“Second Silicon Valley” - Metrotech Center

Beginning of Metrotech Center

        For most of the students in Tandon now, they would only know that the former name of Tandon is Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn and it stayed in the Metrotech Center. What they do not know is that in the 1970s, the former president of Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn Dr. Bugliarello intended to move the school away from Brooklyn, a decaying city with poor environments, but later on he had the plan of Metrotech Center which can combine technology, business and education together. He believed the Metrotech Center could help the school develop better and offered more opportunities to locals and Brooklyn, even turning into “the second Silicon Valley”. But after so many years, did Metrotech Center really become as successful as what they claimed at that time?

Figure 1. Architectural Model of Metrotech Center (“Jay Street Campus, Artist Renderings for Proposed Renovations”)

Environments before Metrotech Center was Built 

In April 1987, “Metrotech Final Environmental Impact Statement” was released. This document outlined the possible environmental consequences of building the Metrotech Center and was a key part of getting public approval. It marked a turning point where the developers had to show not just ambition, but also responsibility toward the Brooklyn community and its environment. EIS would not only include physical environmental impact like air quality and noise, it would also state the socioeconomic impact like demographics and cultural resources. For this project, demographics and economics are the key sections to be focused on.

First, EIS shows the analysis of demographics in Downtown Brooklyn at that time. In 1980, there were a total of 7 million people in New York City and nearly half of them were workers. However, Brooklyn has over 2 million people but only a quarter of the population were counted as workers. It can reflect that the employment rate in Brooklyn was far lower than other areas in New York. In the analysis of income characteristics, it shows that the average income of each median household or median family is 2000 dollars lower than the average in New York City and the difference of income per capita in Brooklyn and New York City is 1500 dollars (McKeown & Franz Volume 1).

Figure 2. Aerial View of Downtown Brooklyn in 1956. (New York Department of Parks)

        Economic trends followed closely behind this demographic analysis. Although the economic fluctuations in New York City were severe in the early 1970s, the resurgence was brought by non-manufacturing sectors like finance, international trade and business in the late 1970s. However, Brooklyn’s decreasing employment rate had a big impact on the area’s economy that the recession kept in early 1980s. In addition to broader trends, the EIS also identified the existing business presence in the future Metrotech Center area. The existing business in the Metrotech Center area at that time included the New York City Transit Authority, New York Telephone, Brooklyn Union Gas, Con Edison, federal and state courts and local government offices in the Brooklyn Civic Center complex, and Polytechnic University (McKeown & Franz Volume 1).

        Through all the analysis above, it confirms the fact that Brooklyn was rapidly declining. Despite having a large population, Brooklyn, which mainly relied on manufacturing, was experiencing a continuous drop in both employment rate and per capita income.

Figure 3 and 4. Metrotech Roadway Photos in 1980s (Lechtzin)

Estimated Impact by the Construction of Metrotech Center

In this EIS, the most important section is the estimation about how much improvement the new construction can bring to Brooklyn. With statistics in both demographics and economics estimation, the report illustrates that Brookly would go through a very impressive growth with Metrotech Center.

The construction of the Metrotech Center required the displacement of the people residing and the business in the area of construction. The combined number of both the residents and workers who needed to be displaced were around 1000 people (200 residences & 750 workers), which was a small number compared to the total population in the area, around 60000 people. There were also around 100 housing units needed to be removed which was around 3 percent in Downtown Brooklyn (McKeown & Franz Volume 2). The relocation plan was prepared to set all the residents and workers who were displaced.

While the displacement affected a small portion of the existing population, the projected growth in daytime demographics showed a much larger transformation. A large number of new jobs would be created with the coming of Metrotech Center. The document wrote there would be around 14500 new workers added in Downtown Brooklyn in two separated phases and the percentage of the worker population would increase 24 percent. Moreover, completion of construction of Metrotech Center would also help the expansion of Polytechnic University with more students enrolled and more academic employment opportunities, which was about 600 students and 200 employees as expected (McKeown & Franz Volume 2).

Figure 5. Early Metrotech Center Map (“Early MetroTech map”)

These demographic shifts were closely tied to the economic impact that Metrotech Center was expected to generate. The document stated Metrotech Center would increase the rent of housing in Downtown Brooklyn with the tight New York City housing market and high rent of apartments in market levels. Moving to the same type of housing in another section may be not affordable for the displaced residents. Thus, the displacements might produce severe personal and financial problems to those residents (McKeown & Franz Volume 2).

Despite these challenges, the economic benefits from construction and business expansion were emphasized. The construction of Metrotech Center would bring both temporary and permanent employment opportunities. For temporary employment situations, the construction of Metrotech Center would require about 7000 workers and around 284 million dollars would be paid to these workers as salary. And for permanent employment, as it was mentioned above, about 14500 new employees would be hired not by Metrotech Center, but the business decided to locate in Metrotech Center and the total annual salary would be over 230 million dollars for these workers, which is calculated by taking the average wage in Brooklyn as the reference. There would also be about another 14500 new employment opportunities provided as the secondary employment effect with the same amount of salary (McKeown & Franz Volume 2).

Metrotech Center was not only meant to support Brooklyn and its local residents, but also to assist Polytechnic University which was one of its original goals from the very beginning. The project promised to provide the school with expanded academic facilities and direct connections to high-tech industries. At the same time, Metrotech Center was designed to attract office-based and technology-related businesses, making these sectors the foundation for future economic growth in the area (McKeown & Franz Volume 2).

Figure 6. Corporations in Metrotech Center (Post)

Publicity of Metrotech Center

While Metrotech was still in its planning stages, the promotion of the Metrotech Center had already started. News interviews and TV panel discussions, like the ones shown above, were part of this early publicity. These clips, taken from footage between 1984 and 1986, talked about why the Metrotech Center was being built and what the plans were for it. Around the same time, many newspapers also covered this new development project and gave it a lot of attention. Newspapers like The New York Times and Daily News did advertise that Metrotech Center would become “the second Silicon Valley” and “Wall Street East” and these were also the goal of Metrotech Center at that time.These newspaper mentioned that the idea of creating an office center around the campus emerged, aiming to establish a close relationship between students, faculty, and high-technology office users. Also, the project is designed as an ideal "back-office" center for financial and brokerage firms and the Public Development Corporation is expected to provide subsidies to attract such companies. Experts believe that once the project is completed, Downtown Brooklyn will undergo one of the most significant transformations among the commercial districts of major U.S. cities. If successful, the project would help New York City establish a key center for computerized services, retain thousands of jobs, and revitalize Brooklyn, the most populous borough in the city (Oser).

Figure 7. Introducing Metrotech Center as “Silicon Valley” (Seaton)  

The newspaper also wrote about the famous corporations that would join Metrotech Center like Chase Bank and Brooklyn Union Gas. And these corporations did help in the advertising of Metrotech Center with their fame and some actual investment, for example: Since the announcement of Chase Bank's decision to move into Metrotech, interest in the area has significantly increased. Besides Chase and Polytechnic, Brooklyn Union Gas and the Securities Industry Automation Corporation, which manages stock exchange computers, have also confirmed to lease large office spaces in Metrotech. Moreover, Brooklyn Union Gas will not only rent approximately 350,000 square feet of space but also supply energy to the entire Metrotech Center through a new on-site gas cogeneration plant. For energy-demanding tenants, this would initially reduce energy costs by 35% to 45% compared to New Jersey, with a slower cost increase over time (Lueck).

        The developers and newspapers mentioned Metrotech Center “will become the second Silicon Valley” many times, but why did they always evoke this term? That’s because Silicon Valley was one of the most successful technology innovation centers.

The reason Silicon Valley was built was because the professor of the electrical engineering department of Stanford, Frederick Terman, wanted to keep the students to stay in Santa Clara Valley after their graduation. As “Terman invested heavily in businesses that would base themselves in the area and employ talented young people”(Morrison), more and more high-tech businesses and companies started gathering in the Valley. In 1951, he collaborated with the government and Stanford Industrial Park was built, which now is assumed as the start of Silicon Valley. With the stimulation of the demand of integrated circuits in the space race between the US and USSR, the park developed fast with 40 companies and about 11000 employees in 1965. In the 1970s, an important element made Silicon Valley boom again: The foundation of venture capital companies. These companies made the industries with potential grow much faster, and a series of industries got huge success till today, like Apple, Microsoft and Oracle. It is easy to see that the developers of Metrotech Center would want to imitate the process of building Silicon Valley to make it successful.

Figure 8. Introducing Metrotech Center as “Wall Street East” (Dean)

There were also many students in Polytechnic University having questions about this new construction and the university did answer their questions in an official report. The document stated that Metrotech Center would include a new state-of-the-art library, which provides advanced electronic access to information. This library would allow remote connections not only for faculty, students, and staff, but also for outside users. The project would also contain a new Center for Advanced Technology in Telecommunications, serving as the home for the university's Electrical Engineering and Computer Science programs. This facility would include laboratories, equipment, classrooms, lecture halls, an auditorium, and spaces for both group and individual study. In addition, the document mentioned that the project would facilitate close contact between students, faculty, and technology companies located across the campus, such as SIAC, the electronic transaction subsidiary of the two New York stock exchanges, Brooklyn Union Gas Company, and Morgan Stanley (now located in Brooklyn Heights). These developments were expected to enhance the educational experience for students and foster collaboration with high-tech industries (“Metrotech Questions and Answers”).

It also answered the question of the influence of the people who lived in Downtown Brooklyn. It claimed that more than half of the displaced families could be relocated in the Jay Street Firehouse and in Prospect Heights. The moving costs and relocation allowance would be paid by the city and the city would find comparable units for the rest of these families. However, there is no report or statistics available to show the actual relocation situations in detail.

Figure 9. Photo of Construction of Metrotech Center in 1992 (Post)

Successes and Failures of Metrotech Center

To discuss Metrotech Center’s success and failures, it will be discussed from two views, one is from the city and the government, and another one is from the locals and the community.

By taking a look at the development of Brooklyn, it did become a catalyst which increased the development speed at that time. As one of the influences of Metrotech Center, other construction projects would be started like Renaissance Plaza. Brooklyn Renaissance Plaza’s construction took 15 years to complete and it opened in 2006. Many official offices were the main tenants like Kings County District Attorney’s Office and NYC Department of Education. The most important one was that the hotel operated by Hilton Hotel Corporation was “the first built in Brooklyn in over 50 years” (“Brooklyn Renaissance Plaza ”).

Second, better evidence can be told from an official report written by the office of the State Comptroller in 2004. In “Brooklyn: Economic Development And the State of Its Economy”, it did confirm the success of Metrotech Center just like what they were advertising. After a decade, Metrotech Center became one of Brooklyn's largest and most prominent economic development projects as it transformed a declining area near Downtown Brooklyn into a major center for back-office operations and high-tech businesses. At that time, Downtown Brooklyn had 6 million square feet of Class A office space with only 0.2% vacancy rate. Also, the report states that “More than 22,000 people are employed at Metrotech by companies that include Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, the Securities Industry Automation Corporation, and Verizon. A new 670,000-square-foot office building was recently constructed as an addition to Metrotech.”(Hevesi). All these numbers show that the Metrotech Center project was truly the leader of the renaissance of Brooklyn. It attracted enough corporations to stay in Brooklyn with more space and more job opportunities than the past.

Figure 10. Aerial View of Metrotech Center in the late 1990s (“MetroTech Commons Aerial View”)

Thus, the government believed that this project was pretty successful, what were the views of locals?

In the third volume of “Metrotech Final Environmental Impact Statement” , there is an appendix called “Written Comments on EIS”. The “DEIS” means the draft version of the environmental impact statement. These comments were written by the locals, business owners and government offices. In this section, there are about 80 pages and there are 19 letters. A few letters are not included because of unreadable handwriting and poor scanning. In these 19 letters, there are only 1 letter that clearly supported the Metrotech Center project and 14 of these letters were actually opposing this project.

The first reason they opposed the project was because of the displacement with eminent domain. They claimed that the displacement of hundreds of businesses and residents for private gain was harmful to the existing society and there was no mention of on-site housing provided for those locals in the statement. Secondly, the community was not involved in the project but the prioritization of wealthy institutions existed. The lack of transparency of the whole project made the locals question its public interest. Then, the air pollution and traffic congestion were already serious problems. The draft statement did not give an effective solution to these problems and the construction of Metrotech Center might worsen the problem. The last reason is Brooklyn was the main activity area for artist communities. The project did not consider these artists as there is no space left for them. In addition, the destruction would damage historic buildings. Losing artists and historic buildings would both lead to the loss of culture in the end. For those who stayed neutral or supported the project, they also claimed that they need more information in each section in the final statement.  

Although the final environmental impact statement did provide solutions to some of the points above, there was an investigation that claimed “As it turns out, the worst air quality in NYC is found not in Manhattan, but Brooklyn.” and Downtown Brooklyn had the fifth highest number of complaints (“NYC Air Pollution by Neighbourhood(Best and Worst) Air Quality”). Also, it is disappointing that the final statement did not include any solution for artists’ activity. In its “Cultural Resources” section, there are only two points: archaeological considerations and historic structures.

Figure 11. One of the Comments in EIS Volume 3 (McKeown & Franz Volume 3)

Moreover,  the article “The Return of Metrotech Center” states that Metrotech Center did not really help the locals. This article was also published in 2004, the same year of the publication of the report from the office of State Comptroller. First, although the developers promised there would be more job opportunities after the Metrotech Center is built, some business leaders admitted that most jobs were moved in from elsewhere in the city, which means there were only a few new jobs. “A lot of those jobs existed when the buildings went up. For the most part, they were relocated jobs.” Metrotech Center’s supporters refuted that the locals would replace those relocated workers after they left. However, there is no evidence to prove this statement as the developers refused to provide details. Second, there was also no evidence showing how many jobs were actually offered to low-income local residents. The only information can be told from two job training programs in that 10 years. One of them trained 80 people and around 50 people found a job in the end. Another one trained around 180 people and the placement rate is 65%, which is around 120 people (Schuerman). Compared to the number of residents who lived in Downtown Brooklyn, these numbers are extremely small.

Therefore, from the perspectives of local residents, Metrotech Center does not appear to have supported the development of the local community, either before it was built or even ten years after its construction.

Reality behind Metrotech Center

        What is the actual purpose of constructing Metrotech Center? And, is the Metrotech Center successful?

        After a full analysis of the history of Metrotech Center, it can be shown that the purpose of Metrotech Center was not what it claimed and Metrotech Center was a failure project, by comparing among what goals it had, how it was promoted and how much Downtown Brooklyn was affected by Metrotech Center.

        It is solid that the purpose of construction of Metrotech Center was not what they claimed. Metrotech Center was not built for the future of Polytechnic University and its students, nor for the future of residents in Downtown Brooklyn. It is actually designed for New York, for the NY government, and for the competition between governments. It was actually a tool and a solution to keep financial firms from relocating to New Jersey.

        Thus, it was a satisfactory result for the NY government. They made corporations stay in Brooklyn rather than moving to New Jersey. Also, the construction of Metrotech Center did become a perfect start of development of Brooklyn as more and more new buildings were invested. If the comparison is only between its true goals and its achievements, it was one of the most successful projects at that time.

Figure 12. Aerial view of Metrotech Center in 2012, July (“MetroTech Center”)

However, when the promotion is also considered in the evaluation, Metrotech Center can be described as the exact opposite. The president of Polytechnic University said it would improve the education quality by strengthening the collaboration between the school and  high-tech industries and providing more opportunities to students to learn in these industries. But the real situation now is there is no connection between the school and everything else in Metrotech Center except using the buildings here. Moreover, there are fewer industries staying in Metrotech Center. For example, Verizon, which was called New York Telephone, has moved out from Metrotech Center. And NYU has just spent 122 million to buy 3 Metrotech Center, a building owned by J.P. Morgan (Blum). Compared to Silicon Valley, a project which the developers put the students and technology innovation in the first place and invested heavily in, the developers of Metrotech Center did not pay much attention to the students in Polytechnic University except they used the title of “the second Silicon Valley” for getting supports when Metrotech Center was still a plan.

There was also a promise to offer locals more opportunities, which also failed in the end. As it was explained in the last section, most locals did not get help because many jobs did not belong to Brooklyn at the start. And as the development of Downtown Brooklyn continues, the cost of living is getting higher. More and more former local residents move away because they cannot afford these high prices. To these locals, the damage brought by Metrotech Center is actually higher than its benefits. Therefore, the promotions and promises the developers made, was just a kind of disguise for their real purpose. To the people who used to live in Downtown Brooklyn and their community, Metrotech Center was never a successful construction.

A city is not only buildings and industries, people, their community and their culture are the real core of a city. Without these elements, the city can only be a factory. If the community and the culture fade away due to the development of the city, the development can never be successful.

References

Primary sources: 

Creator unknown. “Jay Street Campus, Artist Renderings for Proposed Renovations”, RG.026, Poly Archives Historic Photograph Collection, Bern Dibner Library, NYU Libraries, Brooklyn, NY

McKeown & Franz, Inc. and Urbitran Associates. “MetroTech Final Environmental Impact Statement” Volume 1-3. Apr. 1987. https://guides.nyu.edu/c.php?g=533547&p=3650524 

New York (N.Y.) Department of Parks. 14 March 1956. “Brooklyn: aerial view including Fort Greene Park”, REC0125_09_28863, Department of Parks negatives, New York City Municipal Archives, NYC department of records and information services, https://nycrecords.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_37051520-3018-4c1a-a1b4-987add31baaa/

Lechtzin, Jeremy. “80s.NYC - Street View of 1980s New York”, New York City Municipal Archives’ Department of Finance Collection, NYC Department of Records,  https://80s.nyc/ 

Creator unknown. “Early MetroTech map”, MetroTech Environmental Impact Statement - Research Guides at New York University, https://guides.nyu.edu/c.php?g=533547&p=3650524 

Post, Nadine M. “High Technology Grows in Brooklyn”, Engineering News-Record, The McGraw-Hill Construction Weekly, 10 Feb 1992, Publications - Research Park Forum - Daily News - Engineering Park Record, 1992-2000, Bern Dibner Library, NYU Libraries, Brooklyn, NY

Seaton, Charles. “‘Silicon Valley’ seen for Downtown area”, Daily News, Publications - Research Park Forum - Daily News - Engineering Park Record, 1992-2000, Bern Dibner Library, NYU Libraries, Brooklyn, NY

Dean, Willian. “Transforming Urban Blight into Brooklyn’s ‘Wall Street East’”, Research Park Forum, Sep 2000, Publications - Research Park Forum - Daily News - Engineering Park Record, 1992-2000, Bern Dibner Library, NYU Libraries, Brooklyn, NY

Creator unknown. “Metrotech Questions and Answers”, Polytechnic University, 3 Oct 1988, Metrotech News and Fact Sheets, Bern Dibner Library, NYU Libraries, Brooklyn, NY

Creator unknown. “MetroTech Commons Aerial View”, RG.026, Poly Archives Historic Photograph Collection, Bern Dibner Library, NYU Libraries, Brooklyn, NY

Creator unknown.“MetroTech Center” Perkins Eastman, www.perkinseastman.com/projects/metrotech-center/

Secondary sources: 

Oser, Alan S. “METROTECH: A Test for a New Form of Urban Renewal.”, The New York Times, 6 Jan 1985, https://www.nytimes.com/1985/01/06/realestate/metrotech-a-test-for-a-new-form-of-urban-renewal.html

Lueck, Thomas J. “Transforming Downtown Brooklyn.”, The New York Times, 22 Jan 1989, https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/22/realestate/transforming-downtown-brooklyn.html

Morrison, Simon. “The story of Silicon Valley - How it began, how it boomed, and where it’s headed”, PCIM News Platform, 28 Apr 2023, https://www.power-and-beyond.com/the-story-of-silicon-valley-how-it-began-how-it-boomed-and-where-its-headed-a-9836fd8f0adf6d3535810e709d99fec3/

Creator unknown. “Brooklyn Renaissance Plaza ”, Muss Development LLC, https://muss.com/property/brooklyn-renaissance-plaza/

Hevesi, Alan G. “Brooklyn: Economic Development And the State of Its Economy”, New York State Office of the State Comptroller, Feb 2004, https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/reports/osdc/pdf/report-12-2004.pdf

Creator unknown. “NYC Air Pollution by Neighbourhood (Best and Worst) Air Quality”, AMAST, https://www.amast.com/which-nyc-neighborhoods-best-or-worst-air-quality/

Schuerman, Matthew. “The Return of Metrotech.”, City Limits, 15 Dec 2004, https://citylimits.org/the-return-of-metrotec/

Blum, Gillian. “NYU buys $122 million Brooklyn building”, Washington Square News, 16 Sep 2022, https://nyunews.com/news/2022/09/16/nyu-buys-multimillion-brooklyn-building/