City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works School of Arts & Sciences Theses Hunter College Fall 1-6-2021 (Re)Imagining Eminent Domain: The Embodied Imaginaries of the Atlantic Yards – Barclays Center Project Gabriel Frey Schuster CUNY Hunter College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/hc_sas_etds/677 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] (Re)Imagining Eminent Domain: The Embodied Imaginaries of the Atlantic Yards – Barclays Center Project by Gabriel Frey Schuster Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography, Hunter College The City University of New York 2020 January 6, 2021 Marianna Pavlovskaya Date Thesis Sponsor January 6, 2021 Peter Marcotullio Date Second Reader Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people who helped me complete this thesis: My thesis advisor, Professor Marianna Pavlovskaya, for her support, input, and patience. My second reader, Professor Marcotullio, for his grounding thought and willingness to help. The administrative staff of the Hunter College Geography Department. Alice Wang, for her willingness to explain – repeatedly – how to gather and cite legal documents. And my parents for their constant support and occasional hounding. 2 Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................................. 9 III. Eminent Domain ..................................................................................................................... 20 IV: What Happened, and When .................................................................................................... 34 V: Developers, mapping, and imagining a neighborhood ............................................................ 47 VI: Residents, opposition, and alternative visions ........................................................................ 60 VII: Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park as a Nomosphere ...................................................................... 76 VIII: Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 86 IX: Works Cited ............................................................................................................................ 92 3 List of Figures Figure 1 – ESDC Blight Study Map of Block 1127, Lot 19 (ESDC 2006, C-90) ........................ 51 Figure 2 – ESDC Blight Study Map of Block 1127, Lot 50 (ESDC 2006, C-130) ...................... 51 Figure 3 - ESDC Blight Study Map of Block 1127, Lot 56 (ESDC 2006, C143) ........................ 52 Figure 4 – ESDC Photograph 1127-19-A (ESDC 2006, 91) ........................................................ 54 Figure 5 - ESDC Photograph 1127-19-B (ESDC 2006, 92) ......................................................... 55 Figure 6 - ESDC Photograph 1127-19-C (ESDC 2006, 93) ......................................................... 55 Figure 7 - Photograph of 812 Pacific Street (DDDB)................................................................... 66 Figure 8 - Photograph of 489, 491, and 495 Dean Street (DDDB) .............................................. 67 Figure 9 - Photo Compilation of 473, 485, 479, and 483 Dean Street (DDDB)Clearly, the project’s opponents sought to disseminate a certain imagination of their community, and in so doing performed certain aspects of respectable community while obfuscating others. ............... 68 Figure 10 - "Stop Atlantic Yards" Poster (DDDB) ....................................................................... 71 Figure 11 - "Supersize Brooklyn?" Poster (DDDB) ..................................................................... 71 4 I. Introduction Much of the land upon which the Barclays Center was built, and where several luxury residential towers have either been built or are slated to go up, was acquired through eminent domain. The statute of eminent domain grants the government the power to seize private property and convert it into public use, so long as the owner is justly compensated. While the law is concise, the judiciary has held that while the question as to whether a taking is for public use is judicial (Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439, (1930)), the judiciary’s capacity “in determining whether that power is being exercised for a public purpose is an extremely narrow one” (Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32 (1954)). These decisions taken in conjunction have yielded a socio- legal landscape of constant-deferment, with no court willing to circumscribe the statute’s limitations through concrete precedent. Despite the use of eminent domain to take the lands for the Pacific Park (née Atlantic Yards1) – Barclays Center project, in a 2009 interview with Crain’s Magazine, lead developer Bruce Ratner suggested that the project’s plans would remain private: “Why should they get to see the plans?” he asked. “This isn’t a public project” (Agovino 2009). Pacific Park is a redevelopment project near downtown Brooklyn, currently underway and led by developer Forest City Ratner (FCR). The project’s original plan encompassed a professional sports stadium, 16 high-rise mixed-use buildings, and the promised renewal of Vanderbilt Yard, a train depot that the Metropolitan Transit Authority uses to store Long Island Rail Road train cars in need of repair. The project was officially announced on December 10th, 1 The project was initially called ‘Atlantic Yards’ by the developer, Forest City Ratner (FCR). After years of legal strife and community resistance, and following the purchase of a majority of shares in the 14 yet-unbuilt high rises by the Chinese development company Greenland Corporation, the project was re-dubbed ‘Pacific Park’ in an attempt to save face and rebrand. The state still officially refers to the project as ‘Atlantic Yards’, leaving the proper nomenclature rather elusive (Oder, 2014). 1 2003, in a presentation targeted at then-NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and potential investors. The announcement centered around the acquisition of the New Jersey Nets basketball team, a professional team in the NBA that was to be the lynchpin and anchor business for the planned stadium (Bagli 2003). Since that 2003 announcement, the project has undergone multiple changes, and has been the subject of legal challenges from the community who would be displaced by the planned development. While the Atlantic Yards site has a long and contentious history in New York City, the recent use of eminent domain brings into conversation a variety of debates surrounding the political economy and democratization of development. Ratner’s claim that the project is not public conflicts with general notions about the meaning and role of the public (and its corollary, the public good), in the language and politics of development. But beyond the popular imagination of development, the project has evoked deeper reflections on the direction of urban planning in New York. In so doing, a diverse array of spatial imaginaries – simultaneous, overlapping, fluid, and conflicting – about what the ideal city or neighborhood looks like have been sublimated out of the project and its resistances. The legal, spatial, and economic entanglements connecting local development to socio-political power have captured a snapshot of those imaginaries through the documents produced in support of, and in opposition to, the project. Struggles over the power to define the public, in this instance, are given a forum through the usage of eminent domain and the ensuing socio-legal battle. In the case of the Atlantic Yards – Barclays Center project, a diverse set of stakeholders surfaced in the struggle over that definition. Understanding those stakeholders and interpreting clearly their divergent conceptualizations of neighborhood, community, and public good is instructive for 2 understanding the process of development, its struggles, and its impacts on social, economic, political, and physical space. Furthermore, in the Atlantic Yards – Barclays Center case, eminent domain plays a considerable role in the negotiation of public identity, as it simultaneously empowers certain types of land-use change while also opening avenues of legalistic recourse for the communities being subjected to development. As the eminent domain ruling began to take the spotlight in the public conversation of how the project site should be developed, the visions for the site held by stakeholders on all sides were captured in various media, legalistic artifacts, artworks, and community dialogues. In order to understand the relationship connecting eminent domain and notions of the public good to development paradigms and power-relations in New York City, this thesis interprets and deconstructs those textual artifacts as embodied spatial imaginaries. Representations not just of the project site, but of possible places and places of possibility that occupy the site’s footprint, were enunciated through the ensuing legal battle. What happened (and continues to happen) around the development site near downtown Brooklyn is instructive. The use of eminent domain, the challenges against