Before
the: Committee on Economic Development
New York City Council
June 3,
2004
How Will The Proposed West Side Stadium Complex Impact Our
City?
Statement on Behalf of
Manhattan Community Board No.4
by
Walter
Mankoff, Chair
Good afternoon
Chairman Sanders and Committee members. My name is Walter Mankoff. I am the
Chair of Manhattan Community Board No. 4. We welcome this opportunity to speak
about the City's ill-advised plan to put a stadium on the West Side of
Manhattan. Given the methodical attempt by the City and State to use the State
ownership or control of the areas west of 11th Avenue to evade public and
legislative review of this project, this will be one the few opportunities for
the public to be heard on this vital matter
Our District extends from 14th
Street to 60th Streets and from either Eighth Avenue or Sixth Avenue to the
Hudson River. We encompass the well-established residential and business
communities of Clinton/Hell's Kitchen and Chelsea. The site for the proposed
Olympic and football stadium lies at our district's heart, but its impact will
be felt far beyond our boundaries.
Community Board 4
has consistently opposed stadiums on the West Side, ever since they were first
proposed many years ago. But the latest version, a 75,000 seat football stadium
pretending to do double duty as a convention center, disturbs us the most.
Our carefully
considered position was arrived at after two years of study and discussion with
those who live and work in our area. Unlike NIMBY positions which enjoy little
support away from the focal point of a project, an ever growing list of highly
respected organizations and experts share our views and are making their
position public.
Press opponents of
a West Side stadium include the New York Times (editorial 1/26/04), Newsday
(editorial, 2/12/04), New York Observer (editorial 3/4/04) and various
columnists and op-ed articles. Significantly, many of the strongest opponents
are sportswriters
The stadium is
opposed by many local elected officials including Council member Quinn, Assembly
member Gottfried, State Senator Thomas Duane and Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum
and Congressman Gerald Nadler.
Negative opinions
have been forthcoming from fiscal analysts at the Independent Budget Office, the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Center for an Urban Future, the University of
Pennsylvania and countless other planning and development experts. Lastly, the
NY Times reported that the Regional Plan Association staff had prepared a
blistering critique of the heavily subsidized stadium, which the group's study
paper suggested would "deter rather than attract the large-scale redevelopment"
that the West Side needs and that the RPA had agreed to delay the release of the
report following intense lobbying by Deputy Mayor Doctoroff (New York Times,
5/6/04).
Before proceeding,
let me summarize the reasons for our opposition. A West Side Stadium
will:
" Cause severe
environmental and traffic impacts endangering crucial NYC industries such as
theaters and restaurants.
" Cost outrageous sums requiring use of City funds
as backing for securities. May impair funding essential for education, schools,
health care, affordable housing and crucial infrastructure repairs.
"
Discourage badly needed residential and commercial development in vicinity of
stadium.
" Force unacceptably high levels of building density and height in
other parts of the neighborhood to make up for lack of real development on the
stadium site.
" Force potential development away from lower Manhattan, other
parts of the borough or from other boroughs to provide sufficient development in
the West Side to provide income needed to back up bonds. May probably delay
Second Avenue subway.
Community Board 4
does not oppose the City's bid for the Olympics, and we support an expansion of
the Javits Convention Center. We are opposed only to the proposed Olympic
"legacy" to the West Side - a permanent football stadium. We believe that the
long-term benefits of the stadium to our community are illusory, and that even
if those benefits are realized, the stadium will do more harm than
good.
Our City needs
more housing, an expanded Javits Convention Center to draw business and create
jobs, and balanced commercial development. The West Side rail yards, four entire
city blocks on the Hudson River, is a development opportunity that can play a
crucial role in achieving these goals. It should not be squandered on a football
stadium.
Ask yourselves:
what does a football stadium do for us? But before you do that, ask yourselves
whether you'll even have the chance to weigh in on that question. Because the
site is owned by the MTA, and the proposed stadium would apparently be part of
the Javits expansion, which is also a state project, the western rail yards have
been carved out of the zoning plan being developed by the Department of City
Planning. If that strategy prevails, and we certainly hope it doesn't, neither
the stadium nor its financing will be subject to public review through the
City's land use review procedure, and today's hearing could be the last the City
Council hears about the development of this vast and valuable
property.
But this need not
be. The stadium plan is unworkable without the major rezoning of the 59 square
block area of Hudson Yards. Only rezoning can provide the open plaza and the
mid-block boulevard that are signature parts of this plan, and only rezoning can
provide the rushed funding and construction of the No. 7 line extension we are
told we need immediately. And here, the City Council cannot be deprived of its
rightful role. We urge the Council to use its zoning power to demand proper
public and legislative review of the entire project including the stadium and
Javits Center expansion.
But let's assume
that you do have the opportunity to evaluate the stadium. We believe that a
football stadium is bad planning, and bad development risk management for the
City's plans for growth. A stadium is bad planning because it will only
aggravate the area's crushing traffic problems. The Broadway theaters seat
240,000 people a week, the Madison Square Garden Arena seats 20,000 for concert
events. At times it feels like they're all trying to find parking in our
neighborhood - parking that will disappear when the parking lots are taken for
new development. And the City wants to add 75,000 football fans? And the huge
crowds for other stadium events?
And while traffic
will be awful when the stadium is in use, the surrounding streets will be active
only when the stadium is in use and dead when it's not. Even the Department of
City Planning has recognized this as a concern, and has talked of measures to
enliven the building's perimeter. But how much can really be done? The latest
proposed adornments to the stadium site range from a flea market to a sports
bar. These are supposedly to attract Class A office buildings and upscale
apartments to the vicinity. Using this huge, valuable site to build one stadium
is bad development risk management because it puts an awful lot of eggs in a
single basket.
Remember, the
proposed stadium is only one part of the City's proposal for the development of
the Hell's Kitchen/Hudson Yards area. That proposal calls for substantial new
residential and commercial communities that will fuel the City's competitiveness
in the regional and global economies for 40 years to come. So much bulk, in
fact, that the plan may never be achieved. Without the stadium, that bulk could
be spread across the rail yards in a much more rational manner, and development
could occur in more realistic sizes and a more realistic time frame.
A stadium will be
obsolete in 20 to 30 years. What happens then to the City's 40-year plan?
The
public is being asked to invest in a deck over the rail yards, an extension of
the No. 7 subway line, and attractive but very expensive public space. Yet we
will be relying, to a very large extent, on a single user - the New York Jets -
to determine the ultimate success or failure of that investment. And, improper
as it may seem, The City is relying entirely on cost/benefit studies arranged
for and paid for by the Jets. And we may be compromising the City's ability to
complete other important projects, such as the Second Avenue subway, the
redevelopment of Lower Manhattan, and commercial development plans in other
parts of the City.
Many examples are
offered of other cities that have built stadiums next to residential areas
(Seattle) or stadiums as part of convention centers (St. Louis). But none of
those others cities come close to New York for complexity - they're surrounded
by freeways, and distant from commercial and population densities like ours.
The Jets have
offered the St Louis domed stadium adjoining the Convention Center as a model of
what can be done in New York. From a cost standpoint alone there is no
comparison. The Ernst and Young study done for the Jets in March 2004 indicates
a 1995 cost for the domed stadium in St. Louis at $260 million. In 2004 dollars
the cost would be about $330 million. The Jets stadium has a basic cost of $1.4
billion or about 4.5 times the inflation-adjusted St. Louis cost. And the New
York cost does not include any payment to the MTA for use of its land, a factor
that might easily bring the New York cost to well in excess of $2 billion.
Relying on
enormous projects by single developers has not worked well in our city. Take the
example of the Times Square Redevelopment. The original plan, way back in the
'80s, was that a single developer would develop all the buildings. A collapsing
real estate market and a series of lawsuits meant that nothing happened for 10
years. Eventually, the development risk was spread among a variety of
developers, serving a variety of constituencies, and rebuilding
occurred.
The City, NYC 2012
and the Jets can paint a dazzling picture of what this stadium could look like.
But dazzle doesn't get projects built in this City.
We should learn
from the experience, and model, of Battery Park City, where the public invested
in an infrastructure that allowed a variety of developments to occur -
developments that, over time - a long time - created a successful residential
and commercial community, and a revenue stream that will continue to flow long
after the infrastructure is paid for.
There is a range
of opinions in our community about the level of growth that is planned for our
community in the next 40 years. Some may take to the streets - and maybe even
the courts - to oppose all forms of development. Many will accept that change is
inevitable, but will try to shape that change to take the community's needs into
account. But there is consistent and widespread opposition in the community to a
stadium. As for Community Board 4, we support rational, balanced development
that will inure to the betterment of our area and the City as a
whole.
Let me finish by
asking you to reflect on what a stadium prevents us from doing. A stadium will
block a precious waterfront site with what is the equivalent of a solid
three-square block building 30 stories high. There are so many other things we
can do with this site that will have lasting benefits for our community and all
New Yorkers long after the Olympics Games are a distant memory. .Time
constraints mean that today's hearing is not conducive to meaningful public
dialogue on this subject. Yet before we commit this valuable area to such a
narrow and costly use as a stadium, there must be a full public discussion of
its merit. I thank your committee for its role in beginning that
process.