of the
street will be included in the EIS report. Currently, all but one subway station entrance
(the Pacific Street stop on the east side of 4th Avenue just north of Pacific Street) is
excluded from the pedestrian scope of analysis.
It is also unclear how the EIS will determine the effects of development on pedestrian
safety. As shown in Figure 4.9, there are several intersections outside of the proposed
study area where a significant number of pedestrian crashes occur. It is clear that the
area is hazardous and unfriendly to pedestrians, but little is actually discussed in the
Downtown Brooklyn EIS, Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint or the Downtown
Brooklyn Traffic Calming Plan.
Figure 4.9: Reported pedestrian crashes around the Atlantic Yards (Source: NYPD)

New York City Police Department pedestrian crash data was used to map pedestrian
crashes between 1999 and 2001 in the areas surrounding the FCR footprint. This data
proved that design improvements made by the New York City Department of
Transportation prior to 1999 have not worked to reduce the occurrence of pedestrian
crashes in the area surrounding FCR’s proposed development.
To understand how the FCR proposed development will further affect pedestrian issues,
we conducted original data collection and analysis on five high-crash intersections
surrounding the FCR footprint. The following section details the existing conditions for
pedestrian volumes and travel flows during peak morning, mid-day and evening
commute hours. If the FCR project were to be developed, it is assumed that the highest
pedestrian volumes would occur on nights when the Nets are playing at home during
peak commute hours. It is during this time period that pedestrian volumes are projected.
Current and Projected Pedestrian Counts
Existing Conditions
Pedestrian counts were done at the five major intersections with the worst record of
pedestrian crashes surrounding the FCR site. These counts took place on April 20,
2006 during the peak evening hours between 5 pm and 7 pm. The weather was sunny
and warm which is considered to be the ideal situation for the conduction of
traffic/pedestrian counts. Below are the results for these intersections showing the trips
per hour during the evening peak and their direction.
Table 4.1: Survey Count Findings

Atlantic Avenue and 4th Avenue Total Pedestrians: 916
Number of Percent of
Direction (both sides of the street) People People
South (along 4th Avenue) 400 43.6
North (along 4th Avenue) 340 37.1
West (along Atlantic Avenue) 60 6
East (along Atlantic Avenue) 116 17.6
Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue Total Pedestrians: 1084

South (along Flatbush Avenue) 340 31.1
North (along Flatbush Avenue) 288 26.5
West (along Atlantic Avenue) 164 15.1
East (along Atlantic Avenue) 292 26.9

Flatbush Avenue and Fifth Avenue Total Pedestrians: 604
South (along Fifth Avenue) 220 36.4
North (along Fifth Avenue) 128 21.1
West (along Flatbush Avenue) 140 23.1
East (along Flatbush Avenue) 116 19.2
Flatbush Avenue and Lafayette

Avenue Total Pedestrians: 1004
South (along Flatbush Avenue) 496 54.1
North (along Flatbush Avenue) 308 33.6
West (along Lafayette) 84 9
East (along Lafayette) 116 12.6
4th Avenue and Flatbush Avenue Total Pedestrians: 968

South (4th Avenue) 328 33.8
North (4th Avenue) 248 25.6
West (along Flatbush Avenue) 112 11.5
East (along Flatbush Avenue) 280 28.9
Future Impacts
Arena Trip Generation
The assumption of modal split from the arena will be based on the modal split of a night
game in June 1997 at Shea Stadium in Queens. This stadium is served by a road
network, subway and bus lines, and a Long Island Railroad (LIRR) train station. In
addition to a similar transportation infrastructure, the attendance for the night studied
was 18,000—the same number as the Nets arena capacity. As seen in table 1, 59% of
the attendees drove while 41% used transit.
12
Table 4.2: New York Mets modal split
Location Attendance Auto Transit
Shea Stadium
Weeknight 18,000 59% 41%
June 1997
These percentages translate to 9,180 people driving and 7,380 people using transit.
Transit users at the FCR site will most likely be utilizing the proposed “Urban Room”
12
USDOT Intelligent Transportation Systems:
http://www.its.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/handbook/chapter5_03.htm
which is a tunnel leading from the LIRR Atlantic Avenue Train Station directly to the
arena. This station has connections to the ten subway lines servicing the area; therefore
people taking transit of any kind can easily access their mode through the Urban Room.
For the purpose of this study we will assume that only 20% of the transit users will
actually walk from the station to the arena outside to get fresh air, smoke a cigarette, or
eat at a local restaurant. This assumption translates to 1,476 people.
Residential and Commercial Trip Generation
Trips generated from the kind of retail proposed by the FCR development include 18
trips per 1,000 sf of floor space, 10 trips per 1,000 feet of office space, and 1.5 trips per
dwelling unit per peak rush hour13. For the purpose of this analysis we are going to
assume an even split of drivers and transit users for the retail and office trips. The split
assumption for residents will be 75% transit users and 25% pedestrians. A further
assumption is that the drivers will be parked close enough to their destination that they
will not have an impact on the area because of the limited amount of time they will be in
the area. The projected trip increases are discussed below:
Based on our research, approximately 4,500 trips will occur due to the retail
development. Half of these trips will be pedestrian trips.
Retail
250,000sf / 1,000sf = 250
250 x 18 trips = 4,500 trips
4,500 trips x 0.50 = 2,250 pedestrian trips
The office development is expected to generate 6,000 trips. Pedestrian trips will equal
3,000.
Office
600,000sf / 1,000sf = 600
600 x 10 trips = 6,000 trips
There are 10,950 trips expected from the proposed residential development. 8,212 of the
trips from the residential towers will be pedestrian trips.
Residential
7,300du x 1.5 trips = 10,950 trips
The overall development will generate a combined number of 13,462 pedestrian trips.
Impact Analysis
For the evening rush hour the pedestrian trips generated by the office uses will be put
into the roadway network heading away from the site and towards the mass transit
systems. Residential and arena pedestrian trips will be going to the site from the mass
13
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/pdf/tripmanual.pdf
transit systems. For the retail, the assumption will be made that 50% of the trips will be
going to the site and 50% will be coming from the site. The present and future totals are
shown in the tables below.
Table 4.3: Impact Analysis

Atlantic Avenue & 4th Avenue
Intersection PM Peak Pre-Development PM Peak Post-Development
South (along 4th Avenue) 400 1370
North (along 4th Avenue) 340 1450
East (along Atlantic Avenue) 116 6121
Total 916 9076
Atlantic Avenue & Flatbush Avenue

South (along Flatbush Avenue) 340 3540
North (along Flatbush Avenue) 288 1386
East (along Atlantic Avenue) 292 5434
Total 1084 16524
Flatbush Avenue & Fifth Avenue

South (along Fifth Avenue) 220 1841
North (along Fifth Avenue) 128 1334
West (along Flatbush Avenue) 140 950
East (along Flatbush Avenue) 180 578
Total 668 4703
Flatbush Avenue & Lafayette Avenue

South (along Flatbush Avenue) 496 2117
North (along Flatbush Avenue) 308 1125
West (along Lafayette Avenue) 84 331
East (along Lafayette Avenue) 116 403
Total 1004 3976
Flatbush Avenue & 4th Avenue

West (along Flatbush Avenue) 112 362
East (along Flatbush Avenue) 280 1704
Total 1048 3222

The data indicates that there will be significant amounts of pedestrians utilizing this area.
Even with the proposed widening of the sidewalks the area will be packed with people
much like a Manhattan street. The increase in pedestrians will make these intersections
unsafe on game nights. To mitigate these issues FCR should consider the expansion of
the sidewalks along these streets or help to fund free shuttle service to and from the
transit hub for arena goers. This will also help to lessen the amount of auto traffic in the
area, making the pedestrian environment much friendlier.
The solution to traffic concerns from this project cannot be solved by targeting this
specific project. Data trends show that transit ridership and auto use are growing, and
will continue to do so. The Atlantic Yards project will add to this demand. To adequately
prepare for this demand, comprehensive plans with significant traffic improvements are
needed.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Much attention and analysis has already been given to pedestrian issues in this area14.
Many have proposed measures that will improve current and future conditions for
pedestrians and provide for a more vibrant and balanced street network. The most
comprehensive example is the Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Study Report, which
was the result of intensive community input. This report provides design
recommendations for many streets and intersections throughout Downtown Brooklyn
and includes some areas on the west and northwest side of the footprint. The sections
of the report that pertain to the study area are reviewed and then expanded upon by
drawing from examples of other design projects that successfully incorporated a
connected and multi-modal framework.
In May of 2004, the NYCDOT issued the Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Study
Report. The report, which includes the western edge of the proposed FCR project,
details the need for traffic calming in the larger transportation management framework.
Recommendations for several intersections, streets and sidewalks are made, including
the intersections of Flatbush Avenue and 4th Avenue, Atlantic Avenue and 4th Avenue,
and Flatbush Avenue and Atlantic Avenue.
The study outlines a framework for traffic management, which breaks down streets into
the following three categories: travel streets, community streets, and living streets.
Travel Streets comprise the skeleton of the transportation network, and provide
important connections to expressways and other travel streets. Travel streets are
designated as local truck routes, and typically have bus routes and subway access.
The FCR site lies along several travel streets, including Atlantic Avenue, Flatbush
Avenue and Vanderbilt Avenue. Pedestrian safety and comfort is a challenge along
travel streets. Most pedestrian crashes occur along these arteries.
Community Streets serve as “town centers” for neighborhoods by providing shopping,

entertainment and services, and act as gathering spaces for the community. They are
usually a mix of residential and commercial uses. Fulton Street and Lafayette Street in
neighboring Fort Greene are the closest examples of a Community Street adjacent to
14
Including NYCDOT staff, NGOs including Transportation Alternatives, New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council and Project for Public Spaces, private consulting firms Community
Consultants, Arup and countless local residents and community activists.
the proposed FCR development. Living Streets provide local access to residential areas.
Typically, Living Streets have lower traffic volumes and quality of life is the primary goal
of their design. Most of the residential streets to the north and south of the proposed
development are Living Streets (the street network leading to Fort Greene and into
Prospect Heights).
The report had several objectives, which included examining and improving high
pedestrian accident locations. The community also identified areas with significant
pedestrian safety issues. Several areas adjacent to the proposed FCR development
along Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue were included. Truck traffic through local
residential streets to the north of the FCR footprint toward Fort Greene was also cited as
a problem by the community.
A significant challenge for the 4th Avenue, Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue area is
that these three Travel Streets converge in a heavy pedestrian area. While traffic
calming measures encourage trucks and other through traffic to stay on these streets,
pedestrians are faced with dangerous and unpleasant conditions. The construction of a
new arena would further add strain to this modal conflict by increasing both pedestrian
and auto traffic at peak evening times. Notably, this triangular intersection was not
analyzed in depth in the Traffic Calming Report because the issues were “too broad” and
required further study.
Nonetheless, the Traffic Calming Report envisions significant improvements for

pedestrian conditions in Downtown Brooklyn, and was developed with the community’s
participation and guidance. It recommends three main management strategies for
improving pedestrian circulation and connectivity:
1. Creating neck-downs (extensions of the sidewalk into parking lanes, which

reduces pedestrian crossing distance) and medians
2. Utilizing signalized mid-block crossings
3. Incorporating pedestrian intervals, all-pedestrian light cycles and turn restrictions
for cars
The process and resulting report represented community interest and needs.
Unfortunately, many of these proposed improvements have yet to materialize. NYCDOT
should move forward with the traffic calming plan more aggressively, and initiate
a similar process that includes the FCR footprint and surrounding neighborhoods.
FCR’s street improvements should be more balanced to include necessary amenities for
cyclists and pedestrians. Wide, landscaped medians are imperative along areas with
high instances of pedestrian crashes. Both Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues should have
medians that prevent pedestrians from crossing mid-block. Landscaping and raised
medians or gates (see Figure 4.11) are effective buffers. Medians can also serve as an
island refuge for pedestrians that are unable to cross the avenue before the light cycle
changes. This would prevent people from having to run or compete with oncoming
trucks and cars as they cross the street.

Figure 4.10: Pedestrian
Intersection in Boston
Recent improvements to this

Downtown Boston street
include a center island wide
enough to accommodate
several pedestrians at once.
Iron gates and landscaping
beautify the street while
preventing people from
crossing mid-block.
Source: New York City Streets Renaissance
Figure 4.11: Intersection

Improvements for
Pedestrians
Textured and colored

crosswalks, pedestrian
islands, and landscaped
medians bring balance to
streets by improving
pedestrian safety and
calming roadway traffic.
Source: Pedestrian and Bicycling Information Center
Pedestrian-friendly improvements along Atlantic Avenue on the north side of the rail yard
will also help increase connectivity to adjoining blocks. Suggestions include widening
the thin median to better accommodate pedestrians -- especially seniors, people with
disabilities or mothers with strollers or small children. Landscaping with trees and
shrubbery would also deter mid-block crossings which, given the length of the block is
quite likely. Textured or colored crosswalks can also act as a traffic calming measure by
encouraging drivers to slow down as they approach them (as seen in figure 4.11).
These remedies can be challenged by NYCDOT because of their potential to slow or

limit roadway speeds. It is important to recognize the project area for what it really is --
the edge of a rapidly growing Central Business District. As development continues to
transform Downtown Brooklyn into a more densely populated economic center,
improved public transit, walking and bicycling facilities will become non-negotiable.
Holding on to the expectation that roadway speeds around the footprint should be any
higher than 35 mph is unrealistic.
There are several excellent examples of state and local DOTs that have redesigned
major travel streets into boulevards. While this approach generally slows auto traffic
speeds, it keeps travel times consistent as traffic flows more smoothly. San Francisco’s
Embarcadero, Route 29 in Trenton, New Jersey, and El Camino Real in Silicon Valley
are all undergoing this transformation. NYCDOT has preliminary plans for creating a
boulevard and Bus Rapid Transit corridor along Flatbush Avenue. This idea should
move forward with considerable involvement from the local community.
The proposed subway station at Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue, which will be
linked via underground tunnel to the Nets Arena, will have positive and negative affects
on the area’s street life. This tunnel will reduce pedestrian volumes on the surrounding
streets before and after games and will also reduce safety hazards and crashes. The
tunnel may prevent potential customers of surrounding businesses from entering the
street. Simply put, pedestrians shop – people in cars and trains do not15. The local
economy benefits from having people on the street. Sensible, human-scale planning for
increased pedestrian volumes will ensure the comfort and safety of such visitors.
Several design recommendations can improve pedestrian traffic. A mixture of sidewalk

amenities, such as landscaping, seating, kiosks, pedestrian-scaled lighting and public art
will enhance public space. Care must be taken to ensure that such amenities are
oriented towards public and accessible street uses rather than an extension of private
development.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Traffic problems in Downtown Brooklyn cannot be solved by targeting FCR’s proposed

development alone. Trends show transit ridership and car use has grown and will
continue to grow. The FCR project will add to this growth. In order to deal with
transportation issues, a comprehensive plan with significant traffic improvements is
needed for the entire area to deal with existing conditions as well as future demand.
Some strategies to consider are:
• Congestion pricing – tolls on bridges that are increased during peak travel times
could lessen the number of commuters using their automobiles for daily travel,
lessening the congestion on the streets.
• Limit vehicles during peak hours / no single occupancy – not allowing

automobiles carrying only one passenger during peak travel times could also
lessen the number of vehicles on the road and help ease congestion.
• Light Rail – could be considered as another mode of transportation to the area in

conjunction with limiting automobiles. This is a more efficient form of
transportation in a high density area.
15
“Necessity or Choice? Why People Drive in Manhattan.” Prepared for Transportation
Alternatives, February 2006 Schaller Consulting. Brooklyn, NY.

• Special game departures on subway and LIRR for arena travelers to limit auto
use – providing a convenient alternative to driving for basketball fans traveling to
and from games could encourage transit use, lessening additional congestion on
the streets.
• Limited Parking – By making parking less convenient, the appeal of driving to the
area may be lessened and therefore decrease the number of automobiles
contributing to existing congestion.
• Less drop off space for the arena – By not allowing three sides of the arena block
to be surrounded by drop off lanes, there will be less congestion in the streets,
more people will be encouraged to use mass transit.
CONCLUSION
As our research shows, travel demand is growing and will continue to grow in Downtown
Brooklyn. Our study highlights the dangerous and unpleasant pedestrian situation that
currently exists. The proposal for the FCR development will only serve as a catalyst for
increased transportation demand. In order to address this issue, new urban design and
transportation policies need to be considered. Community involvement is necessary for
a successful process that results in redeveloped streets and public spaces that
accommodate people as well as vehicles.

REFERENCES
AKRF (2005). Times Square Pedestrian Circulation Study. Prepared for the Times
Square Alliance: New York, NY.
ARUP (2004). Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Study Report. Submitted to the New
York City Department of Transportation, New York, NY.
Atlantic Yards Environmental Impact Statement Final Scope
Downtown Brooklyn Environmental Impact Statement
City of New York (2001). City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual.
Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, New York.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (2005). Pedestrian and Bicycling Data
Collection Methods. Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Naparstek, Aaron (December, 2005). “Seven Solutions to the Atlantic Yards Traffic
Problem.” Available at: http://www.naparstek.com/2005/12/seven-solutions-to-
atlantic-yards.php, accessed May 5, 2006.
Schaller Consulting (2006). “Necessity or Choice? Why People Drive in Manhattan.”

Prepared for Transportation Alternatives, Brooklyn, NY.
Urbitran (2005). Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint. Submitted to the New

York City Department of Transportation, New York, NY.

Security & Anti-Terrorism Measures & Issues
Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Development Project
Study Authors: Sara Hearn and Steven Perrotta
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, issues of security and terrorism and how they are addressed when
dealing with the built environment have become increasingly important components of
the planning process. At the heart of the matter is the idea of safety related issues and
how best to incorporate these elements to create feasible yet sound designs. The
definition of safety should be expanded to not only ensure that buildings at the Brooklyn
Atlantic Yards (BAY) be able to withstand a car bomb, but go beyond this to provide a
place for people to live, work, and gather in a safe manner while at the same time
offering an architecturally pleasing and sound development.
Forest City Ratner’s (FCR) proposed development has stirred controversy within the
community in the following: scale, density, shadows, preservation of social fabric, and
economic well-being. With the release of the Final Scope of Analysis for the
environmental review project opponents took notice that security and terrorism, a
primary element of concern, would not be addressed. Numerous activists, journalists,
and community groups have raised these issues and because FCR is following New
York City’s City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) process, many fear that security
and terrorism will be altogether ignored because they are not explicitly covered in the
CEQR manual.
Safe space in an urban planning sense refers to areas that are free of crime and
encourage public gathering. It is important to keep these issues in mind and recognize
our challenge in researching innovative ways to protect people both in and outside of
this new development.
Listed along with multiple other concerns, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB)
noted security and terrorism issues atop their list of priorities requiring further
examination because of the proposed project size, density and proposed land use
strategy. The FCR project would be a possible terrorist target, the proposed arena is
above the Atlantic Avenue transit hub, and these issues are not addressed in the
environmental review process.
As the lead agency of the project and thus supporter of FCR, the Empire State
Development Corporation (ESDC) is not explicitly mandated to include the issues of
security and terrorism in their environmental review. In conducting the environmental
review process in accordance with the New York City Environmental Quality Review
(CEQR) Act16, which also does not specifically call attention to issues of security and
terrorism, FCR appears to believe they are not mandated to consider these topics on
any grounds. Even if FCR were to follow the state or federal environmental review
process, there are currently no formal guidelines in place to properly examine proposed
developments in the framework of security and terrorism.
16
New York City, CEQR FAQs: http://www.nyc.gov/html/oec/html/ceqr/ceqrfaq.shtml#q_six
Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / 73 July 11, 2006

Security & Terrorism
The main problem is not that these issues are not formally looked at in the
environmental review process or during the development process at all, it is that the
public has essentially been locked out of all conversations regarding the topic of
security, terrorism, and how they are incorporated into design. Without the formal
inclusion of security, terrorism, and design issues in the environmental review process or
the development process in general, FCR will most likely choose not to publicly review
security measures.
General questions regarding security and terrorism issues in the development process
were striking after we began our research. They include, but are not limited to:
A. Can you formalize the inclusion of security and terrorism design measures into the
environmental review process and is it necessary?
B. Can a community or a building ever truly be protected against a terrorist attack?
C. Can the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project try to blend the issues of traditional security
planning and effective urban design in order to make a safe space or will the two
compete and work against each other?
A major critique of traditional security planning, like efforts implemented in Washington

D.C., is that when sidewalks and buildings are “hardened”; with rigid setback
requirements or concrete planters to protect buildings from the street, so is the space
that surrounds these areas. Additionally, more often than not, they are not seen and/or
deemed as publicly accessible spaces. In an effort to create safe, comfortable, and
inviting spaces, FCR and designers, architects, and planners should be linking security
planning with design.
The following study discusses the issues of terrorism and security as they relate to the
proposed project site, New York City, New York State, and the country as a whole. First,
the FCR project area and site will be discussed in detail as they relate to these concerns
and we will show why locating an arena in this location is potentially dangerous.
While New York City and State have regulations and policies that provide a backdrop for
security and terrorism issues to be formally addressed, to date they have yet to be
implemented. Without implementing these regulations and policies, security and
terrorism will not be given the scrutiny deserved. In order to understand the implications
of both of these issues, it is important to look at them through separate analyses. The
issue of terrorism will be explored in relation to arenas, stadiums, transit hubs, and best
practice models. Security issues will then be discussed in terms of large-scale housing
developments, arenas or stadiums, transit hubs, and best practice models. Lastly,
recommendations will be made for short- and long-term security measures that minimize
the risk of anti-terrorist activity or events.
TERRORISM
Arenas and Transportation Systems as Terrorist Targets
In a post-9/11 world, America and more specifically New York City, is more aware of the
potential damage terrorist activity could unleash both upon its citizens and the built
environment. Much attention has been paid to the redevelopment of the World Trade
Center where issues of setbacks, building materials, and the like have been discussed in
Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / 74 October 2006

the public arena. None of these issues have been discussed publicly as they relate the
FCR project unless the conversation was started by someone criticizing the project.
Given the shear size of the proposed development and its proximity to the Atlantic
Avenue transit hub and high traffic volumes, we feel that there is a need to examine the
issues of security and terrorism as they relate to possible terrorist threats. In building a
highly symbolic center (a sporting arena) in a densely populated and highly traveled
location, FCR would be creating a clear terrorist target. The development will be
juxtaposed to and connected with the Atlantic Terminal station which serves ten subway
lines and will be located at the junction of three major cross-borough thoroughfares (4th
Avenue, Flatbush Avenue, and Atlantic Avenue), one of which—Atlantic Avenue—is an
emergency evacuation route.
Transportation nodes and systems have been prime targets for terrorist activities; for
example the thwarted shoe bomber, Richard Reid and PanAm flight 103, the use of
commercial jets themselves as bombs, the Madrid train bombings in 2006, and the more
recent attacks on the London subway system. In 1997 there was a planned attack of the
LIRR Atlantic Terminal station and a similar plan for the Herald Square subway station.
Arenas across the country have security plans for major events that take into account
evacuations, bomb threats, and terrorist attacks. However, these plans are most often
not open for public discussion or viewing. Residents want to know that there is a plan to
keep their neighborhoods safe.
Upon researching large arena developments and anti-terrorism measures currently in

place, only general security guidelines are available to the public. For example, Madison
Square Garden, located in the heart of New York City, controls people attending events
in their facility through the measures listed below, yet evacuation plans are not publicly
specified nor are efforts undertaken to protect the structure itself. The below-mentioned
general guidelines are for persons attending any event at the abovementioned facility.
• All patrons will go through a screening process upon entry.

• In order to allow for security screening, Madison Square Garden requests that everyone
arrive early for the event they are attending.
• No packages, briefcases or knapsacks are allowed in the building, and all handbags will
17
be inspected .
Similar to these guidelines, only limited measures for major sporting arenas or
entertainment venues throughout the United States are made available for the public to
view and are only targeted at the behavior of individuals attending basketball games,
concerts, and other such events. Given this information or lack thereof regarding
arenas, citizens concerned about the security plans for FCR will most likely not be able
to publicly comment on the necessary measures taken to make the arena and larger
development site safe because such an examination is not required in the review
process.
17
Madison Square Garden Guidelines: http://www.nba.com/knicks/tickets/arena.html

Best Practices: Anti-Terrorism Measures Through Design & Policy
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN STANDARDS

Figure 5.1 – Washington DC hardened sidewalk rendering
In response to the attacks of September 11th,

2001, the nation’s capital, which has always been
admired for its great open and public spaces, has
been littered with guard huts and Jersey barriers.
The once-open city now takes on the feeling of a
city under siege as these types of structures
communicate fear to the public.
The National Capital Urban Design and Security

Plan, published in October 2002 by the National
Capital Planning Commission, perimeter security measures against the threat of bomb-
laden vehicles while providing security, citywide beautification, and greater use of
attractive street furniture. The Plan calls for aesthetically pleasing designs that include a
variety of streetscape elements and incorporate security components such as walls and
fences, planters, bollards, and hardened street furniture including light posts and
benches to be built into the urban fabric of the selected areas as seen above in Figure
1.1. These designs are also intended to not impede the activities and normal
movements of pedestrians.
The proposed solutions to integrate building perimeter security into the urban fabric of
Washington D.C. and based on the assumption that good urban design and security can
work together well. The plan proposes three zones that require attention: the building
yard, the sidewalk, and the curb lane.
Defined as the exterior space between the building and the sidewalk, the building yard
acts as the space where pedestrians typically enter a building. While providing as much
visual access to the building as possible, this space should also complement building
architecture as should fences and barriers outside of this zone.
In relation to the proposed FCR proposal, this zone may not be possible. In the absence
of a large building yard, consideration should be given to making exterior building walls
as strong and secure as possible to help mitigate the loss of space (see Department of
Defense criteria below on exterior masonry walls).
Known as the sidewalk lane, the area between the yard and curb lane should promote
pedestrian activity. This area should be left open and accessible the area 18’’ from the
curb should allow for the opening of car doors and pedestrian traffic. Security measures
in this area should include parking meters, streetlights, benches, planters and
trashcans—all of which should be hardened and adequately spaced to prevent a vehicle
from getting though to the building while allowing pedestrians to easily flow from the
street to the sidewalk.

The last zone is the curb lane that acts as the street lane closest to the sidewalk. This
lane includes parking, passenger drop-off, loading, and service vehicle access.18 FCR
has proposed drive up and drop off lanes at spots along Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues
closest to the arena entrances and exits.
The problem with creating drop-off zones is that safety is accomplished by completely
turning your back on the pedestrians trying to use the same space. If FCR creates
designated lanes for drop-off zones, the emphasis will then be put on moving cars in and
out of the area quickly and efficiently and not on how pedestrians will cross these lanes.
This is one among many planning conflicts about which there has been no discussion by
the project sponsors.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE – UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA
In response to the September 11th attacks, the Department of Defense19 (DoD) created
the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) to be applied to all federal buildings. While not
mandated for the development of the BAY, we recommend that many of the standards
put forth by the DoD be considered for use on the site. The recommendations provided
by the DoD are likely to make the development a safer place while reducing injuries
incurred due to an attack, and limit physical structural damage. Imbedded in these
criteria are the inherent conflicts between creating a desirable public space and a DOD-
specified “safe” space. The DoD standards seen as relevant to the FCR proposed
development are detailed below; after each standard we will present our analysis as it
relates to the FCR BAY design.
• Building Separation: Buildings should be separated so that a direct attack on one

will not have a fatal effect on neighboring buildings. An assessment should be
conducted to determine if an attack on the arena would jeopardize the structural
integrity of all buildings immediately surrounding the arena.
− Creating too much space between buildings may create a very disjointed feel to the
development / neighborhood, although it is important to take note of what would
happen to the surrounding buildings if something were to happen to the Arena.
• Structural Isolation: To the greatest extent possible, all building additions/wings

should be structurally independent to lessen the chance that the collapse of one
section of a building will bring down other sections. This will not only reduce
fatalities but also costs associated with an attack.
− This should be strongly considered and implemented when the structural plans of the
arena and residential structures are created.
• Unobstructed Space: In theorizing that terrorists will not place explosives in

highly visible places, unobstructed areas surrounding buildings will lessen this
opportunity. The existing dense configuration of the arena and surrounding
residential buildings will likely make this goal nearly impossible to implement.
18
National Capital Planning Commission, the National Capital Urban Design and Security Plan.
October 2002
19
Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria. July 2002

− The key here is to implement a dense area free from unobstructed space in order to
provide a place for gathering as well as a place free from potential threats.
• Drive-Up/Drop-Off Areas: The avoidance of drive-up/drop-off areas is strongly

recommended. Aimed at reducing the possibility of explosive laden vehicular
attack, these areas should not be located under any portion of inhabited building.
− As previously mentioned, drop off lanes have been proposed by FCR and although
dangerous from a security standpoint, may be necessary from a traffic flow
standpoint. Importance should also be placed on how pedestrians will interact with
these lanes.
• Access Roads: Aimed at reducing the possibility of an explosive-laden vehicular

attack it is critical to implement appropriate security measures where access
roads are necessary to ensure that no unauthorized vehicles gain access.
• There are several “access” roads or points at FCR’s MetroTech development and they
appear to be a hindrance to pedestrian activity. This criterion may be applicable to
loading docks or delivery zones planned for the new development.
• Building Overhangs: Building overhangs with inhabited space above them should
be avoided. This will reduce costs and fatalities associated with an attack.
− Building overhang areas and awnings are key assets in creating a publicly accessible
space and also will help in times of inclement weather for pedestrians. However, they
can still pose a security threat.
• Exterior Masonry Walls: Un-reinforced masonry walls should be prohibited for the
exterior walls of new buildings. A minimum of 0.05 percent vertical reinforcement
with a maximum spacing of 1200 mm (48 in) should be provided. These will
greatly strengthen an edifice from collapse and major damage in the event of an
explosion.
− This is mainly an engineering and construction concern, and should be followed.
• Windows and Glazed Doors: Use a minimum of 6-mm (1/4-in) nominal laminated
glass for all exterior windows and glazed doors. This will reduce injury from flying
glass particulates in the event of explosive activity.
− This is an important component if FCR still plans to make the public arena entrance
of large glass windows.
• Exterior Doors: Ensure that all exterior doors open outwards. In doing so, the
doors will seat into the doorframes in response to an explosive blast, decreasing
the likelihood that the doors will enter the buildings as hazardous debris.
• Roof Access: Limit access to the roof of buildings to authorized persons to

prevent an explosive from being situated there. Proper identification and
authorization should be needed for access to the roof.
− If FCR continues with the plan of creating an accessible space atop the Arena, this is
a key issue and may be in direct conflict with safety and usage of the space.

• Air Intakes: Ensure that all air intakes are at a minimum of 10 feet from the
ground to reduce possibility of introducing chemical or biological agents to the
building.
• Under Building Access: To limit opportunities for aggressors placing explosives

underneath buildings, ensure that access to crawl spaces, utility tunnels, and
other means of under building access be controlled.
− There will be tunnels that connect Arena goers directly with the Atlantic Terminal
subway and LIRR station across the street and these tunnels could be potential
targets and therefore should be protected. In addition there are multiple subway
tunnels near the arena.
THREAT / VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS & RISK ASSESSMENT
In October 1995, the Federal Government implemented the Interagency Security

Committee (ISC) Security Design Criteria, which states, "the application of the Security
Design Criteria is based on a project-specific risk assessment that looks at threat,
vulnerability, and consequences, three important components of risk ...The building's
specific security requirements should be based on a risk assessment— done at the
earliest stages of programming.”
The Security Committee is comprised of representatives from major Federal agencies

including the Department of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Transportation, and
Energy among many others. As outlined in Executive Order 1297720, the Committee
has been tasked with establishing policies for security in and protection of Federal
facilities; developing and evaluating security standards for Federal facilities, developing
a strategy for ensuring compliance with such standards, overseeing the implementation
of appropriate security measures in Federal facilities; and developing long-term
construction standards for those locations with threat levels or missions that require blast
resistant structures or other specialized security requirements.
Threat/vulnerability assessments and risk analysis were initiated as a way for the ISC to
apply its Security Design Criteria. All Federal facilities face a certain level of risk
associated with various threats. Threats may be the result of natural events, accidents,
or intentional acts to cause harm or damage. Regardless of the nature of the threat, the
facility owners have a responsibility to limit or manage risks from these threats to the
extent possible. Federal facility owners and operators are encouraged to adhere to
similar security design standards as those put forth in the ISC Security Design Criteria.
A threat assessment21 is the first step in this process and it considers a full range of
threats for a given facility or location. Historical data concerning crime rates, attempted
terrorist attacks, frequency of natural disaster occurrences should be both considered
and examined. Secondly, the assets contained in the facility should be inventoried to
consider the types of threats possible to certain uses or tenants. For example, a facility
that utilizes heavy industrial machinery will be at higher risk for serious or life-threatening
job related accidents than a typical office building.
20
Executive Order 12977 (10-19-1995): http://www.wbdg.org/references/exec_orders.php
21
Whole Building Design Guide: http://www.wbdg.org

The second step in the process is a vulnerability assessment, which would consider the
potential impact of loss from a successful attack as well as the vulnerability of the facility
to an attack. Vulnerability is defined as a combination of the attractiveness of a facility
as a target and the level of deterrence and/or defense provided by the existing
countermeasures. For example, if the facility being examined were an Air Traffic Control
Tower, a downtime of a few minutes would result in a serious impact or loss whereas
network downtime in a Social Security office would only have minor effects.
As exhibited in Table 5.1, and 5.2, in order to identify levels of risk, a facility must cross
list its impact of loss with the vulnerability to the threat. Based on the findings of the risk
analysis, the next step is to identify the countermeasure upgrades that will lower various
levels of risk.
Figure 5.2 – Matrix Identifying Levels of Risk
Vulnerability to Threat
Impact of Loss Very High High Moderate Low

Devastating
Severe
Noticeable
Minor
Figure 5.3 – Interpretation of Risk Ratings

These risks are high. Countermeasures recommended to
mitigate these risks should be implemented as soon as
possible.
These risks are moderate. Countermeasure implementation
should be planned in the near future.
These risks are low. Countermeasure implementation will
enhance security, but is of less urgency than the above risks.
Source: Threat/Vulnerability Assessment & Risk Analysis:
http://www.wbdg.org/design/riskanalysis.php
The major drawback with the threat/vulnerability assessment and risk analysis as tools is
that currently they are only in place for federally owned or managed facilities or
locations. Federal Security Risk Management follows the same process as
threat/vulnerability assessment and risk analysis and is currently implemented in a
variety of federal facilities. The General Services Administration uses this process to
assess over 8,000 federally owned and/or leased facilities. Having private facility
owners initiate this process is costly and time-consuming and many facility owners often
think that it is a lot of effort for no pay-off.
Given the large scale of the FCR proposal in addition to its proximity to the Atlantic
Terminal transit hub there is a strong need to conduct this type of assessment.
Completely changing the requirements, mandating FCR to incorporate
threat/vulnerability analysis and risk assessment into the CEQR process may be helpful
in that specific threats will be identified and outlined and mitigation plans can be created.

However, unless a state, local, or federal agency locates in one of the buildings, the
entire project may not have to go through this process.
ANTI-TERRORISM RELATED LITERATURE
Five notable articles from the American Planning Association’s Planning Magazine
address the issues of security and terrorism. Let’s Stay Sane, Other Cities Other
Schemes, and The Fear Factor are all from the April 2003 issue; Getting on the Case,
and Both Safe and Sorry? are from the June 2005 issue. The application of the
recommendations made in these documents will help to keep the project site a safer and
more secure place to visit, work, and live.
Constituting a “sane” approach to security planning, the general theme in these articles
is that security does not have to be ugly or showy, and in fact, should be carried out with
aesthetics and urban character in mind while making security measures as invisible as
possible.22 Showy devices such as jersey barriers and armed guards are effective;
however they instill fear into the general public, taking away the feeling of openness and
security that we need to have in our urban centers23. Additionally, they reduce the
amount of people who want to use particular facilities and potentially reduce investment.
It has been pointed out that many security measures such as wide set backs are
appropriate and feasible in the suburbs and sprawling cities; however they do not work
well in New York City. The use of better screening techniques and stronger building
construction should then become the preferred method24.
SECURITY
Security in Superblocks
Street closures in large-scale development projects cut off the free flow of both pedestrian and
vehicular traffic. Superblocks in major development complexes, often ascribed to the urban
renewal era of the 1960s, are often seen as a failure because of the number of high-rises and
lack of community open space situated between buildings. This can be exhibited in Pruitt-Igoe,
an infamous St. Louis housing complex, which was completed in 1966 and only a few years later
met its demise. The architectural innovations of skip-stop elevators (i.e., elevators that stop on
odd numbered floors) and recreational galleries on every other floor of these high-rise buildings
turned from creative solution to danger zones. Because of the lack of usable open space, these
public spaces became dark, long alleyways acting as hotbeds for criminal activity. It was not
uncommon for groups of women returning from grocery shopping or playing children to become
victims of rival gang gunfire. Pruitt-Igoe, although an extreme example, exhibits how design that
is often seen as innovative can turn into an utter disaster.
Oscar Newman coined the term Defensible Space, which is based in the fact that residents will
treat their environments with respect if they feel as though they belong and there is a sense of
22
Zelinka Al. “Let’s Stay Sane.” Planning Magazine, April 2003,
23
Forgey, Benjamin. “Fear Factor.” Planning Magazine, April 2003
24
Flint, Anthony. “Other Cities Other Schemes.” Planning Magazine, April 2003. Others point to
more theoretical approaches to security such as Jane Jacobs’ eyes on the street, Ray
Jeffery’s Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. In addition, Oscar Newman’s
Zones of Territorial influence, and James Wilson’s “Broken Window” theory are
mentioned. Meck, Stuart. “Getting on the Case.” Planning Magazine, June 2005

ownership. Often times without the sense of belonging and/or ownership, communities are not
respected, which tends to breed criminal activity. Some opponents of the FCR project predict
that the pure size and scale of the development can spur criminal activity. Others claim that the
luxury high-rise apartments will fuel outsiders’ feelings of lack ownership, which could in turn
create an undesirable environment for current residents, passersby, and workers in the area.
Security in Transit Systems
In response to the threat of terror and other general security threats, the police presence
has increased in numbers throughout the NYCT system. Retaining the right to search
any person or property using the system, the NYCT system maintains rules designed for
passenger safety. Some of the rules are presented below. They have little to do with the
idea of security and terrorism as discussed in this paper25:
• Movement between end doors of a subway car is prohibited whether or not train is in
motion, except in the case of an emergency or when directed by police officer or
conductor
• Playing of radio audible to others or use amplified devices on platforms is prohibited
• Do not block free movement
• No alcoholic beverages
• No individual is to enter the tracks, tunnels, or other non-public areas
• Do not carry bulky items likely to cause inconvenience or hazard to yourself and others
• Do not litter or create unsanitary conditions
• Do not smoke anywhere on NYC Transit property, including outdoor stations
Therefore, it is not clear what security measures, if any, police will utilize to protect the
FCR development from new security risks.
Best Practices: Incorporating Security, Design, and Policy
URBAN DESIGN & THEORY
Urban theorists Jane Jacobs and William Whyte have all studied the idea of successful
and safe open space. Whether it be Lynch’s idea of having open space as a stage, with
a raised, multi-layered space with benches, movable tables as supported by Whyte, and
other interactive street furniture or keeping the vital stoop culture of New York City as
adored by Jacobs, there have been very specific urban design measures that are
directly tied to security in open space.
“Eyes on the street”, coined by the legendary urban critic, Jane Jacobs in her landmark
book, Death and Life of Great American Cities, are probably four of the most
fundamental words when it comes to public safety. Neighborhood watch programs use
the term across the country and it is familiar to law enforcement officials as well. In
Jacob's words:
There must be eyes on the street, eyes belonging to those we might call the
natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on a street equipped to handle
strangers and to insure the safety of both residents and strangers must be
oriented to the street. They cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave
it blind. The sidewalk must have users on it fairly continuously, both to add to the
25
MTA: http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/rules/index.html

number of effective eyes on the street and to induce a sufficient number of
26
people in buildings along the street to watch the sidewalks .
The design and layout of FCR’s proposed development create obstacles when trying to
put “eyes on the street”. Furthering Jacob’s theory, mid-rise apartment buildings with
balconies and smaller townhouses draw attention to the street. Buildings/developments
such as these in urban areas where densities are high are important as people look to
the street for entertainment and socialization. In a campus style development such as
FCR’s, it will be difficult to focus attention to the street life and open spaces that have
been promised as a priority.
Asked to study park and plaza uses in New York City by the New York City Planning
Commission, William Whyte, a sociologist by training, along with the New York City
Department of City Planning and Hunter College Sociology students examined
numerous facilities across the city. Whyte’s observations have been widely studied and
replicated and from them, fundamental theories and conclusions have been made. As it
pertains to FCR’s BAY development, Whyte’s theories27 may be useful when studying
the safety and success of the future 7 acres of publicly accessible open and public
space included in the project.
CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED)
Designed as a means by which crime can be prevented through urban design and the
built environment, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design28 (CPTED) was first
outlined by criminologist C. Ray Jeffery and architect Oscar Newman in the 1970s.
CPTED acknowledges that the physical environment has a great impact on the types
and location of crime problems. Early CPTED used natural surveillance to make spaces
defendable by legitimate users as well as architectural design to put more “eyes on the
street” – a technique called defensible space. Championed by the writings of Jane
Jacobs and endorsed by the projects of Oscar Newman, C. Ray Jeffery was able to
combine urban design measures with crime fighting techniques.
CPTED was initially dismissed on the basis of displacement problems. For example, if a
new lighting system went up in an apartment complex to make it more safe and free of
crime, the criminal activities once conducted at the newly lit site would move to another
location, would occur at a different time of day, or the criminal offense would shift.
Second-generation CPTED understands the context of crime by using risk assessments.

It views displacement as a potential tool to be applied carefully. It uses an ecological
framework to view the neighborhood as an ecosystem that can tip over if proper land
uses and activities are not taken into account.
Instituting CPTED in the FCR project area would be a major challenge because it is
most easily aimed at retrofitting security and urban design measures into existing
26
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities, pg. 35.
27
William Whyte’s observations also took note of gender differences and how they play into
public spaces and their vitality. Whyte talks about uses of public art and creating positive public
spaces which all are laced with the notion of safety. Whyte’s theories may not be directly
applicable but as the plans for the public spaces in FCR’s project are released, a Whyte-styled
study of the space should be done.
28
Saville, Gregory. New Tools to Eradicate Crime Places and Crime Niches, 1998.

developments. Since the FCR development will be changing the landscape so
dramatically, CPTED efforts would probably need to be applied to neighboring areas like
Ft. Greene or Atlantic Terminal Mall before being applied to the new development.
However, if applied in certain areas and not others, geographic displacement may be
difficult to detect.
NEW YORK STATE & NEW YORK CITY REGULATIONS and POLICY FRAMEWORK
Opportunities for Incorporating Measures into Policy
New York City and New York State have varying policies and regulations that guide
development. New York City Building Codes and zoning laws outline specific measures
and requirements that are applied to all buildings in the city. If changes could be made
to these regulations to incorporate security and anti-terrorism, then FCR and other
developers in New York City could be mandated to review these issues through a formal
process.
A Business Improvement District (BID), could be created around the FCR project area
and could go beyond existing regulations to deal with the issues of security and
terrorism. This area would also include the Atlantic Terminal shopping area and transit
hub. In other areas of the City, BID’s are responsible for keeping streets clean, keeping
a security presence, and encouraging street trees and other street and pedestrian
improvements.
City & State Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)
The goal of New York State’s Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act is to avoid or
limit possible negative impacts on the environment from proposed actions such as sub-
dividing land, adopting land use plans, building a housing development or a roadway or
filling wetlands. When any state or local agency makes a decision about a proposed
action, it must give equal consideration to environmental protection, human and
community resources and economic factors. The SEQR process provides a way for
agencies to look closely at the possible environmental impacts of a proposed action.
The agency conducting the SEQR review must determine if a proposed action will or will
not have significant adverse impacts on the environment. These potential impacts must
be evaluated for both severity and importance. During this evaluation, an agency must
consider all components/phases of the proposed action. Determinations of significance
must be based on information provided by the project sponsor in an Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF), other supporting documents and comments from any involved
agencies and the public.
FCR’s proposed development is using the SEQR process to guide their environmental
review of the project site. Currently, no agency identifies security or anti-terrorism
explicitly in their list of environmental review concerns. Security is sometimes
approached in terms of pedestrian issues or other transportation issues. In order to
include these issues in an environmental impact statement (EIS), the lead agency (in
this case, ESDC) would have to identify outright that they were going to study the
security effects and the potential terrorist effects that this project would entail. Identifying
these issues as part of the EIS would take money and time. FCR would have to utilize
fairly sophisticated programs and processes to carry out threat assessments, risk

assessments, to incorporate design measures to prevent terrorist activity or enhance
security.
Forest City Ratner and Empire State Development Corporation have opted to utilize the
New York City CEQR guidelines and process because they are stricter than the New
York State SEQR process. However, they will not be using the Uniform Land Use
Review Procedure (ULURP). The categories in blue in the table below are areas in
which the topics of security and terrorism could be included in the written Environmental
Impact Statement report as it is currently structured under CEQR. As another option, a
new chapter could be written specifically dedicated to issues discussed in this report.
Currently, the CEQR process investigates the possible impacts of a proposed project to
the environment by separating them out into the following categories (or chapters):
Table 5.1: Chapters of the Environmental Impact Statement

Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy Waterfront Revitalization Program
Socioeconomic Conditions Infrastructure
Community Facilities and Services Solid Waste and Sanitation Services
Open Space Energy
Shadows Traffic and Parking
Historic Resources Transit and Pedestrians
Urban Design/Visual Resources Air Quality
Neighborhood Character Noise
Natural Resources Construction Impacts
Hazardous Materials Public Health
Source: Office of Environmental Coordination, City of New York:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/oec/html/ceqr/ceqrfaq.shtml#q_six
New York City Building Code Regulations
The last complete revision of the NYC building codes was done in 1968. Since then the
only changes have been through amendments. This has left the codes a mess; with
inconsistent and contradictory information that is hard to follow. In 2003, the Model
Codes Program (MCP) was installed to combat the increasing inconsistencies. With this
a totally new set of codes based on the International Building Codes (IBC) with NYC
specific amendments was proposed.
The MCP is managed by the New York City Department of Buildings. The IBC’s are
reviewed and new codes based on the ICB are drafted by the technical committee. They
give the new code to the advisory committee that looks at the codes and tries to assess
the likely impacts resulting from the code being put in place. They are also charged with
making policy recommendations. From there the managing committee will review the
codes and make their recommendations. Finally the codes go to the Commissioner of
the Building Department. The MCP is effective because it allows City Council Members
to bring suggestions to the technical committee. Therefore, the citizens of the city can
have a direct say in the addition of or changing of the new codes29.
29
New York City Building Codes, http://www.NYC.gov, March 2006.

The recommendations made in the documents discussed above should be incorporated
in the MCP and used in the Atlantic Yards project. Regardless of the time, these
recommendations should still be made part of the building codes for future projects
throughout NYC. This document can serve as a guide to making appropriate
recommendations to the city council and advisory committee.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ATLANTIC YARDS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
FCR and the ESDC have generated a lot of controversy around the proposed
development of the FCR project. Of the many issues that community members are
fighting for, security and terrorism seems to rank among the lowest in priority but could
cause the most damage if pushed aside.
Below is a comprehensive list of recommendations for the FCR development area that
range from urban design measures to regulation and policy changes geared towards
those who could implement them.
Urge New York City Office of Environmental Coordination and New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation to explore creating a new
or special chapter in the EIS process. The chapter on Public Health could be
expanded to include issues of security, terrorism, and design. The EIS should
disclose risks and propose mitigations similar to how the issues of air quality,
shadows, and traffic are analyzed in the DEIS and therefore, could be
commented on by the public before the document is finalized.
Urge New York City Department of City Planning to utilize New York City
zoning regulations to create overlay districts for land uses that are “at risk”
both terrorism-wise and safety-wise. Specific land uses could be targeted as
dangerous or “at risk” and therefore would be under greater scrutiny and
obligation to have disaster mitigation plans for their developments and could
include specific measures like special setback and height restrictions on new
buildings.
Encourage New York City Department of City Planning to require aesthetically

pleasing design features such as benches, bollards, and/or streetlights in
addition to other furniture which are built into the urban character of the area and
which do not impede pedestrian activity.
Encourage New York City Department of Buildings to incorporate security and

safe building measures into the New York City Building Codes. This would
strictly outline requirements for construction materials and techniques, as well as
overall design and structure of buildings constructed in “at risk” areas.
Encourage the Department of Buildings to analyze the Unified Facilities

Criteria put forth by the DoD. It outlined several piecemeal steps that can be
taken to make the space safer. Special care and attention should be placed on
integrating the following measures suitable for this project with good urban
design and the creation of healthy open spaces.
− Drive up / Drop off lanes − Access roads

− Structural isolation − Air intakes
− Exterior masonry wall − Emergency air distribution
construction shutoff
− Window/Door glazing − Under building access
− Roof access
If an arena is built, the management of the facilities needs to ensure the public
that good, high tech screening devices will be implemented to the greatest extent
possible at the arena entrances. The public should encourage the management
to develop an evacuation plan in conjunction with the community members,
especially those who will be living directly next to the arena.

REFERENCES
Flint, Anthony. “Other Cities Other Schemes.” APA Magazine, April 2003.
Forgey, Benjamin. “Fear Factor.” APA Magazine, April 2003.
Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria. July 2002
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New
York, 1961.
Madison Square Garden.
Meck, Stuart. “Getting on the Case.” APA Magazine, June 2005.
MCI Center, MCI Center Website, March 2006. http://www.mcicenter.com
National Capital Planning Commission, The National Capital Urban Design and Security
Plan. October 2002
NYC Department of Buildings. New York City Building Codes, NYC.gov, March 2006.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/reference/code_internet.shtml
New York City, Department of Environmental Conservation, City Environmental Quality

Review (CEQR) Technical Manual.
New York State, Department of Environmental Conservation, State Environmental

Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
New York State, Department of Environmental Conservation, The SEQR Cookbook,

March 2004.
Saville, Gregory. New Tools to Eradicate Crime Places and Crime Niches, 1998.
Whole Building Design Guidelines. Threat/Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Analysis.
Whyte, William. “The Design of Spaces”. City: Rediscovering the Center. (1998)
Zelinka Al. “Let’s Stay Sane.” APA Magazine, April 2003.


Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Study: Hunter College Department of Urban Affairs & Planning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Study: Hunter College Department of Urban Affairs & Planning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEF O RE AF T ER

Chapter 2: Alternatives Analysis – The Ratner, Extell, Pacific, and UNITY

Chapter 3: Neighborhood Character – A Study of Area Demographics, Affordable

Chapter 4: Bringing Balance to Brooklyn Streets – A Transportation, Transit, and

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 2 of 88

Chapter 5: Security & Anti-Terrorism Measures & Issues

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 3 of 88

Chapter 2: Alternatives Analysis – The Ratner, Extell, Pacific, and UNITY

Chapter 3: Neighborhood Character – A Study of Area Demographics, Affordable

Chapter 4: Bringing Balance to Brooklyn Streets – A Transportation, Transit, and

Chapter 5: Security & Anti-Terrorism Measures & Issues

Chapter 2: Alternatives Analysis – The Ratner, Extell, Pacific, and UNITY

Chapter 3: Neighborhood Character – A Study of Area Demographics, Affordable

Chapter 4: Bringing Balance to Brooklyn Streets – A Transportation, Transit, and

Chapter 5: Security & Anti-Terrorism Measures & Issues

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 5 of 88

We conclude that there are striking asymmetries between 38 years of city

In sum, we found that:

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 6 of 88

Traffic problems in Downtown Brooklyn cannot be solved by targeting FCR’s proposed

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 7 of 88

• Limit vehicles during peak hours / no single occupancy – not allowing

• Light Rail – could be considered as another mode of transportation to the area in

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 8 of 88

SECURITY AND TERRORISM

Encourage New York City Department of City Planning to require aesthetically

Encourage New York City Department of Buildings to incorporate security and

Encourage the Department of Buildings to analyze the Unified Facilities Criteria

− Drive up / Drop off lanes

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 9 of 88

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / 10 December 2006

We conclude that there are striking asymmetries between 38 years of city

This initial emphasis on blight determination ultimately proved unfruitful. We asked

Abandoned, vacant, substandard, underutilized, and/or obsolete buildings and

• Abandoned, vacant, underutilized, substandard, and/or insanitary [sic] lots

• Redevelop the area in a comprehensive manner, removing blight and maximizing

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 12 of 88

Table 1.1: Timeline of the urban renewal plans for ATURA

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 13 of 88

An asterisk next to a plan indicates that it was drafted in response to significant

The Boundary Question

Figure 1.1: ATURA Boundary 1968-2006

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 14 of 88

The Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning (2004)

…facilitate the proposed Downtown Brooklyn Development Plan. The Economic

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 15 of 88

The Eighth Amended Version of ATURA (1985)

Economic Development: The New Urban Renewal

The new housing to be constructed on redevelopment parcels shall be [italics

However, the Sixth Amended Version (1982) is revised as follows:

The new housing to be constructed on redevelopment parcels may be for occupancy

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 17 of 88

g. Provide a stable environment within the area

c. Remove impediments to land

e. Continue local employment

f. Provide a substantial number of housing

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 18 of 88

City Policy & Neighborhood Character

Based on extensive community input, this [6 story] development was replaced by

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 19 of 88

Figure 1.4: Brooklyn’s low-rise brownstones

Brooklyn Atlantic Yards / December 2006 Page 20 of 88