Just how much money are the Domino developers making off of their project? No one knows, and CPCR, the lead developer of Domino has refused to say.

But the Greenpoint Star’s Dan Bush has found an answer. And if the numbers he has dug up are remotely based in reality, that answer is a lot. Almost half a billion a lot.

The problem is, the numbers may not be based in reality – they are three-and-a-half-years old and come with a host of caveats. Dan’s article is very well-reported, and sorts through the numbers pretty carefully, as well as the problems with them and what they might or might not mean. I strongly suggest you read what he has to say before reading on here.

The numbers Dan found came from the City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, which appears to have prepared the document in order to determine the impact of the landmark designation of the refinery on the overall project. HPD and CPCR both claim that the developer had nothing to do with the production of the numbers, but the basic structure of the development scenarios analyzed mirror CPCR’s actual development proposal quite closely, so clearly HPD some idea of what it was doing and what CPCR was planning at Domino (the document was prepared about 9 months before Domino released its plans publicly). For instance, the total number of units in all four scenarios is between 2,100 and 2,400 (Domino is proposing 2,200 but the zoning would allow up to 2,400). The total number of affordable units is between 630 and 714 (Domino is proposing 660). (One key difference is that the target number for affordable units is 35% – Domino only proposed 30%.)

HPD analyzed four development scenarios, with net profits in the $380 million to $450 million range (between 42% and 50% return on cost). Those are huge numbers, and remarkably, they only cover a portion of the project. They exclude all of the development on the upland site, and they assume no income from retail or parking on the waterfront parcels. They are also based on a full residential build out of the waterfront parcel, and we now know that about 20% of the site will be commercial office space, not residential (the office space was added to the scope of the project after 2008).

Of course the big caveat is that HPD’s numbers were done in late 2006, a very different market from today. HPD’s analysis assumes that market-rate units on the waterfront will get $900 per square foot. Both HPD and CPCR say that those numbers are out of date – late 2006 was near the top of the market, the world has changed since then, we don’t know when we’ll see those kind of numbers again, etc., etc. But according to StreetEasy, the average asking price at the Edge is $926 a foot, and the average sale price is $918 per foot. There may be some gross/net apples/oranges in this comparison, but $900 a foot for prime waterfront may not be too far off the mark, even in today’s market.

So what does it all mean? Well first off, CPCR has never said that it isn’t going to profit from the development. While the Daily News continues to operate under the misapprehension that CPCR is a non-profit, for its part, CPCR has always said that this a for-profit venture. And certainly Domino’s investors – led by developer Isaac Katan, who acquired the property in the first place – expect to make a profit.

And there is nothing wrong with that. We live in a market-based economy and without profit, we would have a lot less housing – affordable and otherwise – built. It also shouldn’t be a surprise that there huge potential profit here – considering the low price that CPCR and friends paid for the property ($55 million in 2004 – between $23 and $27 per buildable residential square foot by HPD’s calculation), the project should be profitable. CPCR has spent tens of millions of dollars just developing the plans for the project and getting them approved – those are not non-profit numbers.

The thing is that CPCR decided early on that what every other waterfront developer got in 2005 was not good enough for them. They need more – specifically, more market-rate density. A lot more market-rate density. And in order to justify that more, CPCR is saying that their project is different. They have to pay to rebuild the wharf for the waterfront esplanade. They have to pay to preserve the refinery. They have to cross-subsidize the additional affordable units with additional market-rate units. (None of these expenses are necessarily extraordinary or unexpected – every waterfront developer has costs associated with constructing bulkheads, piers and esplanades; CPCR is not the only developer on the waterfront with historic preservation costs; HPD assumes that there will be up to $70 million in housing subsidies available for the waterfront portion of the project. But I digress.)

In order to account for all of these unique factors, CPCR says that it has to have more market-rate units and a series of special permits to allow greater height, reallocation of floor area throughout the site and a huge number of parking spots. All of these permits and extra density come at a cost to the community and the city. Increased market-rate density means accelerated secondary displacement on Williamsburg – Southside and Northside. It means that the amount of available open space per capita drops throughout Williamsburg. It means thousand more people on Williamsburg’s buses and subways. It means thousands more cars on Williamsburg’s streets.

Given that CPCR needs so much more, and bases its case for all the “more” that it needs on “unique” factors and economic viability (the project “just doesn’t work” at lower density), the Community Board and local politicians are right to ask for some transparency in the process. None of these people are looking to kill Domino, but they do want to make sure that the community and the City get a fair deal. CPCR and its partners say they are giving the community a fantastic deal, but without transparency, we all have to just take their word for it.

So where does that leave things? Well, until CPCR does share, the only numbers the public has to work with are the numbers in the HPD report. And they are big. Very big.

NYC Transit released its annual ridership report, and to no one’s surprise, ridership is down across the system.

Except in North Brooklyn.

Of the 423 subways stations in the system, only 65 saw an increase in ridership in 2009. More than half (38) of those stations are on lines that pass through Williamsburg and Greenpoint. And it’s not just the trains that pass through that are gaining ridership – more and more people on getting on the train in Williamsburg and Bushwick.

The Lorimer/Metropolitan Avenue stop on the G and L lines had an 11.5% increase in ridership – the fourth highest increase for any station in the system. (The stations in the top three slots all have very low ridership, so a small numerical increase can mean a big percentage increase for them – Lorimer/Metropolitan has a third-again more riders per day (11,707) than that top three stations combined (8,400).)

The Bedford Avenue L station saw a 4% increase in ridership, to a daily average of 18,525 riders. At 6.7 million riders per year, Bedford is one of the most heavily-trafficked stations without a transfer. The other stations ahead of it in this category are mainly along the 6 line in Manhattan.

Bedford Avenue is also one of the top seven-day stations, with only a 15% drop off between the level of weekday usage and the level of weekend usage. And in terms of weekend ridership, the Bedford Avenue station is the 25th busiest in the system (it’s 53rd in terms of total ridership). In other words, don’t expect to get a seat on the weekend, either.

11 of 22 stations on the L line (including First Avenue and Third Avenue) saw an increase in ridership. Over on the J/M/Z line, things are really picking up. Almost every station on the Brooklyn/Queens side of the line (22 of 30) has seen an increase in ridership. The Marcy stop is the most heavily trafficked outside of Manhattan, where most of the stations are hubs), with 8,241 riders per day.

The G train also saw an increase in ridership at many of its stations (9 of 17, by my count). However, both of the Greenpoint stations saw a drop in service of roughly 3%.

Overall, all of the Williamsburg and Bushwick stations on the J/M/Z saw an increase in ridership, as did the Bedford, Lorimer, Morgan and Jefferson stops on the L, and the Metropolitan and Broadway stops on the G.

And all of this is for 2009 – before most of the waterfront developments currently under construction are occupied and before a slew of inland developments came on line. But there’s always room for more.

The Brooklyn Paper is reporting this morning that a deal has been reached on the Rose Plaza development. The final deal is very much along the lines of what I intimated last night – 30% affordable housing, 74 apartments at 3 and 4 bedrooms, and all of those larger, family-sized, apartments at below-market rates1. The deal, brokered by Councilman Steve Levin, is set to be voted on this morning by the full City Council.

This is huge.

The developer’s original proposal was for 20% affordable housing, the minimum required under waterfront zoning. Many affordable housing advocates in the neighborhood supported the project at 20%, but the Community Board and the Borough President both thought that the series of special permits sought by the developer warranted a higher level of affordable housing. CM Levin thought so, too, and stuck to his guns.

The result is a private development on the waterfront with 30% affordable housing and a density and scale of development that is compatible with all of the other waterfront zonings in Community Board 1 – from Division Avenue all the way up to Newtown Creek.

In other words, that elusive balance between affordability and sustainable density has been achieved.

Huge.

1. My understanding is that the levels of affordability would run from about 60% of AMI up to 120%, exactly what the Community Board asked for.↩

Seems like everyone is having fun with the whole hipsters-hate-the-census meme – even NPR got into the act over the weekend. The funny thing is, “Williamsburg” as the City is defining it pretty much equals Hasidic South Williamsburg. Not that the hipsters are doing that well – the response rate for most of North Brooklyn just plain sucks.

(South) Williamsburg leads the race to the bottom at 31%.

Bushwick and Greenpoint? They’re hovering at about 40%.

Northside and Southside Williamsburg are at about 43% (just besting the Borough average).

And East Williamsburg? A gold star for 48%.

While hipsters aren’t necessarily the problem, there is a certain lack of civic thinking in foolishness like this quote from a clerk at Academy Records:

I guess it’s laziness and like, what’s the point? When it comes down to it, nobody wants to fill out like another form that’s just like getting sent to your house that really relatively has nothing to do with your life… I mean people would do if they got like five bucks.

UPDATE: I see FREE Williamsburg got here first, complete with map links, which show that the Southside and East Williamsburg are up over 50%.

According to Gothamist, Brooklyn has the lowest response rate for filling out Census forms, and Williamsburg is dead-ass last in the borough.

This is not good.

You’ve heard it all before, but the census is used to determine all sorts of things for the next 10 years. If Williamsburg’s response rate remains low, Williamsburg will be screwed in terms of city, state and federal in the coming decade. The census will also determine what our electoral boundaries are when redistricting comes along – everything from our council districts on up to congressional representation.

If you haven’t received a census form (loft dwellers, I’m looking at you), you can pick one up at any number of places right in your neighborhood (Metropolitan Pool and Los Sures to name just two). (Click on the Find Questionnaire Assistance Center here to find more.) If you are worried that the city will find out about your loft, don’t be – the census doesn’t share that information.