You will be redirected in 15 seconds, or continue now.

Close Stay up-to-date with
Observer.com Newsletters
Sign up for Observer Newsletters!
RSS Feed
The New York Observer

Thompson on Mega-Development: Look to Battery Park City

View Story On One Page View Story On One Page Print This Story Print This Story Share This Story Share This Story
October 15, 2009 | 1:56 p.m
William Thompson.<br /> (Shravan Vidyarthi. )
William Thompson.
Shravan Vidyarthi.

City Comptroller Bill Thompson has a model for building mega-projects, and—surprise!—it’s not the same strategy as Mayor Bloomberg’s.

Speaking at a Crain’s New York breakfast Thursday morning at the Hyatt on 42nd Street, the Democratic nominee for mayor offered a blast from the past as his standard-bearer for how the city should get giant real estate projects built: Battery Park City.

Unlike many of the Bloomberg administration’s signature development initiatives—Willets Point, Coney Island, the West Side rail yards, Atlantic Yards—the 40-year-old project, started in the Lindsay and Rockefeller administrations, was developed parcel-by-parcel, with developers gradually building up the site to the point where it’s just getting fully built out today.

“The tale of the Bloomberg administration has been failed mega-development projects: Hudson Yards, Atlantic Yards, Willets Point and on and on and on,” the comptroller said.

“Rather than giving it to one developer and saying, ‘Here, you run with it,’” he said, “what we’re seeing now is people treading water, sitting there hoping the economy turns around.”

The solution?

“We should have done more staged development,” Mr. Thompson said. “If you look at models that have worked in good and bad economies, look at Battery Park City. It’s been better-planned growth; you’ve seen building and construction moving forward and developing in good and bad times.”

Page: 1 2
Post a Comment The Discussion

Multiple Parcels Should Boost Developers’ Bids

We agree that the Battery Park City model of dividing up large development into separate parcels is the best way to go. Yes, it allows for staged development which can be good and is sometimes appropriate, but it also allows for multiple parcels to go forward simultaneously whereas a single developer would not have the wherewithal to proceed on multiple fronts at the same time. (For instance, the city was getting strong advice not to try to advance the new phases of Queens West as a single-developer site given this kind of incapacity.- Queens West had already wound up delayed under the Bloomberg administration due to the Bloomberg/Doctoroff preoccupation with the Olympics bid.)

There is one thing in the Observer Article that we think is misleading: “Giving a big site to a single developer all at once—such as the 22-acre, $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project—could bring a higher bid given, among other reasons, that the developer would benefit from economies of scale and increased values as it fills out the site.”- -

- - We think that it needs to be understood that `giving a big site to a single developer all at once—such as the 22-acre, $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project’—could bring a MUCH LOWER bid.

No doubt everyone has heard the expressions “You didn’t pay retail for that, did you?” and “I can get it for you wholesale.” Suffice it to say, retailing sales RAISES the prices a seller can charge. Furthermore, dividing huge sites into multiple parcels increases the number of capable bidders in the game and that raises the price the government will receive. Another benefit is that it mitigates risk for the government, allowing for more flexible Plan Bs (and Cs). The lack of alternative plans can lead to costly additional concessions later on, or can be used as political excuses to wind with a “deal on terms more favorable to the developer.”

Finally, when it comes to sites as large as Atlantic Yards there aren’t actually any economies of scale for the developer because these megadevelopment sites are way past the point where any such economies max out and developers never gear up to that scale.

If there were, in fact, actual economies of scale you would see it in developers putting out the highest bid for multiple parcels all at once or on a running basis. That didn’t happen at Battery Park City although some developers did bid successfully to build more than one site.

Government also ought to feel chagrined if it wholesales megadevelopments to (no-bid or low-bid) developers like Forest City Ratner and those developers then retail out sub-parcels to other developers at a marked-up price. This is something we may see at the West Side’s Hudson Yards.

Not mentioned above is that single-developer development produces listless monoculture and monopoly.

Michael D. D. White
Noticing New York
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/

Multiple Parcels Should Boost Developers’ Bids

Comment Part 1

We agree that the Battery Park City model of dividing up large development into separate parcels is the best way to go. Yes, it allows for staged development which can be good and is sometimes appropriate, but it also allows for multiple parcels to go forward simultaneously whereas a single developer would not have the wherewithal to proceed on multiple fronts at the same time. (For instance, the city was getting strong advice not to try to advance the new phases of Queens West as a single-developer site given this kind of incapacity.- Queens West had already wound up delayed under the Bloomberg administration due to the Bloomberg/Doctoroff preoccupation with the Olympics bid.)

There is one thing in the Observer Article that we think is misleading: “Giving a big site to a single developer all at once—such as the 22-acre, $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project—could bring a higher bid given, among other reasons, that the developer would benefit from economies of scale and increased values as it fills out the site.”- -

- - We think that it needs to be understood that `giving a big site to a single developer all at once—such as the 22-acre, $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project’—could bring a MUCH LOWER bid.

Multiple Parcels Should Boost Developers’ Bids

Comment Part 1

We agree that the Battery Park City model of dividing up large development into separate parcels is the best way to go. Yes, it allows for staged development which can be good and is sometimes appropriate, but it also allows for multiple parcels to go forward simultaneously whereas a single developer would not have the wherewithal to proceed on multiple fronts at the same time. (For instance, the city was getting strong advice not to try to advance the new phases of Queens West as a single-developer site given this kind of incapacity.- Queens West had already wound up delayed under the Bloomberg administration due to the Bloomberg/Doctoroff preoccupation with the Olympics bid.)