Proposed: Atlantic Yards Development - Commercial, Residential, Retail, NBA Arena [Archive] - Page 4

NYguy

August 18th, 2005, 09:08 AM

NY SUN

Private Memo Guarantees Ratner Space
BY DANIEL HEMEL August 18, 2005

City and state officials, in a memorandum they never released, promised the developer Forest City Ratner six months ago that they would arrange for the firm to obtain the rights to build almost 1.9 million square feet of residential and commercial space in downtown Brooklyn, even if the Metropolitan Transportation Authority rejected the firm's bid for the development rights at a nearby rail yard.

The disclosure of the February 18 memorandum comes three weeks after the MTA board told Forest City Ratner the firm's $50 million cash bid was insufficient. The firm's president, Bruce Ratner, is also the principal owner of the New Jersey Nets, and he is seeking to build an arena at the rail yard to house his professional basketball team.

A rival firm, Extell Development Company, offered the MTA $150 million for the development rights at the rail yard, but the transportation authority's board, which is dominated by members appointed by Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg, voted July 27 to negotiate exclusively with Forest City Ratner.

Council Member Letitia James, who has led the opposition to the Ratner project and whose district includes the rail yard, said the memorandum speaks volumes about the cozy relationship that Mr. Ratner maintains with city and state officials.

"It says that he is a favored developer, and it says to me that he's going to continue to have a monopoly on downtown Brooklyn and in my district without giving any other developer the opportunity to bid," she said.

In early March, Messrs. Bloomberg and Pataki announced a separate memorandum, also signed on February 18, endorsing Mr. Ratner's plans to build a 7.8 million-square-foot commercial and residential complex in downtown Brooklyn. The high-rise development would encompass the 8.4-acre MTA-owned rail yard, as well as nearly 13 additional acres in the adjacent Prospect Heights neighborhood. Mr. Ratner's firm has purchased most of the Prospect Heights property, but a handful of homes and small businesses face seizure by city and state officials through eminent domain to make room for the developer's ambitions.

Although Messrs. Bloomberg and Pataki announced one of the two February 18 memorandums with considerable fanfare, they did not mention the other, which was signed by Mr. Ratner and by the deputy mayor for economic development, Daniel Doctoroff; the Pataki administration's chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, Charles Gargano, and the Bloomberg administration's president of the Economic Development Corporation, Andrew Alper.

In it, the officials agreed to facilitate Mr. Ratner's development aspirations at a pair of nearby properties along Atlantic and Flatbush avenues: a Ratner owned mall located north of the rail yard, Atlantic Center, and a commercial block on Flatbush Avenue, which is referred to as Site 5 in the memo. That site is currently occupied by a sporting goods retailer, Modell's, and an electronics store, P.C. Richard & Son.

The development called for in that memorandum increases by 25% the square footage that Mr. Ratner - whose previously publicized project has been attacked in some quarters as too big - would construct in the area.

A Ratner spokesman, Joseph DePlasco, said yesterday, "The proposed development at Site 5 should not come as a surprise to anyone." He noted that the firm's plans for the site were revealed in many public meetings, including a presentation at a May 26 hearing of the City Council. Also, a chain of local weeklies, the Brooklyn Papers, reported that a vice president of Forest City Ratner, James Stuckey, mentioned plans for Site 5 at the May 26 hearing.

Another council member from Brooklyn who opposes the Ratner project, Charles Barron, said yesterday, however, that although he attended the May 26 hearing, he was never informed about plans to build an additional 1.9 million square feet at Atlantic Center and Site 5. After The New York Sun contacted Mr. Barron to ask about his reaction to the newly surfaced memorandum, the council member said: "This is the first time I've heard of it."

Council Member James, too, said she had no recollection that plans for Atlantic Center and Site 5 were mentioned at the May hearing. As for the memorandum, a spokeswoman for the Economic Development Corporation, Janel Patterson, said that although it was never distributed publicly, it "has been available to anyone that requested it."

The anti-Ratner group Develop Don't Destroy obtained a copy of the previously unreleased memorandum and distributed it to reporters yesterday. A spokesman for the group, Daniel Goldstein, would not say how he initially secured a copy of the memo. But he said that, given the failure by city and state officials to disclose the existence of the memo before yesterday, "Why should we trust any of the information the public has seen from the developer and the public agencies?"

Forest City Ratner has said that the 21-acre Atlantic Yards project - which does not include the Atlantic Center and Site 5 developments - will create 7,500 permanent jobs as well as 2,250 units of affordable housing.

Mr. DePlasco, the Ratner spokesman, said that the firm "already owns part of what is being called Site 5 here," but that P.C. Richard, which also owns part of the site, has not yet agreed to sell its stake. He said negotiations between Forest City Ratner and P.C. Richard are continuing.

In the newly surfaced memorandum, state and city officials said they would aid Forest City Ratner's efforts to gain control over the remainder of Site 5, specifically mentioning the possibility that they will use eminent domain.

Regardless of whether Mr. Ratner's arena plan comes to fruition, the memorandum authorizes his firm to build 308,000 square feet of residential space at Site 5 and 1.3 million square feet of commercial and residential space at Atlantic Center, "subject to obtaining necessary approvals." Under the terms of the memo, Mr. Ratner's firm will build an additional 328,000 square feet of office space at the Atlantic Center site if his bid for the MTA site falls through.

The famed architect Frank Gehry, who was hired by Mr. Ratner to design the proposed high-rise hub,has sketched plans for a 60-story tower along Flatbush Avenue that would be named "Miss Brooklyn." If the MTA approves the Ratner bid, allowing the Miss Brooklyn plans to proceed, then, according to the newly surfaced memorandum, the developer will be able to transfer the additional 328,000 square feet of zoning rights from Atlantic Center to Site 5.

BrooklynRider

August 18th, 2005, 10:45 AM

billyblancoNYC

August 18th, 2005, 12:43 PM

Like him or not, Ratner is a shrewd tactician. I can't fault the city for keeping an interested developer engaged by ensuring certain development assistance. However, the $50M put up against Extell's $150M for MTA rights is glaringly out of line.

True, but you can't discount all the infrastructure work Ratner agreed to do for the MTA.

Man, Ratner...love the guy. Trash Atlantic Center and PC Richard and build, baby, build.

BrooklynRider

August 18th, 2005, 03:24 PM

...Trash Atlantic Center and PC Richard and build, baby, build.

I wholly agree with you on these to counts.

Gulcrapek

August 18th, 2005, 06:24 PM

Building on those sites is fine, but not by Gehry. I don't want the entire neighborhood turning into a procession of lumps.

Kolbster

August 18th, 2005, 06:34 PM

Building on those sites is fine, but not by Gehry. I don't want the entire neighborhood turning into a procession of lumps.

I totally agree...it would have been a lot more visually astetic if it were designed by Calavatra.

JCMAN320

August 18th, 2005, 07:01 PM

Talk about a bottom feeder. Why doesn't Ratner just buy all of Brooklyn and knock it down. Can Ratner and the city kiss any more ass or have their lips gone numb. Nobody cares about the people that this would be affecting. This is going to look so out of place in this neighborhood and don't start talking about the Williamsburg National Bank building I know it's a skyscraper don't keep pointing out the obvious, but 60 stories is way to big for that area. Mr. Ratner Monopoly is a board game not real life.

RJW

August 18th, 2005, 08:32 PM

I disagree. Sixty stories is just fine. Atlantic should be the showcase center of Brooklyn instead of the unsightly hole in the ground it has been for so many years. I live on Sterling, just a few blocks away and have no problems with it going in. Almost all the people affected have sold to Ratner at prices so well above market they should consider themselves lucky for the windfall. All this complaining about greedy developers is ridiculous. Almost every building we hold dear in New York City was developed by the motivation of profit. It is the American way.

BrooklynRider

August 18th, 2005, 09:48 PM

I totally agree...it would have been a lot more visually astetic if it were designed by Calavatra.

I go back to my earlier statement that it is too large a site to be designed by one individual. There should be a mix of designs - not some static and ridiculous exurbia in Brooklyn.

...Why doesn't Ratner just buy all of Brooklyn and knock it down...

I nearly spit up in laughter on my screen.

ablarc

August 18th, 2005, 09:50 PM

^ Way to go, RJW; good to hear someone from around there tell it like it is. The others are grousing their way right to the bank.

When the project's built and seen to be a world-class attraction for everyone to feel proud of, you won't find a soul who admits to having opposed it.

BrooklynRider

August 18th, 2005, 09:53 PM

...I live on Sterling, just a few blocks away and have no problems with it going in...

Well, then lets all hope the creep of over development claims your home next. You won't mind.

BrooklynRider

August 18th, 2005, 09:55 PM

...When the project's built and seen to be a world-class attraction for everyone to feel proud of, you won't find a soul who admits to having opposed it.

Quite the crystal ball you have there. Can you please ask it when the U.S. be out of Iraq or whether Jesus will really be back?

RJW

August 18th, 2005, 10:34 PM

Well, then lets all hope the creep of over development claims your home next. You won't mind.

I wouldn't in the context of getting paid well above market. I just don’t see this project as over-development. Bigger is not necessarily better but neither is it unquestionably worse. This is not to say that I don't believe in preservation but there is a big difference between preserving neighborhoods like Park Slope and the few blocks of mostly undesirable eyesore that you are so desperately clinging to. I have been here for years and seen nothing but gradual improvement as a result of the development efforts around AtlanticCenter. A train rail yard, a gas station, a U-Hual center and few decent but disconnected brownstones and loft buildings (in a city of many thousands) should not stand in the way of a world class development such as the one proposed.

ablarc

August 18th, 2005, 10:38 PM

Quite the crystal ball you have there. Can you please ask it when the U.S. be out of Iraq or whether Jesus will really be back?
Only the first part is even a little speculative.

The second part you can get by looking backward. People don't admit to having been part of losing causes; in 1946 there were no former Nazis in Germany.

BrooklynRider

August 18th, 2005, 10:44 PM

I'm not sure what qualntifies "world class". This one just happens to be big. Ratner has a track record and "world class" isn't a term I would use to describe anything he has built.

I think it would erroneous to credit the development in Brooklyn around Atlantic Terminal to Ratner. The city is going through a real estate boom that is making condo's very profitable and spurring tis development. Also, the rezoning of 4th Avenue and Downtown Brooklyn have a lot to do with this. Every building either side of Flatbush Avenue, from the Manhattan Bridge to the Atlantic Terminal, is for sale. The Avenue is lined with Massey Knakal signs. It could be good it could be bad. It will all be dependent on quality architecture (another area Ratner fails miserably).

But, I join you in hoping for the very best - even if our vision of it is different.

ablarc

August 18th, 2005, 10:50 PM

^ It's not Ratner who will make this world class; it's Gehry. Does anyone know the name of the developer of Guggenheim Bilbao?

RJW

August 18th, 2005, 11:31 PM

I base "world class" on the track record of the architect, the developer in hiring the architect and the plans and designs I have seen thus far. There is always a risk in reaching for the stars but only in doing so is an Empire State Building, a Brooklyn Bridge or a Rockefeller Center achieved.

ablarc

August 18th, 2005, 11:34 PM

^ Well said.

BrooklynRider

August 18th, 2005, 11:47 PM

BrooklynRider

August 18th, 2005, 11:49 PM

...Does anyone know the name of the developer of Guggenheim Bilbao?

Did you say GUGGENHEIM Bilbao? Hmmm.... Who could that client have been?

RJW

August 19th, 2005, 12:58 AM

The last rendering released confirms for me that a Gehry design ain't what it used to be. He may not be a "one trick pony", but his other tricks don't "wow" me. And, there is nothing to say that Gehry will actually design any of this. This seems more akin to Daniel Liebskind designing the WTC site. The actual designs have been wonderful thus far - just like the pictures.

But, we'll see.

Well compared to the architectural tripe (MetroTech) we usually get in Brooklyn they do "wow" me and I have read nothing to support the supposition that Gehry's design is anything akin to Daniel Liebeskind's intentionally vague (and therefore "design by committee" winning) WTC blueprint. Waiting to see is a devil in any proposed development.

Fabrizio

August 19th, 2005, 06:14 AM

Ah, these star architects.....

http://www.pps.org/info/newsletter/august2005/overrated_places?referrer=homepage_center

(scroll down for more gehry)
http://www.pps.org/info/newsletter/july2004/july_2004_feature

And of course:

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200405.html

Does Brooklyn really want to hand over so much space to a guy who has NEVER built a building that is street friendly?

Gerhy should be proposing a new 2Columbus Circle.... he´d be brilliant doing a building on a site like that... a piece of sculpture on it´s own little island.

ablarc

August 19th, 2005, 08:31 AM

^ He does.

NYguy

August 19th, 2005, 08:51 AM

All this complaining about greedy developers is ridiculous. Almost every building we hold dear in New York City was developed by the motivation of profit. It is the American way.

Exactly. And this housing development offers more than any other development has or will. The same old tired arguments are just that, tired.

BrooklynRider

August 19th, 2005, 10:50 AM

...Does Brooklyn really want to hand over so much space to a guy who has NEVER built a building that is street friendly?

Gerhy should be proposing a new 2Columbus Circle.... he´d be brilliant doing a building on a site like that... a piece of sculpture on it´s own little island.

That sums it up very nicely.

Someone say, "Amen!"

Fabrizio

August 19th, 2005, 11:38 AM

More examples of Gehry and the thrilling public spaces his buildings create:

http://www.zaptank.com/images/galleries/germany/image_15.html

http://www.livejournal.com/community/cityscapes/756834.html

billyblancoNYC

August 19th, 2005, 12:51 PM

One major difference would be that this development will have tons of retaila dn cultural space, so public access and use is inevitable...all at street level. His other developments don't have this draw.

Fabrizio

August 19th, 2005, 01:26 PM

No excuse. His buildings make NO effort to create viable public spaces.... you do not need retail to do that..... and the addition of retail doesn´t guarantee it.

More about the Bilbao. Read the comments... click the thumbnails...as the writer comments: "Frank Gehry, the architect who designed the museum, appears afraid to support, or even acknowledge, human activity in and around his buildings".

http://www.pps.org/gps/one?public_place_id=827

kliq6

August 19th, 2005, 03:45 PM

pianoman11686

August 19th, 2005, 04:02 PM

He should be forced to go live in one of the places he built.

Here's his Santa Monica bungalow that he "famously renovated."

http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_1042767014_Gehryhouse.jpg

And somehow, this is what his new dream house will evolve from:

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/GO/GehryNewHome2004.gif

BrooklynRider

August 19th, 2005, 04:09 PM

lets just wait till Sept and see the MTA decision and then go from there, no matter whatthere will be lawsuits after this decison so in my opnion nothing will be built until next Summer at earliest and if Bloomberg does not win, this project may be over

But, there is no "decision" to be made when the MTA has chosen to "exclusively" negotiate with only one of the bidders. "Celebration" Brooklyn is on its way.

Fabrizio

August 19th, 2005, 04:19 PM

Ya gotta love his Santa Monica bunglow in the first pic! Imagine trying to build something like that on the same street where any one of the Architecture critics who regularly fall all over him live... you´d get sued!

That window looks like a place to order fried clams and a papaya shake.

RJW

August 19th, 2005, 05:03 PM

RJW

August 19th, 2005, 05:10 PM

pianoman11686

August 19th, 2005, 06:02 PM

Some people will criticize Gehry's work just because it's their job. Others, however, highlight real concerns about how his projects (fail to) interact well with the street. His Brooklyn project's success depends, more than any other, on how well the development fits into the neighborhood. And, after having seen and read about a lot of his work, I'm feeling more cautious, much more so than when I first heard about Brooklyn getting a new skyline.

On a separate note, has anyone here seen some of Gehry's drawings for the Grand Avenue project in Los Angeles? I know he's not responsible to as big a degree as with the Ratner project, but I've heard he's designing the centerpiece tower, a mixed-use 40-50 story building. Maybe it'll be a preview of Miss Brooklyn. Any links or pics would be appreciated, as I haven't found anything yet.

Alonzo-ny

August 19th, 2005, 06:34 PM

I dont like gehry for the same reason i dont like picasso and thats because everything they do looks like a serious drug trip out gone wrong. I really dont like his guggenhiem at all, and i know ive said it before but all his designs that i have seen look the same

lofter1

August 19th, 2005, 08:21 PM

I dont like gehry ... i know ive said it before but all his designs that i have seen look the same
I was hoping not to get into this , but...

alonzo, at least Gehry isn't boring.

Take a look (maybe it will broaden your perspective).

Gehry's Bard College Performing Arts Center:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Fisher_at_Bard_College.jpg/800px-Fisher_at_Bard_College.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Fisher_at_Bard_College.jpg)

Gehry's Wynton Guest House, Wayzata, MN:

http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/10/05/gehry/guesthouse.jpg

Gehry's Disney Concert Hall:

http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/1217/images/12335_image_5.150.jpg (http://www.architectureweek.com/cgi-bin/awimage?dir=2003/1217&article=design_1-2.html&image=12335_image_5.jpg)

http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/1217/images/12333_image_1.150.jpg (http://www.architectureweek.com/cgi-bin/awimage?dir=2003/1217&article=design_1-1.html&image=12333_image_1.jpg)

Gehry's Rasin Building, Prague (aka "Fred & Ginger"):

http://lava.ds.arch.tue.nl/gallery/praha/f53.jpg

http://lava.ds.arch.tue.nl/gallery/praha/f6.jpg

Chiat / Day, Venice CA:
http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/10/05/gehry/chiat.jpg

Gehry's Stata Center, MIT:

http://www.architectureweek.com/2004/0623/images/12452_image_2.150.jpg (http://www.architectureweek.com/cgi-bin/awimage?dir=2004/0623&article=design_1-1.html&image=12452_image_2.jpg)

Experience Music Project, Seattle

http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_emp_kmm_005.jpg

Bilbao:

http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/10/05/gehry/bilbao.jpg

Alonzo-ny

August 19th, 2005, 09:07 PM

RJW

August 19th, 2005, 09:33 PM

Your pretty much proving my point with those pictures Bilbao, bard college, disney hall, and the music center seattle all look remarkably alike. Also a proposal i seen for something in chicago looked the same and his guggenhiem on the east river was also the same. Granted I hadnt seen those other designs until now and at first glance, dont like them and they prove my point of look all surreal. They're just like normal building except warped or collapsing or disneyfied (referring to gynton guest house looks like mickey mouses house or something like that)

So we get it - Gehry doesn't rock your boat. I like his work. He isn't my favorite architect. He would not have been my first choice for this project. He is the architect we have been given and I, for one, am excited for the potential. Brooklyn doesn't have a single great postwar tower and this may change all that (either as part of the project itself or the further development it spurs). I find modern architecture in Brooklyn to be mundane in the extreme but am happy to have the urban activity it brings and would not choose an empty lot and gas station over it.

lofter1

August 19th, 2005, 10:14 PM

Bilbao, bard college, disney hall, and the music center seattle all look remarkably alike.
That's kind of like saying all buildings clad in limestone look alike. Or all glass curtain buildings look alike. Or all brick buildings look alike.

RJW

August 20th, 2005, 01:25 AM

That's kind of like saying all buildings clad in limestone look alike. Or all glass curtain buildings look alike. Or all brick buildings look alike.

Not to mention that any fully developed artist's body of work will feature signature concerns and modes of expression. Anyone with some interest in architecture should easily be able to differentiate a Foster from a Pelli from a Calatrava and so on. To simply say - "it all looks the same" – is a very poor criticism.

Fabrizio

August 20th, 2005, 09:38 AM

ablarc

August 20th, 2005, 10:01 AM

Does Brooklyn really want to hand over so much space to a guy who has NEVER built a building that is street friendly?

Gerhy should be proposing a new 2Columbus Circle.... he´d be brilliant doing a building on a site like that... a piece of sculpture on it´s own little island.
Fabrizio, Gehry's never built a building that is street friendly for the same reason that Brunelleschi and Michelangelo never did: nobody ever asked them to. "Street friendly" buildings weren't generally designed by architects at all. Architects did important buildings that used to be called "high architecture." These generally occurred in conjunction with monumental, usually desolate space.

Though perhaps severely beautiful, I can't think of a more barren space than the forecourt of the Pitti Palace, and the Campidoglio's fit only for clumps of tourists feasting on architecture and views. Who really enjoys the monumental mall that leads from the river to Mansart's Invalides?

There's a place for monuments accompanied by barren space. This time Gehry's being asked to do an urban building that fits ("street friendly"). I know he understands the issues, and he'll deliver. He doesn't need lessons from us in urban architecture.

* * *

Btw, I think it's ironic that three out of the four photos in the Kunstler link you cite were actually taken by me. Indeed I meant to highlight the barenness of MIT's campus, but you can't blame Gehry for that; MIT's program, combined with regulations, omitted life-enhancing program elements such as retail; you can be sure they would have been provided if allowed.

I never discussed 2 Columbus Circle with Gehry, but I'd guess his reaction to being asked to replace it would be: Leave it alone.

* * *

Also, I agree that criticizing an artist for producing consistent work shows ignorance. We might as well write off Botticelli, Van Gogh and Vermeer on that score. And what should we say about H.H. Richardson?

lofter1

August 20th, 2005, 10:48 AM

Lofter: thanks for proving my point again with more photos of desolation.....showing Gehry´s complete disregard for creating interesting public spaces.
If you ever get the chance to visit the Disney Concert Hall you might change your mind on this point.

In an area of LA (which is notorious for lack of interesting public spaces) Gehry has created a terrific building with public spaces that engage the street and invite the visitor into the building.

I'm anticipating his plan for Grand St. in LA to see how he will enliven that area (nearby to Disney Concert Hall).

Fabrizio

August 20th, 2005, 11:40 AM

Lofter: I don´t know the Disney. I do know the Bilbao and Dusseldorf.

Ablarc: "Fabrizio, Gehry's never built a building that is street friendly for the same reason that Brunelleschi and Michelangelo never did: nobody ever asked them to. "Street friendly" buildings weren't generally designed by architects at all".

Oh c´mon. Yes, that was true 500 years ago.... and you sure don´t have to go back as far as Michelangelo!... try the 1950´s, 60´s or 70´s... but today we have other expectations from architecture ...even from a concert hall or a museum.

And again: this does not depend on retail.

ablarc

August 20th, 2005, 12:00 PM

but today we have other expectations from architecture ...even from a concert hall or a museum.
Expectations don't change much over time; it's not a question of yesterday or today so much as it's a question of the client's wishes.

In this case Ratner has come around to the preferences we share on this forum, and Gehry can be trusted to deliver.

* * *

And I think our expectations for a concert hall or museum are about the same as always.

Fabrizio

August 20th, 2005, 12:24 PM

"And I think our expectations for a concert hall or museum are about the same as always."

Wha? Tell that to the Brooklyn Museum....

ablarc

August 20th, 2005, 12:32 PM

^ Don't know what you mean. If you're talking about their innovative programs, that has not much to do with architecture or urban design.

If you're talking about the recent exterior revision, that's a disaster. And as anti-urban as anything you ascribe to Gehry. Come to think of it, you could see it as Polshek doing Gehry --in his usual tepid way.

Polshek = Gehry lite.

Now there's someone you could convincingly object to: Polshek. Neither urban nor art.

lofter1

August 20th, 2005, 01:06 PM

Lofter: I don´t know the Disney.
Here's a shot of the garden at Gehry's Disney Hall:

http://www.musiccenter.org/images/tours_hp2.jpg

The entrance to Gehry's Dsiney Hall across from the Music Center:

http://www.musiccenter.org/wdch/g_images/505-5.jpg

ablarc

August 20th, 2005, 01:28 PM

lofter, the second shot probably doesn't fit Fabrizio's criteria for urbanity --or mine either.

But LA's not really a city anyway, is it? Looks like Charlotte, but there's more of it.

pianoman11686

August 20th, 2005, 02:37 PM

Off-topic, but since I just visited LA briefly, I'll say this much: The only parts of LA that actually feel like a real city are a select few towns surrounding LA: Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Pasadena. Maybe there are a few others that I missed, but the whole area truly fits the description of "one big suburb". That's why the Grand Avenue project is so important, because it will attempt to bring in people to "Downtown Los Angeles."

Anyone detect similarities to Atlantic Yards? Sure, Brooklyn has plenty of real neighborhoods, which is enviable, but "downtown" is just a couple office buildings at present. Gehry really has to work on creating a vibrant district here, and I think it depends much more on how things function at street level than 500 feet up.

RJW

August 20th, 2005, 04:34 PM

"To simply say - "it all looks the same" – is a very poor criticism".

RJW: after my posting of link, after link, of detailed illustrated critical comment on Gehry, the best you could come up with was:

"So you found a critic that doesn't like Gehry's work - big deal".

LOL. Yeah, big deal. And your mother wears army boots.

Lofter: thanks for proving my point again with more photos of desolation.....showing Gehry´s complete disregard for creating interesting public spaces.

Fabrizio, I will say again that to simply say - "it all looks the same" – is a very poor criticism. This point is made as if it is a particularity of Gehry’s work that separates him from other artists and architects; a weakness in his craft, so to speak. It is just plain wrong. It is merely denigrating an esteemed artist whose work does not appeal to his or her person.

As for the combat boots remark, I am sorry to see you take my disagreement with the quality of your architectural criticism and underlying understanding of the client / architect relationship to such a personal level.

An individual's response to the work of an artist is just that; a personal response. You post, as you say -"link, after link, of detailed illustrated critical comment on" - Gehry’s work that you (or your selective critic) find to be in some way deficient as proof of your point and assume that anyone whose reaction differs from yours (or your critic's) is somehow wrong. Where aesthetics is concerned, there are no such absolutes.

Fabrizio

August 20th, 2005, 05:06 PM

RJW: I´m away and really rushing:

Please go back and follow the thread: you critiscized another poster because he DISMISSED Gehry´s work as "it all looks the same".

So to you I say: you basically did the same: you DISMISSED link after link of scholarly ( I´m certainly not saying that you must agree with the opinions expressed) comments about the failings of various Gehry buildings with ( I think a rather childish):

"So you found a critic that doesn't like Gehry's work - big deal".

To that I posted "LOL. Yeah, big deal. And your mother wears army boots* ".

Perhaps I should have also added "nah, nah, nah" and thumbed my nose.

Can you now see that it was meant with irony?

* ( ... a little bit of history: the phrase was made famous by Bugs Bunny.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

BTW: Achitects will of course have signature styles. I think because Gehry´s curvey metal surfaces and slanted walls are such a strong signature look, it´s easy to feel that his buildings sometimes look awfully similiar.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Lofter: So you found a pic with some flowers and plants - big deal.

RJW

August 20th, 2005, 06:09 PM

you critiscized another poster because he DISMISSED Gehry´s work as "it all looks the same".

So to you I say: you basically did the same: you DISMISSED link after link of scholarly ( I´m certainly not saying that you must agree with the opinions expressed) comments about the failings of various Gehry buildings

There is a big difference between my finding the statement "Gehry´s work all looks the same" to be poor criticism and my roundly disagreeing with the out of context and wrongheaded criticisms in your selectively chosen "link after link of scholarly comments about the failings of various Gehry buildings." As I have said before, the former is a condition shared by and generally conceived as a strength (as opposed to failing) in any artist's work regardless of discipline and the latter is what I consider to be a comparison of apples to oranges (as ablarc stated earlier... "Gehry's never built a building that is street friendly for the same reason that Brunelleschi and Michelangelo never did: nobody ever asked them to").

And to say... "but today we have other expectations from architecture ...even from a concert hall or a museum" completely fails to recognize the tightrope an architect treads between what he would build, what the architecture is purposed for and what the client will pay for.

lofter1

August 21st, 2005, 01:27 AM

OK, now we all know Fabrizio hates anything Gehry has ever done.

I say we move on (since this is just going in circles).

RJW

August 21st, 2005, 02:49 AM

Hear, Hear!

Fabrizio

August 21st, 2005, 12:45 PM

Well, so much for intellectual curiosity...

RJW: "And to say... "but today we have other expectations from architecture ...even from a concert hall or a museum" completely fails to recognize the tightrope an architect treads between what he would build, what the architecture is purposed for and what the client will pay for."

No, not at all.

Creating buildings that include great public spaces, or are at least people friendly, has little to do with budget. And yes, today we certainly DO expect great public spaces from public buildings like concert halls and museums.

How is the space in and around the building used by the public? Is it inviting? Is it a gathering place? Does it encourage people to linger and enjoy themselves or does it repel? Are the spaces well organized and easy to "read"? Or are they confusing? Are there places in and around the building for people to gather and socialize, or does the building encourage people to just pass by and pass through. Do the spaces promote a feeling of security and safety, or a subtle feeling of wariness? Is the building a place you want to return to?

The Bilboa is stunningly beautiful, no question, but it is actually hostile to vistors... that´s what I saw and felt... the building is in many ways a failure. The Modern Museum in NY is a million times more hospitable (and includes a great public space: it´s sculpture garden). The Metropolitan Museum... even the NY Public Library, have delightful public spaces in front of them that are vibrant with activity (although perhaps more from a happy combination of factors instead of original intent). These spaces enrich the community Even (the roundly critised) Lincoln center with it´s "let´s-meet-at-the-fountain" fountain and room-like park in front of it´s library, are pretty good spaces. The Bilboa is dead by comparison.... with a rather hostile environment in and around the building. (do see the photos in the link I provided) I could only visit quickly his buildings in Dusseldorf because of a rainy, blustery day, but that complex also struck me as being a place that could only repel activity around it. I did not visit the inside.

You don´t need an extra budget to create successful spaces.... it depends on the will and talent of the architect. It depends on his choices. And you cannot tell me that having friendly public spaces "was not his (or the clients) intention".

And I bring up these points because public spaces are what a city is all about.

Ablarc: your comment: "And I think our expectations for a concert hall or museum are about the same as always."

You know that it is not true. Today a museum is expected to be (rightly or wrongly) much more than the purely accademic experience it once was...not only in it´s cultural program, but also in it´s architecture and the use of it´s building.... and that´s why I mention the Brooklyn Museum as an example. The intention of it´s renovation was to make the museum more "inviting" and to create a more vibrant public space at the entrance. Whether the renovation was successful or not is another story....

That will also be a high priority with the Lincoln Center renovation... because welcoming public spaces are what we expect today in cultural buildings.... unlike in the early 60´s when the complex was built.

I am interested to hear more of Lofters experience with the Disney concert Hall. The photos honestly don´t look that promising....I also don´t know if it´s so important if this building connects to the rest of the neighborhood... it is LA after all.

RJW

August 21st, 2005, 03:13 PM

Fabrizio, again I will just say that the works you continue to site and the Atlantic Yards development are just to dissimilar to compare. Narrowing your to criticism to his public spaces makes for some good argument but fails to mask the relentlessly negative assessments of nearly every aspect of Gehry's work that you have repeatedly made throughout this thread.

The Modern Museum in NY is a million times more hospitable (and includes a great public space: it´s sculpture garden).

I agree that MOMA is great...

You don´t need an extra budget to create successful spaces.... it depends on the will and talent of the architect. It depends on his choices. And you cannot tell me that having friendly public spaces "was not his (or the clients) intention".

...but the commitment of MOMA's directors to the sculpture garden was immense (and costly) if you consider the value of the real estate the garden occupies and that despite all its new square footage the permanent collection floors run out sometime around minimalism. I have interests other than architecture in that museum and would have gladly given up the garden for another permanent exhibition floor. I love the museum's garden space but I love its collection even more. Everything in a development is a compromise of one interest for another.

Jasonik

August 21st, 2005, 08:22 PM

This is a case where Gehry provides street level retail with a rain awning and an open corner with a raised entry. People are always hanging around here. It has a bus stop in front and a subway station in the basement.

[360 Newbury]...won the Parker Award as the most beautiful new building in Boston. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newbury_Street)

http://jasonjasonjason.com/BostonOct03/BostonOct03-Images/29.jpg

ablarc

August 21st, 2005, 11:34 PM

RJW

August 22nd, 2005, 12:15 AM

RJW, MOMA’s sculpture garden doesn’t even qualify as a public space; you have to pay (and plenty!) to get in.

And street friendly? You can't even get to it from the street.

It's a private space that the public is admitted to for a fee, and therefore irrelevant to the present discussion.

ablarc… My mention of MOMA's sculpture garden is in reference to Fabrizio's using it as an example of a "great public space" (in contrast to Gehry’s work at Bilbao, he thinks) and has nothing to do with being street friendly (the two, I do not believe, need be indivisibly linked for the purposes of this conversation). Also, your narrow definition of a public space while logical (must not be pay for access) is not necessarily shared by all, illustrated by the examples repeatedly posted in this thread by numerous contributors. I simply took his example of a great public space and illustrated a hypothetical conflict of interest germane to his assertion that a client’s desire for a “great public space” is always a client’s top priority and always, in the absence thereof, the failure of the architect to deliver.

lofter1

August 22nd, 2005, 12:18 AM

Here's my two cents about the new MoMA:

The upper galleries are terrific, especially the top floors. However...

The spacial layout of the entry way -- from the street level lobby to the 2nd floor galleries -- is incredibly awkward. Once you clear the ticket taker then the expanse of the Garden greets the visitor with a beatiful vista -- but that platform space gives you little sense of where you are and where you might want to go.

The main stairway is around a corner -- and gives you no sense of arrival until you get 2/3 of the way up. It is also too narrow (despite it's fairly significant width) for the numbers of people using it. Once you reach the top of the stairs it's a traffic jam while people try to figure out where the hell they are and where they should be going (and not in the sense that the options expand your mind with possibilities -- it's just spatially unclear where one is).

The elevators are hidden away around another corner -- which makes you feel like you're going up to someone's office. The escalators are lacking any sense of space around them -- and any sense of where they are taking you (it's more like moving up the back way at Macy's).

Granted MoMA was dealing with an existing set of buildings and a lot of limitations. But the the flow of the building does not work -- until you get into the galleries, where the layout is a vast improvement and the top-most galleries are truly glorious.

RJW

August 22nd, 2005, 12:27 AM

Granted MoMA was dealing with an existing set of buildings and a lot of limitations. But the the flow of the building does not work -- until you get into the galleries, where the layout is a vast improvement and the top-most galleries are truly glorious.

Agreed though we really are now off topic.

Fabrizio

August 22nd, 2005, 05:05 AM

From Gehry to the MOMA...very off topic yes... but you know this stuff is the nitty-gritty of architecture. We can do post, after post, of "I like it" ..."I don´t like it"...."Gee, how many feet do you think it is going to be?" but isn´t nice to really get into the workings of buildings and really examine an architects work.... posting photos... links... examples... taking a stance, building a case? I know it seems too much for some of you and I´ll stop.

Ablarc: geeez....My post about the Moma garden has N O T H I N G to do with entrance fees for gosh sakes.... What are the ELEMENTS in architecture that make great public spaces?

Uh... never mind.

Alonzo-ny

August 25th, 2005, 01:31 PM

RJW

August 25th, 2005, 05:17 PM

Its not a poor critisism to point out that gehry does the same wavy stainless steel or whatever metal crap all the time. There is a big difference between a signature and using the design almost all the time, especially when the original design wasnt that good. I dont care how many people it attracted to bilbao but that isnt the measure of a great building

"The measure of a great building..." well, pray do tell, as you do so seem to presume to know in every instance and in every man's eye, now and for all of time and throughout the entire universe, what the measure of a great building is.

Ninjahedge

August 25th, 2005, 06:18 PM

Architectural designs are like shoes.

Some people like, some people hate.

But what is the purpose of a pair that you need to take off in order to get anywhere?

(PS, if the shoe fits....Build it)

RJW

August 25th, 2005, 06:31 PM

Architectural designs are like shoes.

Some people like, some people hate.

But what is the purpose of a pair that you need to take off in order to get anywhere?

(PS, if the shoe fits....Build it)

A conundrum indeed.

Fabrizio

August 26th, 2005, 05:52 AM

BrooklynRider

August 26th, 2005, 11:24 AM

Some of his designs are familiar. A lot of his designs are quite original. Many of his designs are familiar and / or orginal and just ugly. Not every conceptual design should be built. I think he suffers from not having very good clients (i.e. clients who are so reverent that they dare not push back on his surrealist take on design).

Clarknt67

August 26th, 2005, 11:55 AM

RJW: Instead of going after Alonzo´s somewhat clumsy means of expression, try adressing his point.... because it actually is very interesting.

Can an architects signature style become an overly familiar bag of tricks? Predictable? CAN Gehry be accused of this?

Of course design tricks can be overused. I'm a magazine designer, and there is a designer--who is considered as star in the business, but he has a tendency to do the same thing over and over. I can spot his work a mile away.

Personally I find it a little dull and predictable that he reuses the same color palatte the same collection of fonts.

But they DO work, the type is legible, the colors not unpleasing.

As for Gehry, I was initially please that the first renderings of the Arena seemed to have deviated from his crumpled metal look. But he's returned to them and the project doesn't look nearly as new/exciting/grand anymore. I'm not sure his signature is serving the project or just his ego to put his mark on it.

kliq6

August 26th, 2005, 05:50 PM

RJW

August 26th, 2005, 06:04 PM

Today is Day 30 of the 45 day period of exclusive neg. So far i still here from people close that Ratner wont budge off his site price. Based that this guy put practically no money next to his last three developments, I wouldnt be surprised his offer does not change and they the MTA give the site away for nothing

If what you are saying is true then Ratner has, through whatever legal means at his disposal, got this thing locked up (unless he is willing or desires to walk away for some unknown reason). There is nothing wrong with that - it is business - it is hardball - it is life.

BrooklynRider

August 26th, 2005, 06:41 PM

I think Kliq is right. We're gonna see Ratner walk away with a sweetheart deal from giveaway Mike.

RJW

August 26th, 2005, 06:47 PM

I think Kliq is right. We're gonna see Ratner walk away with a sweetheart deal from giveaway Mike.

What is with everyone on this forum acting like developers and developer friendly mayors are bad guys. If you are such great lovers of architecture, why rant about deal making that results in the further development of the city. It's the attitude of persons such as yourself that make building in this city such a hassle.

BrooklynRider

August 26th, 2005, 07:03 PM

It's the attitude of people like you that would see crap built all over this city just because it is "new" and fills in an empty lot. You pursue your ideal and I'll pursue mine.

But, you might want to refrain from the attacks on people (i.e. "...persons such as yourself..." kind of posts) or you might find that someone like me can rip you a new one. See the TOS here on personal attacks and courtesy. If you can't read a full paragraph, then study these two words: BACK OFF.

RJW

August 26th, 2005, 07:07 PM

It's the attitude of people like you that would see crap built all over this city just because it is "new" and fills in an empty lot. You pursue your ideal and I'll pursue mine.

But, you might want to refrain from the attacks on people (i.e. "...persons such as yourself..." kind of posts) or you might find that someone like me can rip you a new one. See the TOS here on personal sattacks and courtesy. If you can't read a full paragraph, then study these two words: BACK OFF.

Dude - if you can't take the heat - GET OUT of the kitchen.

ablarc

August 26th, 2005, 07:08 PM

It's the attitude of people like you that would see crap built all over this city just because it is "new" and fills in an empty lot. You pursue your ideal and I'll pursue mine.

But, you might want to refrain from the attacks on people (i.e. "...persons such as yourself..." kind of posts) or you might find that someone like me can rip you a new one. See the TOS here on personal sattacks and courtesy. If you can't read a full paragraph, then study these two words: BACK OFF.
Overreaction.

BrooklynRider

August 26th, 2005, 07:09 PM

What is with everyone on this forum acting like developers and developer friendly mayors are bad guys...

Everyone on this forum? Paging Dr. Welby. Paging Dr. Welby. Psychotic episode in Room 3. Patient experiencing irrational persecution complex.

RJW

August 26th, 2005, 07:10 PM

Everyone on this forum? Paging Dr. Welby. Paging Dr. Welby. Psychotic episode in Room 3. Patient experiencing irrational persecution complex.

An exaggeration for effect - I admit - so shoot me.

BrooklynRider

August 26th, 2005, 07:12 PM

Dude - if you can't take the heat - GET OUT of the kitchen.

A person was letting RJW have it with just a touch more venom than usual, saying, 'You're an idiot. You have always been an idiot. You'll always be an idiot. If they had an idiot contest, you'd come in second.'

'Why would I come in second?' asked RJW.

'Because you're an idiot!'

RJW

August 26th, 2005, 07:16 PM

A person was letting RJW have it with just a touch more venom than usual, saying, 'You're an idiot. You have always been an idiot. You'll always be an idiot. If they had an idiot contest, you'd come in second.'

'Why would I come in second?' asked RJW.

'Because you're an idiot!'

Again - Dude - if you can't take the heat - GET OUT of the kitchen

OR

just keep acting like a petulant child.

ZippyTheChimp

August 26th, 2005, 07:26 PM

Architectural designs are like shoes.
So most architects are women?

RJW

August 26th, 2005, 09:18 PM

RJW: Instead of going after Alonzo´s somewhat clumsy means of expression, try adressing his point.... because it actually is very interesting.

Can an architects signature style become an overly familiar bag of tricks? Predictable? CAN Gehry be accused of this?

Gehry and nearly (if not every) accomplished artist in history. That is why I keep saying (over and over) that this complaint makes for poor criticism. I did not address alonzo's, as you put it, "clumsy means of expression" because he was covering already established ground by stating... "Its not a poor criticism to point out that gehry does the same wavy stainless steel or whatever metal crap all the time," and did not see the point of beating a dead horse (is to - is not - is to) anymore. I will say this; "stainless steel or whatever metal crap" proves my point better than any reasoned argument ever could.

To illustrate, lets make a few more poor criticisms...

Matisse does the same poorly drawn or whatever over colored crap all the time

Picasso does the same deconstructed forms or whatever cube crap all the time

Da Vinci does the same chiaroscuro or whatever depth crap all the time

Can I make these accusations? Yes
Are they poor criticisms? Yes

ablarc

August 26th, 2005, 09:42 PM

RJW

August 26th, 2005, 10:45 PM

RJW, your point is valid, imo. You might, however, have picked a better example than Picasso, who was something of a chameleon, like the architect Saarinen. You could, for example, have picked Dali: all that slickly-rendered surrealist crap.

Thanks and yes - I think your point is also valid - one of Picasso's "things" was widely varied styles while Dali does make a better illustration of crap.

:)

Poor criticisms aside, I appreciate the contributions of all of the artists cited.

Alonzo-ny

September 1st, 2005, 05:10 PM

I wrote those critisms at speed as i was running out of internet time and as a response to whoever claimed i claim to know how everyone measures a great building but there are very few who measure it by the amount of people who walk through its doors. For example a ugly office building has a few thousand entering every day but does that make it great, no. And as for the gehry arguement, i think he's overhyped and repeats himself although i do like his maggies center which is diffirent from most of his designs and i like it and you all should get a picture of it in here and check it out. I am officially bored of this arguement and am going to agree to disagree and those are my last comments on this matter.

kliq6

September 2nd, 2005, 10:33 AM

9 days left in the exclusive talk period, ratner has not raised his bid yet by a buck. Deadline in Saturday the 10th

lofter1

September 2nd, 2005, 10:45 AM

And as for the gehry arguement ... although i do like his maggies center which is diffirent from most of his designs and i like it and you all should get a picture of it in here and check it out.
Maggie's Dundee is located in front of Ward 32 at Ninewells Hospital. It commands stunning views down the Tay Estuary and across to North Fife.

http://www.communicata.co.uk:81/maggies/images/mag_dundeeback.jpg

More pics: http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/maggiescentre/

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/maggiescentre/maggie1.jpg

Alonzo-ny

September 2nd, 2005, 07:48 PM

Pretty small but its a good building, Dundee is where is study architecture in scotland where ill be returning to in a week after my working holiday in NY

lofter1

September 3rd, 2005, 09:23 AM

O.K., the Whole Paper Is Basically an Ad

By MICHAEL BRICK (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=MICHAEL BRICK&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=MICHAEL BRICK&inline=nyt-per)
Published: September 3, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/nyregion/03standard.html?8hpib

One possibility is that Walt Whitman would be proud. A newspaper-shaped thing has taken the name The Brooklyn Standard in homage to the paper that published Whitman's Brooklyniana series in the 1860's, and people are eager to see the next issue.

This newspaper-shaped thing is focused on Brooklyn, printing the word Brooklyn 17 times on its front page, a display of loyalty stronger than Whitman himself showed with lines like "Manhattan faces and eyes forever for me."And its content is divisive in a way Whitman might recognize from feuds with bosses at The Brooklyn Eagle over his Free Soil Party views. But while Whitman was taking a stand against the expansion of slavery, the editors of the new Standard have embraced more self-serving causes.

The publication is paid for by Forest City Ratner, the company promoting a proposed $3.5 billion arena project for downtown Brooklyn, and most of the articles, well, promote a proposed $3.5 billion arena project for downtown Brooklyn.

To counter the impression that it is trying to fool anyone, The Standard avoids calling itself a newspaper, instead proclaiming itself "a Forest City Ratner Publication."

Efforts at transparency end there. The Standard is printed on newsprint, folded like a tabloid, laid out to look like a newspaper and distributed alongside real newspapers. Hawkers hand it out by subway stations, and its masthead is full of people with newspaper-sounding jobs like executive editor and photographer.

Articles by writers of obvious bias are consigned to pages marked Editorial and Op-Ed. In that space, an article in the first issue was signed by Bruce Ratner, namesake of the development company behind the arena project, known as Atlantic Yards. Another article was about him. In it, the Rev. Herbert Daughtry described a talk Mr. Ratner gave to schoolchildren and said Mr. Ratner was "relaxed, smiling and seated on a child's chair, in his customary humble, winsome manner."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/03/nyregion/03standard184.jpg
Damon Meadow handing out The Brooklyn Standard at a newsstand in a photograph taken by Patti Hagan.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/03/nyregion/03standard184.2.jpg
Ting-Li Wang/The New York Times
Patti Hagan, an opponent of a proposed $3.5 billion arena project in downtown Brooklyn. Ms. Hagan looks forward to the next edition of the paper so she can learn more about the project.

The first issue also published letters to the editor from politicians who have endorsed the arena project, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Marty Markowitz, the borough president. Both men enlivened their prose with exclamation points. Mr. Markowitz used three.
If The Standard were a real newspaper, a writer named Edward-Isaac Dovere would be its young, indefatigable reporter desperate for the soothing paternal approval of the front page (and generally despised by the other reporters; names could be named here, but won't). Mr. Dovere scored two front-page bylines in the debut issue by staying focused on stories promoting a certain $3.5 billion arena project for downtown Brooklyn.

The Standard's goals have been no great mystery to opponents of the arena project. The authors of No Land Grab, a Web site with an unmistakably forthright name, wrote last month that "it has become fashionable for Brooklynites to use The Brooklyn Standard to line their hamster cages and use as 'brown matter' for composting bins."

Other arena opponents consider The Standard a valuable resource. Patti Hagan, a leader of the Prospect Heights Action Coalition, said she saw a young man hawking the paper this month and ran toward him, only to find that he had the old issue. This was a disappointment. Ms. Hagan already has that one. If you call her, she can read aloud from a copy she keeps on her desk.

"I keep it right in front of me because I need to refer to it, and I've underlined it and I've memorized it; I've got total recall of this thing," Ms. Hagan said. "Every time they put something like this out, you learn more."

Ms. Hagan said she awaited the next issue "with bated breath."

Some fear she will be disappointed. Daniel Goldstein, another opponent of the arena project, said he did not expect a second edition.

"Their intention was to advertise their project," Mr. Goldstein said. "They're not in the newspaper business."

Still, there is talk of the next issue: The directors of an arts group called Rooftop Films wrote and publicized a letter rebuffing overtures from the development group to appear in The Standard. This turn of events seemed a setback for The Standard, but it worked out well for the film group.

Rooftop Films' audience mirrors a mix of professionals and hipsters who present the vocal opposition to the arena project, and news of the group's rejection of The Standard made the front page of the local weekly, The Brooklyn Papers, last month.Joseph DePlasco, a spokesman for Forest City Ratner, which is the development partner of The New York Times Company for its new headquarters building, said a new issue of The Standard would be published in September. He said readers could expect more overviews of the project, letters from supporters and dates of future hearings.

"We'll still try to do it in a colorful, hopefully engaging way," Mr. DePlasco said, adding that the publication is meant to complement the developer's other efforts to promote the arena project.

How proud Whitman would be is an open question.

Though the new Standard invokes the legacy of the old Brooklyn Standard and the subsequent Brooklyn Standard Union, Mr. DePlasco said it "would be presumptuous of us to suggest what Whitman would have thought."

Mr. Goldstein, one of the arena opponents, hazarded a guess.

"I think he'd probably say he prefers free verse to free propaganda," he said.

As the dispute between the arena's supporters and opponents amounts in some ways to a clash between low-rise brownstones and large-scale public works, Whitman himself gave a hint of his views right in the pages of Brooklyniana.

"Several of the churches are noble buildings, and the new Academy of Music is a sufficient success in an architectural point of view outside," Whitman wrote. "But, after all, there are private rows of buildings in some of the choice streets of our city that transcend any single public edifice among us that we know of."

NoyokA

September 4th, 2005, 09:40 PM

Brooklyn Papers:

‘NIMBY’ Bloomie films TV ad in Fort Greene

By Jess Wisloski
The Brooklyn Papers

If it’s in Brooklyn, build away. Just don’t build it anywhere near Mayor Mike’s backyard.

Despite promoting the largest economic development projects in Brooklyn for city approval in the past year, including the Atlantic Yards housing and arena development, and an Ikea big-box store in Red Hook, the mayor continues to say he might not like the projects so much if it was his quality of life that was in jeopardy.

In a surprise visit to Fort Greene Aug. 24 to film a re-election campaign commercial, Mayor Michael Bloomberg expressed surprise at how close Forest City Ratner’s proposed 19,000-seat arena and 17-tower residential complex was to Brownstone Brooklyn.

And, upon finding out the proximity of the 60-story Frank Gehry designs for a futuristic cityscape would be to some of the borough’s most cherished six-story brownstones, a resident says the mayor told him that if he lived there, he wouldn’t be so keen on the project, either.

Michael Decker, who lives near the Mexican restaurant Pequena, on South Oxford Street between Lafayette Avenue and Fulton Street, where Bloomberg was filming his commercial, said he called some of his neighbors about the mayor’s presence on the block.

The neighbors, all members of the Fort Greene Association, and two who are involved with the anti-Ratner arena group Develop-Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), asked the mayor about his support of the Atlantic Yards project.

“[His comment] was in regard to our opposition to the project,” recalled Decker, “and I believe what he said was, ‘If I were in your position, I’d feel the same way,’” recalled Decker, a member of DDDB.

The mayor’s not-in-my-backyard, or NIMBY, message sounded much like comments he made the day after the City Council approved rezoning to allow the construction of an Ikea big-box store in Red Hook last October.

Talking to reporters about the Ikea project, Bloomberg said candidly, “I happen to be a supporter of [the Red Hook Ikea plan]. But I think if I lived there, I don’t know whether I would be, quite honestly.”

Lucy Koteen, an organizer for DDDB and member of the Fort Greene Association, said the site, a tiny Mexican restaurant, seemed to have been location-scouted for the Spanish-language commercial, but pointed out that the area, unlike the surrounding neighborhoods of Prospect Heights, Bushwick and Park Slope, doesn’t have a very large Hispanic population.

“I thought, ‘Those don’t look like the usual Pequena people.’ Pequena is the yuppie place; it’s a nice place, but they have a lunchtime special with margaritas,” she pointed out.

“There were two Spanish-looking men, playing dominos at a table outside the restaurant as a backdrop,” she said with a laugh. “[Bloomberg] spoke in Spanish from his teleprompter.”

Afterwards, she, Decker and another neighbor approached the mayor, and brought up the Atlantic Yards project, which would begin two blocks from the restaurant.

“We told him this community did not want it, and that those people who were behind the project were not from the community, and that over 40 groups with deep roots in the neighborhood opposed it,” Koteen said.

“They started walking, and [Bloomberg] said, ‘Gee, I don’t know what to tell you, I wouldn’t be happy about it if it was in my neighborhood either,” said Koteen.

Mayoral spokesman Jordan Barowitz could not confirm the statement.

“I asked about that from someone who was with the mayor all day, and she doesn’t recall that conversation,” he said.

“I believe he was sympathetic to the individuals who lived in the area, but as the mayor’s reiterated, this proposal means tens of thousands of jobs, and thousands of units of affordable housing,” he said.

Koteen agreed that the mayor seemed sincere.

“He showed real concern in that he was listening,” she said.

Decker said it was “funny” that of all neighborhoods, Bloomberg chose Fort Greene to film a campaign commercial.

“He’s using our beautiful neighborhood as a backdrop in re-election commercials,” said Decker, “while carelessly supporting a developer’s land-grab that will irreparably damage this very community.”

kliq6

September 6th, 2005, 01:04 PM

have to admit an di may be killed on this bored and by people who know me bu ti am actually against the ratner plan, its not what Brooklyn needs, i like extell bid but they have no chance. The MTA will award this low bid from ratner

bkmonkey

September 6th, 2005, 06:23 PM

what does brooklyn need?

krulltime

September 6th, 2005, 11:31 PM

City releases forecast for Brooklyn arena

by Julie Satow
September 06, 2005

The proposed Nets basketball arena in Brooklyn would generate $28.5 million in revenue for the city over 30 years, according to a report released today by the Independent Budget Office.

The revenue falls short of the gains forecast by an earlier study sponsored by Forest City Ratner, the developer of the 18,000-seat basketball arena and other buildings over the Atlantic Yards, according to opponents of the project.

and state would each contribute $100 million to the construction of the arena. After those payments, the state would still gain $70.5 million and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority would get a $7.9 million boost.

“How sweet a deal is Ratner getting and how raw a deal is the public getting? Very sweet and very raw,” says Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, a group that opposes the proposed 21-acre development.

The MTA, which owns the rail yard, is negotiating with Forest City Ratner over the development. The deadline for the negotiations is Saturday.

The report also found that the arena would generate about $7.5 million in new city taxes annually, mostly from sales taxes. The projections are in 2005 dollars.

©2005 Crain Communications Inc.

TonyO

September 6th, 2005, 11:52 PM

NY Times
September 7, 2005

Offer Is Doubled by Developer to Build Arena in Brooklyn

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Under pressure from a rival bidder for the Atlantic railyard in Brooklyn, the developer Bruce C. Ratner has agreed to double his initial offer to roughly $100 million for the right to build a glass-walled basketball arena that would anchor the largest private development in the borough's history, people on both sides of the negotiations said yesterday.

The higher bid means that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which owns the yard and is perennially in need of cash, would get an extra $50 million to spend on the transportation system. The agency would also get a new, upgraded train yard on land to the west of the existing 8.3-acre yard, which is at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues.

The board of the transportation agency could hold a special meeting as soon as Tuesday to approve the deal, according to two executives involved in the talks, who asked not to be identified because of the continuing negotiations.

The $555.3 million arena, which would be a new home for the Nets and the most expensive arena in the country, is one element of a $3.5 billion development of 6,000 apartments as well as stores, office space and parks that would transform the area. Much to the dismay of some residents and critics of the project, two of the 15 towers planned for the 21-acre site would rise above the Williamsburgh Savings Bank, currently the tallest building in Brooklyn, and dwarf much of the surrounding neighborhood.

The transportation agency and the developer declined to comment on the latest offer.

Also yesterday, the New York City Independent Budget Office released a report stating that the arena would generate a modest but positive fiscal impact for the state and the city. After a significant public investment, which includes a $200 million subsidy, tax-exempt financing and numerous tax breaks, the arena would create an estimated fiscal surplus of $107 million over 30 years, or $28.5 million for the city alone, the budget office estimated.

Supporters and opponents of the project immediately seized on the report to buttress their arguments.

Mr. Ratner's company, Forest City Ratner, said in a statement released yesterday that it was pleased that the budget office had concluded that the arena was a "win-win" situation for the city and the state.

"As we have said all along," said James P. Stuckey, the company vice president overseeing the project, "Atlantic Yards is about more than basketball. It's about affordable housing and jobs and creating a development that complements the borough and the surrounding communities."

Critics contended that large development projects rarely live up to the extravagant claims made in economic reports used to justify them.

Forest City plans to build 6,000 apartments, with half of the 4,500 rental units reserved for low- to middle-income residents. Also, Forest City recently promised to pursue the development of an additional 600 to 1,000 apartments for low- to moderate-income residents.

The project has evolved over the last two years, with the value of construction rising to $3.5 billion from $2.5 billion, while the cost of the arena jumped to $555 million from $435 million.

Daniel Goldstein, a spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, a neighborhood group that opposes the project, said that the report showed that supporters had exaggerated the benefits of the project to taxpayers. Both he and City Councilwoman Letitia James, who represents the area surrounding the site, noted that the budget office said the city would see a surplus of only $28.5 million above its investment in the project after 30 years.

"It's not much of a surplus, less than a million dollars a year," Ms. James said. "Given all the negative impacts, I don't think it's worth the public investment."

Ms. James said that the Ratner project would add to traffic congestion at an already busy intersection and prompt the removal of longtime residents and businesses through condemnation.

Ronnie Lowenstein, director of the Independent Budget Office said that unlike most stadium projects, the proposed 18,000-seat basketball arena for the Nets would generate new tax dollars largely because the franchise would relocate to Brooklyn from New Jersey.

"We expect that many of their fans will spend their entertainment dollars here rather than there," she said.

Ms. Lowenstein said she acknowledged the limitations of doing a strict economic impact analysis for the arena alone. She said it was hard to estimate the increased number of jobs and spending for the entire project, although she believes the proposed housing would have a positive effect.

Mr. Ratner, a partner with The New York Times Company on its new headquarters building in Midtown Manhattan, had been under considerable pressure to raise his offer ever since the Extell Development Company offered $150 million for the development rights in July. Extell won support from some local groups because it proposed a smaller project and did not require that the state condemn some adjoining properties. But the transportation authority ultimately rejected the Extell bid, giving Mr. Ratner until Saturday to come up with a better offer.

The developer estimated that the value of his original bid was worth $329 million because he would build a larger, more modern railyard. Transportation agency officials said they were unsure whether the Extell bid included the cost of building a new railyard.

Under the new deal, Mr. Ratner will still build a new yard.

Janel Paterson, a spokeswoman for the city's Economic Development Corporation, said the project "would clearly result in increased revenues, especially when the surrounding development is taken into consideration."

krulltime

September 7th, 2005, 03:43 PM

Report: Large windfall from Nets arena doubtful

September 7, 2005

The proposed New Jersey Nets arena in Downtown Brooklyn would provide the city and state with a net surplus of $107 million over 30 years, according to a report out today by the city's Independent Budget Office. That's not much more than the $100 million the government would give to developer – and Nets owner – Bruce Ratner to build the arena and redevelop the area around it. When the arena opens, the report also concluded, it will provide $7.5 million in annual tax revenue to the city.

City Independent Budget Office Report (http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/atlyards_fbsept2005.pdf)

Copyright © 2003-2005 The Real Deal.

kliq6

September 9th, 2005, 10:00 AM

Ratner set to Net MTA deal

By PETE DONOHUE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

MTA officials are expected to approve as soon as Wednesday a deal to clear the lane for the Nets to play in Brooklyn, transit sources said yesterday.
Developer Bruce Ratner has sweetened his offer to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for rights to develop its railyards in downtown Brooklyn, where his company, Forest City Ratner, wants to build an arena for the Jersey-based team.

MTA board members yesterday were told to come to a special meeting Wednesday where one source expects the board to approve a deal with Ratner, who owns the Nets.

The board didn't accept Ratner's initial offer at a July meeting but voted overwhelmingly - 12-to-1 - to negotiate exclusively with his company instead of a rival bidder.

Ratner since has upped his initial bid of $50 million to the $100 million range and has offered improvements on a few other fronts, sources said.

"It's a better deal," said one source.

The arena is the centerpiece of Ratner's $3.5 billion vision that also calls for 6,000 apartments and other development over 21 acres.

In his July bid, Ratner also pledged to build a new facility for Long Island Rail Road trains that use the yards, as well as other improvements.

Opponents contend the project will overwhelm the neighborhood with traffic and overtax local city services.

NoyokA

September 10th, 2005, 03:13 PM

Star-Ledger:

Nets close in on their Brooklyn property
Saturday, September 10, 2005
BY MATTHEW FUTTERMAN

Nets owner Bruce Ratner and the Metropolitan Transpotation Authority appear to have reached a deal that would allow Ratner to buy the nine-acre rail yard in downtown Brooklyn for the Nets' proposed arena.

The two sides have been locked in exclusive negotiations for six weeks and had until today to reach a deal. Earlier this week, Ratner doubled his original offer for the rail yard to $100 million. While neither side would comment on the negotiations, the MTA set a special board meeting for Wednesday to consider Ratner's proposal. The state agency usually only makes such a move after it has reached a deal.

Ratner is planning a $550 million arena designed by architect Frank Gehry at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues in downtown Brooklyn. The arena, which would be the most expensive building of its kind in the country, would also be the centerpiece of a community of thousands of apartments and office buildings to be built during the next decade.

The Nets plan to move to Brooklyn for the 2008-09 season.

Citytect

September 10th, 2005, 10:58 PM

Awesome!
What's Ratner's next obstacle after purchasing the land?

NoyokA

September 11th, 2005, 12:44 PM

Awesome!
What's Ratner's next obstacle after purchasing the land?

Some eminent domain.

--------------------------------------------------------------

New York Daily News:
Ratner set to Net MTA deal
By PETE DONOHUE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, September 9th, 2005

MTA officials are expected to approve as soon as Wednesday a deal to clear the lane for the Nets to play in Brooklyn, transit sources said yesterday.

Developer Bruce Ratner has sweetened his offer to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for rights to develop its railyards in downtown Brooklyn, where his company, Forest City Ratner, wants to build an arena for the Jersey-based team.

MTA board members yesterday were told to come to a special meeting Wednesday where one source expects the board to approve a deal with Ratner, who owns the Nets.

The board didn't accept Ratner's initial offer at a July meeting but voted overwhelmingly - 12-to-1 - to negotiate exclusively with his company instead of a rival bidder.

Ratner since has upped his initial bid of $50 million to the $100 million range and has offered improvements on a few other fronts, sources said.

"It's a better deal," said one source.

The arena is the centerpiece of Ratner's $3.5 billion vision that also calls for 6,000 apartments and other development over 21 acres.

In his July bid, Ratner also pledged to build a new facility for Long Island Rail Road trains that use the yards, as well as other improvements.

Opponents contend the project will overwhelm the neighborhood with traffic and overtax local city services.

Clarknt67

September 11th, 2005, 06:10 PM

RATNER DOUBLES DOWN
Higher bid still far short of MTA site’s value

By Jess Wisloski
The Brooklyn Papers

Forest City Ratner this week doubled its bid for development rights over the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Atlantic Avenue rail yards, but is still offering less than half of what the property is estimated to be worth, according to a published report.

The right to build over the Long Island Rail Road storage yards in Prospect Heights is a crucial component of the development company’s plan to build a 19,000-seat professional basketball arena and 17 office and residential high-rises, including several skyscrapers that would tower over the surrounding area.

The development site of the proposed Atlantic Yards is bounded by Dean Street and Flatbush, Atlantic and Vanderbilt avenues.

Citing unnamed sources, identified only as “two executives involved in the talks,” the New York Times on Wednesday reported that a special meeting might be held as soon as this Tuesday, Sept. 13, to approve the deal because developer Bruce Ratner had upped his company’s bid from $50 million to $100 million.

An appraisal of the property for the MTA put its value at $214 million.

The MTA put out a request for proposals, or RFP, for the site on May 26. Although Ratner’s bid was the lower of the two bids submitted by the July 6 deadline, the MTA board on July 27 chose to negotiate exclusively with Ratner.

The competing bid, by Extell Development Company, was for $150 million for the three parcels, and offered to pay to build platforms above them.

The MTA board is made up of 17 appointees, most of them direct or indirect appointees of Gov. George Pataki.

At the July 27 MTA hearing, the board’s chair, Peter Kalikow, read a prepared motion to further discuss the bidding solely with Ratner, a Columbia Law School classmate of Pataki’s. The governor has been a supporter of the Ratner plan since it was announced in late 2003.

Forest City Ratner executives argued at the July 27 meeting that their bid was greater despite only offering $50 million up front, because it included $29 million in renovations of the rail yards (to help pay for their relocation required under the Ratner proposal), as well as $20 million in environmental remediation of the property (which needs to be done in order to develop the site for housing), $182 million to build a platform (to build the housing and commercial properties over the shifted rail yards), $25.4 million in MTA operating expenses and $23 million in projected sales tax revenues.

The MTA board voted to give Forest City Ratner 45 days — until Sept. 10 — to negotiate exclusively with Kalikow and Katherine Lapp, the executive director of the MTA and a former Pataki aide, leading to the $100 million, according to the Times report.

Neither MTA nor Forest City Ratner officials would comment for this article.

Additionally, an MTA spokesman said that neither Lapp nor Kalikow had been around when the Times story broke.

“I can’t verify that [the Times article is correct] because I don’t know about it,” said MTA spokesman Tom Kelly, a spokesman for the MTA.

“Kalikow has been away and Lapp has not seen a final [bid], so I don’t know,” said Kelly, who insisted that whatever information had been leaked was likely coming from the developer.

“This is not an MTA source,” Kelly said. “The ‘officials,’ as far as I can see, could be Ratner people; this could be their way of getting this out there,” he said, as a test balloon to gauge the MTA’s reaction.

“Based on what they’ve said [here], I’ve looked around, but nobody knows anything about scheduling a special meeting. So far, nothing has been changed,” he said.

Kelly reiterated that the approval for the sale might not occur until the next full MTA board meeting, scheduled for Sept. 29.

A spokesman for Forest City Ratner, Barry Baum, was less forthcoming.

“We are not discussing the MTA bid,” he said.

Clarknt67

September 11th, 2005, 06:15 PM

Re: the above Brooklyn Papers article. BP has been relentlessly negative this project. And I thought their choice of headline: "Far less than land valued" struck me as funny.

At the end of the day aren't things worth what people will pay for them, not what bean counters SAY they're worth?

The MTA put out a public request for bids--which while admittedly at best was half-hearted, at worse fixed, but still, public. And Develop Don't Destroy helped send out the request. So if this land is worth so much more, wouldn't SOMEONE have ponied that up? Extell was the only other bid they got, and that project was no prize either.

macreator

September 11th, 2005, 08:17 PM

The land is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it...period.

lofter1

September 11th, 2005, 08:25 PM

The land is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for it...period.
^ If that were really the case here then the $150M Extel bid for the land iteself would have over-taken Ratner's $100M bid for same site (actually more land under Ratner's bid, no?).

ZippyTheChimp

September 11th, 2005, 09:02 PM

At the end of the day aren't things worth what people will pay for them, not what bean counters SAY they're worth?

So if this land is worth so much more, wouldn't SOMEONE have ponied that up? Now, on what other project have I heard that argument before?

BrooklynRider

September 11th, 2005, 09:55 PM

Brooklynites bend over, here comes another Ratner project (without lube).

kliq6

September 12th, 2005, 10:02 AM

Im with Brooklyn, this plan is not good, it will help make Brooklyn into Manhattan and take away from its chartacter

bkmonkey

September 12th, 2005, 10:44 PM

Of course the character of Brooklyn will change, the character of a city is always changing. No doubt, the character of Brooklyn in 2005 is different, than it was in 1990. That is a given, what we dissagree on, is whether the change is for the better. I believe that Brooklyn will benifit trememdously from this project, Ive lived here all my life, and I could not be more excited

sfenn1117

September 12th, 2005, 10:49 PM

I agree. It'll be a landmark for our boro. I'm excited about a new pro team here and a new tallest. Think of all the visitors who will come to downtown Brooklyn to shop and walk around. Not to mention other run down areas would probably perk up. I can't wait.

BrooklynRider

September 12th, 2005, 11:58 PM

...Not to mention other run down areas would probably perk up. I can't wait.

i.e., poor and minority's leave as whites gentrify and jack up rents

sfenn1117

September 13th, 2005, 12:01 AM

umm that's really rascist. Sounds like you're implying that the only people who will be able to afford it is white people.

I really don't like your posts lately.

BrooklynRider

September 13th, 2005, 12:14 AM

It is reality. What exactly do we mean when we say we hope a neighborhood will "perk" up? That the bodegas leave, the poor folk disappear from the stoops and stop the loud noise on hot nights, and Starbucks moves in?

What don't we like about it now? It has no retail. It is a depressed (i.e, poor) area. No one is going there other than to live cheaply. Poor people live there making it unattractive and unsafe. There are group homes and SRO's.

It's not racist. It's reality. If you recognize what's there and hope that it changes, it is condemning the existing neighborhood.

This is a project that is ultimately publicly funded, because Ratner keeps the sales tax generated by the stadium for himself to "reinvest". Sorry, taxes are for the public sector - not a private developer. The MTA has one opportunity to sell that land and it is not choosing the highest bidder - that is corrupt without any rational argument to counter it. The minimal economic activity we see from this "project" will be absorbed by the increased municipal costs of servicing the development.

I want to the yards developed but I want the yards sold at the highest price - period. Ratner is no bound to build what he "proposes" - he can get the land and sit on it. Plus the guy is king of hand outs. This guy is building a second rate city in Brooklyn and in ten / fifteen years we'll look back and say "oh, this looks just like Metrotech".

sfenn1117

September 13th, 2005, 01:05 AM

That's not what you said in your previous post. Let's be serious here, there are run down areas in a prime cbd. Every city aims to get rid of these and develop them. That's how it works. Ever been to Hartford? Beautiful downtown, seriously rundown in most other parts.

It's the racist comment that burned me. Poors and minoritys leave while whites gentrify?

BrooklynRider

September 13th, 2005, 11:32 AM

My comment wasn't racist. Gentrification in New York City, which you are advocating, tends to be achieved at the expense of poor and minorities.

A "racist" comment would advocate the removal of poor and, specifically, black or latino residents. I didn't do that and we need not delve into the issue of reading comprehension and misinterpretation here. If you still wish to view it that way, however erroneous your perspective is, so be it.

NoyokA

September 13th, 2005, 11:56 AM

Anyway...

New York Daily News:
MTA unit backs Ratner's
deal for Nets arena
BY PAUL D. COLFORD
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, September 13th, 2005

Do the $100 million deal with Ratner.

That's what the MTA real estate division recommended yesterday to agency board members, who are expected to vote tomorrow on developer Bruce Ratner's sweetened bid to build a Nets arena in Brooklyn.

The written summary of negotiations between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Forest City Ratner Cos. confirms that the developer doubled his original July offer of $50 million to build atop the Atlantic Ave. railyards.

The 8.3-acre site, marked by the below-street-level yards of the Long Island Rail Road, stretches from Fifth Ave. to Vanderbilt Ave., between Pacific St. and Atlantic Ave. It is crucial to Ratner's grand plan for a 21-acre development to be anchored by an 18,000-seat arena for the Nets, which the developer owns.

The project, due to get $200 million in state and city subsidies, also calls for 6,000 housing units in 15 apartment buildings, 1.2 million square feet of office space, and stores. "I'm thrilled that he doubled what his offer was," MTA board member Barry Feinstein said, "but I still have a few questions about the value of the amount now being offered."

Transit sources have told the Daily News that the board is expected to approve the deal. In a 12-to-1 vote on July 27, the board gave MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow and Executive Director Katherine Lapp 45 days to negotiate an agreement with Ratner, shelving a competing proposal from Extell Development Co.

Meanwhile, the New York City Independent Budget Office concluded last week that the Nets arena would generate a fiscal surplus of $107 million over 30 years for the city and state. But Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and other community groups, which contend Ratner's profit will dwarf the city's financial gain, have called on the MTA to release the developer's cash-flow projections.

krulltime

September 13th, 2005, 12:11 PM

Great news for Brooklyn! :)

kliq6

September 13th, 2005, 12:15 PM

The stadium will generate jobs for Brooklyn, his housing will push out people that lived in that area, so i wouldnt say its hands down good news. Ratner always goes after handouts to build. He built NYMEX for no out of pocket and tried to pull the same at NY Times. DOnt expect this to totally happen right away, as he will look for handouts to get more incentives and in the end this project will cost much much more to the city then they think.

BrooklynRider

September 13th, 2005, 12:16 PM

...Meanwhile, the New York City Independent Budget Office concluded last week that the Nets arena would generate a fiscal surplus of $107 million over 30 years for the city and state...

We're supposed to be impressed with a meager $3.4M year? Within 30 years how much will that be worth? What a disgrace.

kliq6

September 13th, 2005, 01:01 PM

30 years that will be worth about $500 dollars

Clarknt67

September 13th, 2005, 01:49 PM

The stadium will generate jobs for Brooklyn, his housing will push out people that lived in that area, so i wouldnt say its hands down good news.

Most of the area of the development no one lives in. It's a railyard. Most of the people who stand to be displaced have been bought out handsomely.

I think the addition of 4,000 units to the local housing market can't help but be good for most people.

ryan

September 13th, 2005, 01:57 PM

i.e., poor and minority's leave as whites gentrify and jack up rents

Just to play devil's advocate (I've read a lot of what you have to say about the sketchy methods of the Ratner deal and agree on many points)...

Unless you are a poor minority, one could accuse you of doing the same in Park Slope, Rider. You can't really apply the knee-jerk gentrification argument to this area, can you? It's a small community that would be affected, and the area is already packed full of big box stores. It's not like the city's going to tear down ft. green to build a stadium.

BrooklynRider

September 13th, 2005, 02:56 PM

...Unless you are a poor minority, one could accuse you of doing the same in Park Slope, Rider...

The argument is valid, but the accountability is misdirected. It would be owners and landlords responsible for gentrification, not tenants. I moved into an apartment that met my needs and my price range.

However, in defense of my neighborhood - and specfically the section of Park Slope I live in - a political alliance and non profit organization was formed to ensure that the long-term poor and, in this neighborhood, latino residents were not displaced. Much of the negotiation over rezoning along the Fourth Avenue corridor hinged on these issues.

It was sensible development with community input. Ratner's plan doesn't integrate at any point with the surrounding neghborhoods. It's a square peg being pushed into a round hole. And, since it won't fit in that hole he is taking over the whole puzzle board and cutting it up to force his piece to fit in.

ryan

September 13th, 2005, 03:07 PM

I think landlords would just say that they are renting tho whomever they find who will pay rents that is most profitable. That they are just using their property to their best advantage, just like you're living in an apt that best suits your situation. I think that if you're going to play the gentrification card, then tenants are just as complicit as landlords are, though it's easier to blame the first couple waves of them (e.g. hipsters in Williamsburg "colonizing" poor neighborhoods) than the waves that follow. Again, I don't really think that is important element of the ratner deal - there's worse things to talk about.

lofter1

September 13th, 2005, 03:17 PM

...it's easier to blame the first couple waves of them (e.g. hipsters in Williamsburg "colonizing" poor neighborhoods)
One big difference in parts of Williamsburg is that many of the first wave residential tenants moved into areas / buildings that were formerly zoned solely for manufacturing, and thereby did not displace any residential tenants. Similar to the situation in SoHo 25 years ago.

BrooklynRider

September 13th, 2005, 10:49 PM

...I think that if you're going to play the gentrification card...

I'm not sure who is "playing the gentrification card". Gentrification happens. It is gradual. Ratner's plan is instantaneous.

ryan

September 14th, 2005, 12:53 AM

You brought up gentrification. I am arguing (badly, apparantly) that it's not the most important thing to discuss in this deal.

It seems like a red herring you could throw at any development in any context. You haven't convinced me that there is a significant displacement of poor people or an entrenched community of any size (after the plans were revised). Aren't there worse thing about this deal, like the misuse of taxpayer money, etc?

BrooklynRider

September 14th, 2005, 11:11 AM

... Aren't there worse thing about this deal...

Yes!

kliq6

September 14th, 2005, 11:45 AM

there is alot worng with this deal, such as the MTA today starting a campaign to get a large bond approved in the November election so they can start some capital projects, by having us the people take on more of there debt, while they take a ratner deal that will only generate about 3.5 milllion per year over 20 years and only $100 million for land that could go for much much more, as offered by another developer, who builds projects on his own resources, not boorowed money like ratner always does ferom governments

billyblancoNYC

September 14th, 2005, 11:48 AM

What's the arguement for always trying to keep people in areas they can't afford again? It seems to slip my mind.

ZippyTheChimp

September 14th, 2005, 12:01 PM

I couldn't care less where the Nets play, but I originally liked this project when it included more office space. Business district development outside Manhattan is what the city needs. Now that it is mostly a residential development, I like it less.

kliq6

September 14th, 2005, 12:46 PM

I agree with Zippy, However the city and Ratner, who owns most of the Bk class A space, know that Brooklyn didnt and wont develop into a large business district like LIC wont for one reason, they are still in NY, which is more expensive then Jersey or other areas. They tried but basically firms say if we are going to be in NY, then we want to be in Manhattan, not outer boros. Of course there are a few exceptions, but this is common knowledge in the industry.

Look at LIC, even though its one stop from Midtown, the area never took off and after 15 plus years since the Citi building was built, residential developers said why not since no commercial is being built and there are over 15 building in that area in the planning stage.

Thus this makes Commercial development in the Hudson YArds area more important then ever

kliq6

September 14th, 2005, 02:09 PM

Ratner wins rights to Brooklyn rail yards
by Catherine Tymkiw - Crainsny.com

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved developer Bruce Ratner’s $100 million bid for the right to build on rail yards in downtown Brooklyn.

The 10-to-1 vote followed 45 days of exclusive negotiations that the MTA had agreed to hold with Forest City Ratner Cos. starting in July. Today’s vote leaves Gary Barnett’s Extell Development Corp, which had submitted a competing bid, out in the cold.

Mr. Ratner, who spent the past three years working on his $3.5 billion proposal to redevelop the Atlantic Yards, wants to build a New Jersey Nets basketball arena, office buildings of up to 60 stories and 6,000 apartments, including 3,000 affordable housing units. Earlier this month, he doubled his bid to $100 million.

Extell’s competing $1 billion bid included 1,373 market-rate condominiums and 573 affordable rental units in 11 towers that range from four to 28 stories. “It’s not as if this is a surprising development,” said Extell spokesman Bob Liff, adding that the company would “continue to monitor the situation.”

Forest City Ratner’s plan, which has faced criticism from community groups, still needs to undergo an environmental review and be submitted to the state’s Public Authority Control Board for final approval. Forest City Ratner was unavailable for immediate comment.

pianoman11686

September 14th, 2005, 03:34 PM

M.T.A. Votes to Sell Lot to Nets for Stadium

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: September 14, 2005

NEW YORK (AP) -- The New Jersey Nets dribbled closer to making a new home in Brooklyn on Wednesday when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted to sell an 8.3-acre railyard to team owner and real-estate developer Bruce Ratner.

Ratner will pay $100 million for the downtown Brooklyn site where urban planner Robert Moses once turned down the Dodgers' push for a domed baseball stadium, helping prompt the team's move to California in 1957.

The vote by the nation's largest public transit system keeps the Nets on schedule to be playing by November 2008 in a Frank Gehry-designed Flatbush Avenue arena at the heart of a 21-acre office and apartment complex, which would transform the low-rise Brooklyn skyline.

Ratner doubled his original $50 million bid after a last-minute, $150 million bid in July from Manhattan-based Extell Development Co. prompted second thoughts from MTA board members.

The agency has had the railyard appraised at $214 million.

Arena opponents have called the MTA's decision-making process biased in favor of Ratner, a politically connected former city official whose plan has the support of Gov. George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who together effectively control the MTA board.

Proponents point out that along with the cash, Ratner offered the MTA tens of millions of dollars in inducements such as improvements to the aging yard for Long Island Rail Road cars.

Building trades unions and residents of the poorer neighborhoods and housing projects near the proposed arena site have been supportive of the plan. Ratner has promised to use union labor and minority contractors to build more than 2,000 low- and middle-income apartments, about a third of the units in the $3.5 billion project. The planned development includes 15 towers rising around the glass-sheathed, 18,000-seat Nets arena.

Extell wanted to build a project less than half the size.

The city and state have promised as much as $200 million in public money for the project. Ratner has said he would use all of it for his project, while Extell said it would use $150 million.

ZippyTheChimp

September 15th, 2005, 12:28 AM

September 15, 2005
Huge Arena Project in Brooklyn Takes a Major Step Forward

By CHARLES V. BAGLI (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=CHARLES V. BAGLI&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=CHARLES V. BAGLI&inline=nyt-per)
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed yesterday to sell the development rights to its Atlantic railyard in Brooklyn to the developer Bruce C. Ratner for $100 million, a major step forward for his plan to build a basketball arena and a huge residential and commercial development on 22 acres.

Although Mr. Ratner's $3.5 billion project, the largest private investment in the borough's history, would bring his team, the Nets, to Brooklyn from New Jersey (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/newjersey/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) and create at least 7,000 apartments, there was a glum tone to the authority's board meeting. Few speakers - whether supporters or opponents of the plan - voiced any passion at the public hearing before the vote, in part, because the outcome was never in doubt.

However, a local resident, Shabnam Merchant, who lives near the project site at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues, stepped up to the microphone to say, "It's a sham." She said she could not pretend otherwise, then spent the rest of her allotted two minutes standing there without speaking.

Her silent protest was related to the authority's decision to accept the $100 million offer by the company Mr. Ratner heads, Forest City Ratner, for the 8.3-acre railyard. The offer was $50 million less than a bid from the Extell Development Company and $114.5 million less than the transportation authority's own appraisal.

Mr. Ratner does, however, have the support of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki, who contend that the project would provide thousands of jobs, badly needed housing and a home for a professional basketball team, college games and other sports. Still, the developer faces an environmental review and the need for various state approvals before he can begin construction.

"We're disappointed the M.T.A. saw fit to accept a lower bid," Extell's president, Gary Barnett, said later in the day. "Our bid still stands, and we hope the community is given an opportunity to fully participate in the process."

Mr. Ratner's project includes plans to build the arena at the railyard and 7,300 apartments in 16 buildings on adjacent land, as well as office space, stores and parks. The project would be larger than anything in surrounding neighborhoods.

The state and the city have agreed to provide $100 million each in direct subsidies. The project will also receive tax breaks, low-interest financing and other benefits that would bring the total public investment to an estimated $1 billion.

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

lofter1

September 15th, 2005, 07:30 PM

http://www.observer.com/therealestate/

…from this morning’s MTA meeting (http://www.observer.com/therealestate/2005/09/double-money.html) , when board members voted overwhelmingly (one "no" vote) to sell the 8-acre rail yard in Brooklyn to Forest City Ratner for the Atlantic Yards project (http://www.bball.net/):

“This looks like a sweetheart deal to me. If you eat a Sweetart candy, it leaves a tart taste in your mouth. This leaves a tart taste in the mouth of subway riders…. Don’t buy Sweetarts. Buy Smarties. Be smart. The smart thing to do is to recognize the interests of riders.”

--Michael A. Harris, campaign coordinator of the Disabled Riders Coalition, who held up packets of Sweetarts and Smarties as visual aids

“If we look at the World Trade Center, where African-American firms have zero money out of that project, no labor, no contracts. That’s a disgrace. Here we have an opportunity where for once in the city of New York, the minority and disadvantaged community can participate in an equity position as well as get jobs.”

--James Heyliger, president Association of Minority Enterprises of New York

“I am usually testifying in opposition to retail developments in the city. This is quite an exception because the project before you is exceptional.”

--Richard Lipsky, the lobbyist who fought Wal-Mart and won

“I believe the scale of the project as currently proposed is simply too large for the surrounding neighborhoods and I fear that if you lock in the price at the level that is currently proposed the developer will have no choice but to proceed at that undue scale.”

--City Councilmember David Yassky, representing neighborhoods north of project location

“No longer will Brooklyn be one of the outer boroughs. It will be the center of New York City.”

--State Senator Carl Kruger, representing southeastern Brooklyn

“Yesterday I won by a mandate, 85 percent. This project, it was a referendum on this project, and the community stood solidly behind me. You will not destroy my community without a great fight.”

--City Councilmember Letitia James, representing neighborhoods in and around project location

“If you won’t play pretend that these hearings are part of the democratic process where you weigh what we have to say in your decision-making, then I won’t play pretend either. And so I’ll take the rest of my time standing here without speaking.”

--Shabnam Merchant, Brooklyn resident, who stood in silence for almost two minutes

Another tidbit: Corcoran and Sunshine are among the brokerages selected to sell and rent the 3,750 or so market-rate apartments.

--Matthew Schuerman

ZippyTheChimp

September 15th, 2005, 07:43 PM

“If you won’t play pretend that these hearings are part of the democratic process where you weigh what we have to say in your decision-making, then I won’t play pretend either. And so I’ll take the rest of my time standing here without speaking.”

--Shabnam Merchant, Brooklyn resident, who stood in silence for almost two minutes
LOL

JCMAN320

September 16th, 2005, 02:56 AM

This project is going to look absurd where it is planned. Talk about out of touch with the rest of the neighborhood. Ratner should really revaluate this. Everyday time I read about this project it gets bigger and taller and more sprawling with more buildings and is completely out of touch with the rest of the neighborhood. This is going to become a giant white elephant mark my words. Ratner went from saying this is for the people to practically shoving it down their throats. I think the news is very misleading and what comes out of Ratner's mouth I take with a grain of salt, I think a majority of the people in the area hate it. Who is he to dictate what HE wants and what HE thinks is good for the community and the rest of Brooklyn when he really has no freggin clue. Let the people of Prospect Heights, DUMBO, the Prospect Park neighborhood, etc.. decide what should or should not go there, not this man who is so out of touch with the public it's not even funny. He is practically throwing the money at the wall and seeing it where it sticks.

This is now far beyond the Nets and all that, in all seriousness I'm putting my feelings about that aside, this is about the public's right to have a say about what gets built in their neighborhood that THEY PAY TAXES in. I go through their often, and it brakes my heart that this neighborhood is going to be torn to shreads by this man. Hell I don't even live there and I feel like this project is getting forced on me. What a shame this will be!!!

elfgam

September 16th, 2005, 10:59 AM

September 15, 2005

"Still, the developer faces an environmental review and the need for various state approvals before he can begin construction."

What're the next steps in this process and how long does it take? When can we see steel out of the ground?

kliq6

September 16th, 2005, 03:07 PM

wont be much steel since there are not many office buildings, expect alot of concrete, LOL

NoyokA

September 16th, 2005, 03:32 PM

Who is he to dictate what HE wants and what HE thinks is good for the community

I hope you realize how very erroneous this statement is.

lofter1

September 16th, 2005, 04:24 PM

What're the next steps in this process and how long does it take? When can we see steel out of the ground?
Go to: www.nyc.gov (http://www.nyc.gov/) > City Planning for expanation of review process (ULURP -- see intro from that site below) ...

Here is a graphic (pdf file) showing the timeline: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/lur.pdf

The Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
ULURP Rules (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulrule.shtml)

Prior to 1976, the City Planning Commission reviewed only applications related to zoning, the city map and urban renewal and housing. In 1976, the list of applications subject to Commission review was enlarged and now includes, pursuant to the City Charter enacted in 1989, those items described below (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulpro.shtml#actions). The Charter's intent in requiring ULURP was to establish a standardized procedure whereby applications affecting the land use of the city would be publicly reviewed. The Charter also established mandated time frames within which application review must take place. Key participants in the ULURP process are now the Department of City Planning (DCP) and the City Planning Commission (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/about/plancom.shtml) (CPC), Community Boards, the Borough Presidents, the Borough Boards, the City Council and the Mayor.

BrooklynRider

September 17th, 2005, 12:56 AM

I hope you realize how very erroneous this statement is.

I think he got it right. The 85% victory for Letitia James is a stronger indication of the community's feeling about the project than the paid black people portraying themselves as leaders of the local community.

85% supporting a candidate whose whole campaign was built on her opposition seems pretty indicative that the community is having this project shoved down their throats by someone dictating to them what they will get.

85% - that number comes from the district that the project falls in. 85% - a resounding vote against the project. No push polling - no skewered numbers. A real vote that counts.

85% supporting a woman whose focus is to fight this every step of the way.

So, where exactly does this "community" come from that is so happy with this? Who exactly are so pleased by the jobs they are going to get? Who exactly is negotiating these Community Agreements when 85% of the community is against this project?

Ratner has a pretty big payroll. Getting bigger by the day. I think 2005 might have been the year where he hit 2% or 3% minority hiring. What's he got 7 or 8 big mouths selling-out the neighborhood and whoring themselves out - not for sex but for the color of their skin?

There's well financed PR and then there is reality.

NoyokA

September 17th, 2005, 03:00 AM

I think he got it right.

He said.

"Who is he to dictate what HE wants and what HE thinks is good for the community"

Who is he to dictate who he wants? Who else would dictate what he wants?

I know when I dictate what I want, its what I want.

lofter1

September 17th, 2005, 10:12 AM

He said.

"Who is he to dictate what HE wants and what HE thinks is good for the community"

Who is he to dictate who he wants? Who else would dictate what he wants?

I know when I dictate what I want, its what I want.
The inference is that Ratner is doing something that is not necessarily in the public good...

Diktat comes from German, from Latin dictatum, neuter past participle of dictare, "to dictate." It is related to dictator.

diktat \dik-TAHT\, noun:
1. A harsh settlement unilaterally imposed on a defeated party.
2. An authoritative decree or order.

dictate
verb
rule as a dictator
Category Tree: control (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/control); command (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/command) ╚govern (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/govern); rule (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/rule) ╚dictate ╚tyrannize (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/tyrannize); tyrannise (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/tyrannise); grind_down (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/grind%5Fdown)

To set forth expressly and authoritatively: decree (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=D0386100&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a), fix (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=F0615500&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a), impose (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=I0786600&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a), lay down, ordain (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=O1068500&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a), prescribe (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=P1171400&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a). Idioms: call theshotstune, lay it on the line. See over/under (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2082&dekey=ROG135&gwp=8&curtab=2082_1&sbid=lc01a).
To command or issue commands in an arrogant manner: boss (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=B0182200&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a), dominate (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=D0470900&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a), domineer (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=D0471100&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a), order (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=O1068700&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a), rule (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=R1308500&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a), tyrannize (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=T1583100&gwp=8&curtab=2083_1&sbid=lc01a). See over/under (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=9fjmmeluclphb?method=4&dsid=2082&dekey=ROG135&gwp=8&curtab=2082_1&sbid=lc01a).

BrooklynRider

September 17th, 2005, 09:38 PM

He said.

"Who is he to dictate what HE wants and what HE thinks is good for the community"

Who is he to dictate who he wants? Who else would dictate what he wants?

I know when I dictate what I want, its what I want.

I give you the nod on the literary parsing, but I think it is willful blindness to pretend to not know what JCMAN320 was implying.

sfenn1117

September 17th, 2005, 10:21 PM

Ever hear of taking a risk? This development will be one of the biggest things to ever happen to the boro, easily the biggest project since the Verrazano Bridge. The amount of people who will circulate the downtown Brooklyn area after a Nets game will benefit the local businesses more than we can imagine. Of course there will be some traffic problems, there are on game days at Yankee and Shea, but smart NYers will know when to avoid the area.

The fact that Ratner is including so much affordable housing should make everyone happy. Brooklyn is about to get a new icon, really, 2 new icons. A new tallest and a new arena. I couldn't ask for more. In only 3 years Brooklyn will finally have another sports team to call its own.

fioco

September 18th, 2005, 06:45 PM

I have an opinion to offer, but I thought it wise to consult with a linguist first.

JCMAN320

September 18th, 2005, 08:03 PM

It will never be your own because your always going to have to know where the Nets came from. The Dodgers originated in Brooklyn, the Nets originated in Jersey as the New Jersey Americans, before they went to Long Island and went under the name the Nets and they were only in LI for a year or two and were in Jersey for over 30 years so they will always be Jersey's team. Just remember that.

bkmonkey

September 18th, 2005, 08:07 PM

not neccisarrily, the dodgers gained their fame in new jersey, and was completly intergrated with the culture of Brooklyn. However, the Nets have not gained fame in New Jersey, nor have they become integrated with the culture of the state. If their move, to a much better venue, gives them a much stronger fan base, and a new identity, I belived the "New Jersy" will fade very fast

JCMAN320

September 18th, 2005, 08:18 PM

They HAVE a fan base. The BS they but in the papers is just that BS. I've been goin to Nets games since I was six and there are always people there just short of a sell out. It's just a pain in the a$$ driving there. This comes down to mass transit not fan base. There are fans of this team everywhere. By the way no fame in Jersey, yea umm they went to the Finals two years in a row and won the confrence 2 years in a row and the divison 3 times all of this in the past 4 years bringing us a lot of fame and recognition. By the way I did check my facts, I'm sorry I did get my facts reversed, they were the NJ Ameircans for 1 years and spent 9 year in LI and 29 years here in Jersey. The Jersey identity will never fade because they have had there most succesful years here with there most famous players and people will always look back to that.

Also Brooklyn's beloved Dogders owes a lot to us. Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Jersey City playing in Roosevelt Stadium on the minor league team Kansas City Monarchs against the JC Giants (minor league team to the NY Giants at the time). Also the Dodgers played there games here in Jersey City there last two years before moving to LA. SO BKLYN IS ALWAYS CONNECTED TO JERSEY IN THE WORLD OF SPORTS.

ZippyTheChimp

September 18th, 2005, 08:43 PM

Fans have nothing to do with why the Nets are leaving New Jersey and moving to Brooklyn. It's the same reason the Dodgers left Brooklyn for LA - economics.

Remember YankeeNets, the sports conglomerate? In spite of the hugely successful YES network, The Nets (two time NBA finals) and Devils (Stanley Cup champs) lost $25 million. The Nets did not even sell-out their playoff games.

BrooklynRider

September 19th, 2005, 12:28 AM

Ever hear of taking a risk? This development will be one of the biggest things to ever happen to the boro, easily the biggest project since the Verrazano Bridge. The amount of people who will circulate the downtown Brooklyn area after a Nets game will benefit the local businesses more than we can imagine. ...

A risk like bringing in the suburban drunks the Rangers bring in - who drink on the train, throw up in the Garden and head back home on the LIRR?

Comparing it to a project like the Verrazano Bridge is appropriate as that bridge turned its back on the pedestrian nature of the cirt and cuilt a bridge that (1) denied pedestrians access, (2) denied a culture that did not encompass cars and (3) wholly failed in allleviating traffic in the long run between Brooklyn, Long Island and Brooklyn.

Failed - Failed - FAILED!

kliq6

September 19th, 2005, 12:01 PM

JCMAN, come on, NETS always close to a sell out, im a Knicks Season ticket holder and go to a few games a year in Jersey for the heck of it, that place normally has 9,000 to like 11,000 people, including the season after going to the finals and most are Knicks fanes who cant get tickets or afford them at MSG

NoyokA

September 19th, 2005, 01:02 PM

I have an opinion to offer, but I thought it wise to consult with a linguist first.

Think about it like this, don't worry about it.

JCMAN320

September 19th, 2005, 01:54 PM

Trust me I went to quite a bit these past two years that have been close to sell out. And your Knicks aren't that good so of course not a lot of people are going to care to see them take on you guys ;). Go to Nets Pacers or Nets Cavs or Nets Celtics etc... and trust me you'll see it.

Clarknt67

September 19th, 2005, 02:41 PM

I'm always very suspicion of statistics in general and the ones being thrown around regarding this project in particular.

It seems a 85% win for Leticia James has now been translated to 85% of the residents don't want the project, which is a ridiculous leap of logic.

Reality check: not everyone in the community voted. The chances are, for a city council election some ungodly small percentage showed--what? 10%?--of the community would have made it to the polls. Of course, if you felt strongly against the project and had been targeted by a get out the vote campaign you'd be more likely to go than someone who sort of supported it. James is an incumbent candidate which garners more votes in nearly all instances. Did she have any serious opposition? Can we even name her opponent?

kliq6

September 19th, 2005, 03:37 PM

Hey JC man im on your side actually, i think this plan is bad for Brooklyn, im a native of the boro, this plan does nothing to foster realtionships in that area, the stadium i dont mind, its the large " Manhattan" apartments im against

sfenn1117

September 19th, 2005, 04:56 PM

A risk like bringing in the suburban drunks the Rangers bring in - who drink on the train, throw up in the Garden and head back home on the LIRR?

Comparing it to a project like the Verrazano Bridge is appropriate as that bridge turned its back on the pedestrian nature of the cirt and cuilt a bridge that (1) denied pedestrians access, (2) denied a culture that did not encompass cars and (3) wholly failed in allleviating traffic in the long run between Brooklyn, Long Island and Brooklyn.

Failed - Failed - FAILED!

But the Verrazano is pretty looking. lol I agree on the pedestrian access, some community groups around here have tried for years to get something started, I doubt it happens tho. Unlike the Brooklyn/Manhattan/Williamsburg bridges, no one needs to criss cross SI and Bay Ridge like they do the previous bridges I said. Besides, I was only talking about the scale of the project. Do you agree with me there? No single big project has gone down in BK in the last 40 years.

Back to the point I'm sure some of the 8+ million people in our city will go to games. In fact, I'm sure a lot will. For instance employees will get tickets from big shot Manhattan offices, people who wouldn't have gone to a Nets game will simply ride the subway to a game. With the Knicks always playing as dismal as they do, maybe people will become Nets fans, they seem to make the playoffs every year.

Plus there will be a great new rivalry, not on the same level as the Mets and Yanks, but something to enjoy.

Did I mention affordable housing? Because there sure will be a lot of it.

kliq6

September 19th, 2005, 05:19 PM

can i ask a question, who on this board considers a person that earns 75,000 as a person that needs affordable housing? That is the figure Ratner is using in terms of what type of person fits what he is selling

kliq6

September 19th, 2005, 05:22 PM

IBO: Ratner plan brings less than $1M a year to NY

By Jess Wisloski
The Brooklyn Papers

A long-awaited analysis by the city’s Independent Budget Office, released this week, finds that the Atlantic Yards arena project would bring $28.5 million in revenue to the city over 30 years.

The findings, released Tuesday, fell well short of estimates of the projected benefits made by both the city Economic Development Corporation (EDC) — $139.21 million over 30 years — and developer Forest City Ratner, whose hired sports economist, Andrew Zimbalist, projected a net revenue of $136 million.

Jim Stuckey, the executive vice president of Forest City Ratner, said in a prepared statement this week that the greater benefit would be the additional 6,000 units of housing, along with commercial and retail space that would be created under the Atlantic Yards plan. He cited Zimbalist’s analysis for the Atlantic Yards to generate $1.6 billion in gross revenue over 30 years.

“We are, of course, very pleased that the Independent Budget Office has concluded that the Atlantic Yards project is a win-win for the city and state from a financial perspective,” said Stuckey, who was credited this week for the first time as the project manager for Atlantic Yards.

Critics of Ratner’s $3.5 billion plan, which includes a $533 million professional basketball arena and 17 residential and office towers to be developed along Atlantic Avenue in Prospect Heights, said the 14-page report fell short of what they’d hoped for.

“Ratner’s projected profits for the city and state are exponentially greater than any independent study has shown,” said Daniel Goldstein, spokesman for the anti-Atlantic Yards neighborhood group Develop-Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, and a condo owner living in the footprint of Ratner’s proposed development site.

“Less than $1 million a year is an unacceptably small return on a huge public investment,” he said.

NoyokA

September 20th, 2005, 06:06 PM

New York Daily News:

74 homes in Ratner's path

Tuesday, September 20th, 2005

Up to 74 households could be uprooted to make way for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project, a new document filed by the developer shows.

The document, which outlines the mixed-use development and Nets basketball arena in advance of an environmental review, says 82 housing units are still occupied within the 21 acres needed.

Of the 82 units, eight are condos or co-ops whose owners have agreed to sell them to Forest City Ratner Cos., and another 32 are rental properties that the developer controls.

"Depending on [our] plan for displacement or relocation ... the number of households directly displaced by the proposed project would be between 42 and 74," the Ratner document adds.

In a public notice issued last Friday, the Empire State Development Corp. said it anticipates that condemnation proceedings will be used to acquire some properties. The notice followed the MTA board's vote to sell Ratner the air rights to the Atlantic Ave. railyards for $100 million, clearing the way for the project. Ratner's executive vice president said the MTA's 8.3 acres increased Ratner's control or ownership to more than 80% of the area it needs.

The new document also elaborates on Ratner's plans for the block at Flatbush and Atlantic Aves. occupied by Modell's and P.C. Richard & Son, even though it's not technically part of the Atlantic Yards project.

NoyokA

September 20th, 2005, 06:10 PM

The new document also elaborates on Ratner's plans for the block at Flatbush and Atlantic Aves. occupied by Modell's and P.C. Richard & Son, even though it's not technically part of the Atlantic Yards project.

I didn't know that Ratner's Atlantic Yards project would also include these properties, which he also owns. I would gladly welcome a Frank Gehry replacement for these horrid suburban style retails.

http://www.fcrc.com/images%5Cprojects%5Cgalac10b.jpg

http://www.fcrc.com/images%5Cprojects%5Cgalac12b.jpg

http://www.fcrc.com/images%5Cprojects%5Cgalac11b.jpg

sfenn1117

September 20th, 2005, 07:30 PM

Absolutely it is such a waste of prime land.

NoyokA

September 20th, 2005, 07:58 PM

Absolutely it is such a waste of prime land.

It would be a nice gesture to the community if Ratner turned this property into a park and transferred the air rights to Atlantic Yards.

JCMAN320

September 20th, 2005, 10:54 PM

Of course talk about the Modells and P.C. Richards and how "bad" it looks, yet no ones talks about the people that are getting kicked out. Pathetic. I don't get it, I would love it to be one of your houses and see how you freggin feel. How you would like to relocate from everything you know?

ablarc

September 20th, 2005, 11:08 PM

I would love it to be one of your houses and see how you freggin feel.
While your heart bleeds for them selectively, some of those Brooklyn folks can be caught scooting surreptitiously to the bank, full of filthy lucre and concealed delight.

lofter1

September 21st, 2005, 12:12 AM

While your heart bleeds for them selectively, some of those Brooklyn folks can be caught scooting surreptitiously to the bank, full of filthy lucre and concealed delight.
OK, I assume those are the folk who agreed to be bought out?

What about those individuals / households / families who do not want to sell and / or move?

Hard as it may be for people to imagine, some people truly like the home they have bought and paid for (or simply like the home where they are entitled to remain as tenants under the laws of the State of New York).

My understanding is that none of these units are in the central portions of Ratner's planned development. If these buildings are on the edges then why must they be included?

If anyone has info on the properties in question with visuals showing the location in relation to the Ratner plan it would be greatly appreciated if that info could be posted here.

lofter1

September 21st, 2005, 12:27 AM

I went through some old pages, and saw a rendering, but I dont know if it is the right one. Does anyone have a picture or link to a rendering?
Here's the link to the pdf of Ratner's 21 page presentation to the NY City Council (May 26, 2005):
http://www.theslatinreport.com/content/features/Ratner_Rail_Yards_presentation.pdf

On page 3 of that report is a map showing the properties controlled by Ratner and the properties not controlled by Ratner (mentioned in previous posts as: "Depending on [our] plan for displacement or relocation ... the number of households directly displaced by the proposed project would be between 42 and 74," ...).

Dynamicdezzy

September 21st, 2005, 12:27 AM

Even though (for the most part) it seems more likely to impact the neighborhood negatively....all any of us can do is wait to see what happens...We can debate, argue, scream, complain or praise but none of it will do any good to convince those who think other wise. I just really hope this project helps local brooklynites with temporary and permanent jobs. and even though people were hurt (not physically) in the process, as long as there are more people benefiting from it in the end it will be a success. If not then I just hope there will be some way to rectify it.

NoyokA

September 21st, 2005, 12:41 AM

Here's the link to the pdf of Ratner's 21 page presentation to the NY City Council (May 26, 2005):
http://www.theslatinreport.com/content/features/Ratner_Rail_Yards_presentation.pdf

On page 3 of that report is a map showing the properties controlled by Ratner and the properties not controlled by Ratner (mentioned in previous posts as: "Depending on [our] plan for displacement or relocation ... the number of households directly displaced by the proposed project would be between 42 and 74," ...).

Thanks for the link. According to it there will either be an office building or a mixed use development replacing Atlantic Center.

ablarc

September 21st, 2005, 08:04 AM

Thanks for the link. According to it there will either be an office building or a mixed use development replacing Atlantic Center.
That would be nice, but I couldn't find mention of it. Where is it mentioned?

ablarc

September 21st, 2005, 08:14 AM

If these buildings are on the edges then why must they be included?
lofter, I think you have a point. If you look at pages 2, 5 and 6 of the linked PDF, you could conclude that the raggedy footprint resulting from omission of properties (in white) not presently owned by Ratner would actually improve the project urbanistically by forcing the architect to break down the footprints (and therefore scale) of his buildings. As presently planned, the project has the potential to be quite dull at ground level despite the certain elevational pyrotechnics.

A little unforeseen complexity and messy contradiction wouldn't hurt here. After all, isn't that what cities are often all about?

lofter1

September 21st, 2005, 10:41 AM

A little unforeseen complexity and messy contradiction wouldn't hurt here. After all, isn't that what cities are often all about?
Absolutely!

We are in full agreement here.

NoyokA

September 21st, 2005, 01:23 PM

That would be nice, but I couldn't find mention of it. Where is it mentioned?

Its on the pdf color maps. It's the property off the site on Faltbush.

pianoman11686

September 22nd, 2005, 02:49 AM

Just download it again. It's free.

NoyokA

September 23rd, 2005, 12:12 AM

Crain's Cleveland:

Forest City reaches deal for NY land

By BRANDON GLENN

4:46 pm, September 22, 2005

Forest City Enterprises Inc. (NYSE: FCEA) has reached a $100 million agreement with New York’s transit authority to buy eight acres for the development company’s ambitious Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.

The company has been acquiring nearby land for the 21-acre mixed-use project and hopes to begin construction next year, according to a statement from Cleveland-based Forest City.

CFO Tom Smith said he didn’t know how much of the 21-acre site Forest City already has acquired.

The project’s centerpiece would be a Frank Gehry-designed, 850,000-square-foot arena for the New Jersey Nets, a National Basketball Association team, in which Forest City is an investor.

Mr. Smith said the basketball team’s ownership group is “considering” changing the team’s name.

“It would be hard to call them the New Jersey Nets when they’re in Brooklyn,” he said.

Project plans also call for 2.1 million square feet of commercial office space, 300,000 square feet of retail space; and 4.4 million square feet of residential space, consisting of approximately 4,500 housing units, according to the statement.

"Our long-term objectives are to build a great NBA franchise and use the arena as a catalyst for the Atlantic Yards project," CEO Bruce Ratner said in the statement.

Citytect

September 23rd, 2005, 04:39 AM

I'm all for this project, but I have to admit I'm more than a little nervous about what the end results will be. All the plans we've seen from Ratner are really vague and far from finalized. That leaves him a lot of room to mess this thing up and cut a lot of corners. Even with Gehry on board, it might not turn out great. The best designs can look like shit if the developer doesn't invest in quality materials and workmanship. Not to mention my lack of confidence in Gehry's ability to design something fit for an urban setting like Brooklyn. But like I said, I'm for taking this chance, but that's easy for me to say; I don't live nearby.

lofter1

September 23rd, 2005, 10:08 AM

^^ Per Ratner and lousy architecture / less-than-top-grade-materials: I don't know what you're worried about:

http://www.fcrc.com/images%5Cprojects%5Cgalac11b.jpg

Fabrizio

September 23rd, 2005, 11:13 AM

Lol!

BrooklynRider

September 23rd, 2005, 11:39 AM

^^ Per Ratner and lousy architecture / less-than-top-grade-materials: I don't know what you're worried about:

http://www.fcrc.com/images%5Cprojects%5Cgalac11b.jpg

In Ratner's defense, it is consistent with what he has always presented Brooklyn and its juxtaposition to Atlantic Center makes this building look like a grand palazzo of the renaissance.

NoyokA

October 1st, 2005, 08:38 PM

Newsday:

Brooklyn arena opponents call community group a front:

September 29, 2005, 8:57 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- One of the most vocal community supporters of a $3.5 billion Nets arena project said in a tax filing that it expected to receive $5 million from the arena developer.

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, an anti-arena group that released the filing at a press conference Thursday, said the document proved that Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development was a front for developer Bruce Ratner.

Ratner plans to build a Frank Gehry-designed arena within a new 21-acre office and apartment complex that would transform the low-rise Brooklyn skyline. Many residents of the neighboring Fort Greene and Prospect Heights sections object to the plan.

BUILD said in an August filing with the Internal Revenue Service that it would receive $5 million from the developer's Forest City Ratner Companies. BUILD chief operating officer Marie Louis said Thursday that the group had received no money from Ratner and did not expect to receive any. Cheryl Duncan, a spokeswoman for BUILD, said the group had projected receiving the money from Ratner but no longer expected to. She said Ratner is providing office space to the group.

Louis has spoken in support of the project at public meetings, saying it would help ease poverty and unemployment in neighboring areas. A Ratner spokesman said the developer supported BUILD and other worthy local organizations but had not purchased the group's support.

"It is the right thing to do and FCRC encourages others to do the same," spokesman Joe De Plasco said.

-----------------

The Brooklyn Papers:

Ratner to bar public from promised park

By Jess Wisloski

Plans for a glorious, 52,000-square-foot publicly accessible recreational space on the roof of Bruce Ratner’s proposed Frank Gehry-designed basketball arena will not be open to the public, according to a document released last week by the state authority acting as lead agent for the project.

The elevated parkland, described as “1+” acres in earlier promotional material distributed by the developer’s Forest City Ratner Companies, which hopes to develop the site with the help of at least $200 million in public funds, is now going to be for private access only, according to the “Draft Scope of Analysis for an Environmental Impact” on the Atlantic Yards plan. The project would also include office skyscrapers and more than a dozen high-rise apartment buildings and relies on the use of eminent domain to seize private property for the developer.

The document was prepared by consultants hired by Forest City Ratner.

That private roof garden was the only green space locals were promised for the first 11 years of development of the 22-acre Atlantic Yards, which would stretch east across six square blocks of Prospect Heights from the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush avenues.
Another promised “7+” acres of open space would be completed only after the rest of the project is done, estimated for 2016, according to the scoping document.

And that’s if the plan sticks to its construction schedule.

As initially envisioned in Forest City Ratner promotions, the open space would be both active (featuring such amenities as tennis courts, jungle gyms, playgrounds, blacktops) and passive (typically benches, trees, grass, landscaping).

Norman Oder, a freelance journalist who on Sept. 1 published a 168-page report criticizing the New York Times for a lack of critical reporting on the Atlantic Yards proposal, pointed out the differences between what was promoted and what the developer actually plans to build, on his Web log, www.timesratnerreport.blogspot.com.

“One of the selling points for the Atlantic Yards has been the promise of publicly accessible open space,” he wrote, citing a May 2004 promotional flier sent out by Forest City Ratner.

“But don’t hold your breath,” Oder added.

A Forest City Ratner handbook describing the plan, also released in 2004, stated: “The roof of the Arena offers an exciting opportunity to create new public space, with 52,000 square feet of new passive recreation and active public space for community residents.

“A promenade along the outside edge of the Arena will provide lushly landscaped areas for passive recreation, and outstanding views of Manhattan. For active recreation, an outdoor ice-skating rink connects the four gardens; in warmer months the rink will become a running track,” stated the publication “Bring Basketball to Brooklyn.”

As recently as May 26, a color brochure distributed to press and members of the City Council at the one official public hearing that’s been held on the plan, promised, underneath the bold heading “Open Space for All of Brooklyn,” that “7.4 acres of public open space, increased from 6 acres” would be featured, designed by noted landscape architect Laurie Olin with “both active and passive uses for children and adults.”

An adjoining map showed the rooftop garden as part of that open space. Olin is a well-regarded landscape architect who designed Bryant Park and Battery Park City.

Now, the new scoping document states, “At least 52,000 square feet (approximately 1 acre) of private recreational space would be provided on the roof of the arena. This rooftop open space would be accessible to users of the buildings constructed as part of the proposed project.”

The timeline estimates that just one of the seven promised acres of open space will be completed by the end of Phase I of the development, scheduled for 2009. Phase II is not expected to be completed until 2016, and at which point the status of the remaining open space is left unaddressed in the scoping document. Nor is the running track or ice-skating rink mentioned.

Forest City Ratner did not return repeated calls for comment.

“If the publicly accessible open space at Forest City Ratner’s Metrotech development is any cue, there will be a host of rules regarding usage of the space,” said Oder.

Last November, The Brooklyn Papers reported the plight of a local business owner trying to solicit business in another one of developer Bruce Ratner’s so-called “public spaces” — the Metrotech Center office campus in Downtown Brooklyn.

An employee of Jive Turkey, a local gourmet eatery less than a mile from the marble-edged plaza that covers what was, before Metrotech, publicly accessible Myrtle Avenue, was kicked off the property while handing out menus.

Not only was marketing to the office workers off-limits, but the employee was effectively told he was on private property.

Michael Weiss, executive director of the Metrotech Business Improvement District, said at the time, “In effect, if you’re out on the Metrotech Commons, you’re in a private building. The owners of the property have a right to say you can and cannot be there.”

Just weeks before that, Councilwoman Letitia James, in whose district the arena and housing complex would lie, was asked by security guards to move off property still called “Fort Greene Place,” between Atlantic Avenue and Hanson Place, but now owned by Forest City Ratner, when she was handing out fliers promoting a meeting to protest the project. Ratner’s Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal malls lie on either side of the portion of Fort Greene Place, which was ceded to Ratner by the city.

The Atlantic Yards plan would de-map three city bocks: the northernmost piece of Fifth Avenue, Pacific Street between Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues, and Pacific Street between Fifth and Sixth avenues.

Like Metrotech, the project is planned as a campus-like series of super-blocks that may shut out would-be park uses in the neighborhood while creating the same kind of private property issues that exist downtown.

Diane Buxbaum, a Carroll Gardens resident and conservation chair of the NYC Sierra Club, said it would be a shame to lose any public green space.

“New York City has the lowest amount of green space and park space per capita of any major city, and it’s a tragedy,” said Buxbaum. “In that neighborhood, where you have a borderline poor neighborhood — that these people will not have access to that green space — it is a slap in the face to people whose means are less than average.”

ablarc

October 1st, 2005, 09:44 PM

Seems like the ol' bait-and-switch.

I'm beginning to wonder about this Rat ner.

lofter1

October 1st, 2005, 09:46 PM

Classic BS ( and I don't mean BAIT & SWITCH ) :

Plans for a glorious, 52,000-square-foot publicly accessible recreational space on the roof of Bruce Ratner’s proposed Frank Gehry-designed basketball arena will not be open to the public ...

The elevated parkland, described as “1+” acres in earlier promotional material ... is now going to be for private access only, according to the “Draft Scope of Analysis for an Environmental Impact” on the Atlantic Yards plan.

As recently as May 26, a color brochure ... promised, underneath the bold heading “Open Space for All of Brooklyn,” that “7.4 acres of public open space, increased from 6 acres” would be featured ...

Now, the new scoping document states, “At least 52,000 square feet (approximately 1 acre) of private recreational space would be provided on the roof of the arena. This rooftop open space would be accessible to users of the buildings constructed as part of the proposed project.”

And why doesn't this surprise me:

Forest City Ratner did not return repeated calls for comment.

NoyokA

October 1st, 2005, 10:11 PM

Please change your quotes to reflect the source, not the messenger.

BrooklynRider

October 2nd, 2005, 12:09 AM

Now that he's got approval, Ratner will dismantle everything he "said", because it was never agreed to in writing. Let's keep our eye out for enumerable "security concerns" that were "unforseen" as even more public space and facilities are erased. There's no way to be a NIMBY on this project because what we were shown was never going to happen anyway. The people who objected simply because it was RATNER had it right.

JCMAN320

October 4th, 2005, 08:52 PM

Anybody have any peanuts, I wanna through them at the giant white elephant marching it's way from the Manhattan Bridge towards Flatbush and Atlantic Ave.

That is exactly what this project is already. It is a two-shoot of lies. Ratner has broke many agreements and the latest just being with the park space on top of the arena. This project is a joke, it screams bad urban development and planning. To see the shopping list of what is wrong with this plan, check this site. Hope you are enlightened. http://www.dddb.net/

lofter1

October 4th, 2005, 09:10 PM

^ Thanks for the link.

http://www.dddb.net/pieces/supersizethumb.gif

For the big version: http://www.dddb.net/public/supersize.pdf

This rendering is really pretty frightening.

lofter1

October 4th, 2005, 09:13 PM

These renderings show it even better:

http://www.dddb.net/TodayTomorrow.gif

Large version (with detail) : http://www.dddb.net/todaytomorrow.pdf

Derek2k3

October 4th, 2005, 09:15 PM

There's no way residential towers will be that massive.

JCMAN320

October 4th, 2005, 09:20 PM

That's not what Ratner says.

NoyokA

October 4th, 2005, 09:22 PM

That's not what Ratner says.

What's your source?

lofter1

October 4th, 2005, 09:25 PM

Here's a pic of Ratner / Gehry's own model ...

The photo of the model was taken from above which always minimizes height and bulk in relation to the world as it really exists. So get down low -- and use your imagination -- with the Williamsburg Bank as reference. (And remember what a big building that one already is):

http://www.nolandgrab.org/images/gehrymodel-03.jpg

Alonzo-ny

October 5th, 2005, 11:58 AM

That first rendering is very unrealistic, it depicts brooklyn as being all 1 storey in height plus wsb. We all know brooklyn isnt that small

BrooklynRider

October 5th, 2005, 12:12 PM

...We all know brooklyn isnt that small

Actually, we who live here know that Brooklyn is lowrise, except for the Downtown area - which does NOT encompass Ratners proposed building area. If you look at the Ratner model, you will see VERY accurate models of the one to three story buildings that abut this monstrosity. The development looks impressive, but, when you extend those one to three story buildings out for miles to the south, west and east, what we are getting is akin to Devil's Tower in Wyoming. An incredibly out of place behemoth.

ebrigham

October 5th, 2005, 12:24 PM

That rendering makes the project look quite disheveled...

NoyokA

October 5th, 2005, 12:29 PM

lofter1

October 5th, 2005, 12:34 PM

The details of the buildings will definitely change.

But the size and bulk of the project -- and the placement within the site boundaries -- have some accuracy, yes?

If not -- and Ratner can just do what the heck he wants after approval -- then the entire review process is worse than a joke.

ZippyTheChimp

October 5th, 2005, 12:59 PM

Except for the appearance, the project will become accurate once the EIS is issued.

lofter1

October 5th, 2005, 01:13 PM

Actually, we who live here know that Brooklyn is lowrise, except for the Downtown area - which does NOT encompass Ratners proposed building area ... The development looks impressive, but, when you extend those one to three story buildings out for miles to the south, west and east, what we are getting is akin to Devil's Tower in Wyoming. An incredibly out of place behemoth.
Does anyone know if there have been any studies to indicate how visible this project will be from Prospect Park?

The map below shows the proximity (the Ratner / Gehry project will be along Atlantic Avenue at the upper part of the map):

http://mq-mapgend.websys.aol.com/?e=9&GetMapDirect=Gme5diw%2ca%3a9u12%3b%40%245u%2dza167 2%26%3dtx%21ftnl67%3ah%2db09u2n%26z%40nlryg5%402x5 y8%3a9uy2%3bu%24nu67%7c%26a7aq%40%24%3a%26%40r2%21 ytxh67%3a%29zb%26hwbau6%24%3a%26ur2u%2da%7c%26yt29 %40%24

sfenn1117

October 5th, 2005, 01:41 PM

It's upwards of 10 blocks away....I don't think there will be much impact on the park.

And if there's one place for high-rises in Brooklyn, it's here, right next to Atlantic Terminal. It's the third biggest hub in the city and it's underused. With the downzoning of practically every neighborhood it's smart to put growth in this area. Plus I like how it's some office construction too, which is a good thing for Brooklyn.

kliq6

October 5th, 2005, 02:16 PM

there wont be much office space, Brooklyn has nothing to offer tenants like Jersey Citydoes, which is lower taxes. Brooklyn and Queens are still in NY a high tax state, even though the real estate may be less in the outer boros, most firms wont consider them becuase the taxes are the same, there is no true saving. Its the reason that LIc and Dwt Brooklyn have not become what they have been invisoned for, they will however, especially LIC become nice residential areas.

ASchwarz

October 5th, 2005, 02:48 PM

Actually, we who live here know that Brooklyn is lowrise, except for the Downtown area - which does NOT encompass Ratners proposed building area. If you look at the Ratner model, you will see VERY accurate models of the one to three story buildings that abut this monstrosity. The development looks impressive, but, when you extend those one to three story buildings out for miles to the south, west and east, what we are getting is akin to Devil's Tower in Wyoming. An incredibly out of place behemoth.

Typical Brooklyn definitely isn't one-to-three floor buildings. I would say three-to-five floors is pretty typical for the borough. Many neighborhoods (Flatbush, Eastern Parkway, Ocean Parkway, Borough Park, Brighton Beach) have more of a six-to-eight floor context.

ablarc

October 5th, 2005, 02:54 PM

This rendering is really pretty frightening.
Manhattan must scare the very pants off you.

What is this fear of height, anyway? All NIMBYs have it.

It's treated as an article of faith --as though it were so obvious that it bears no elucidation.

Like something our grade school teachers might have encouraged us to believe. Here's another: bright colors are evidence of bad taste.

Personally I find it mystifying. I don't recall ever feeling oppressed by a tall building.

But many's the time I've felt elated. And aggrandized.

Haven't you?

lofter1

October 5th, 2005, 03:52 PM

Manhattan must scare the very pants off you.

What is this fear of height, anyway? All NIMBYs have it.

I live in the heart of Manhattan, so you know not of what you speak.

Your assumption is wrong: Ratner isn't pulling his tricks in my backyard.

What gives me a "scare" are the lying developers who say one thing ("public spaces") and then underhandedly try to take that away.

*

Dynamicdezzy

October 5th, 2005, 04:05 PM

I think that was just mere sarcasm.....

ablarc

October 5th, 2005, 04:09 PM

I live in the heart of Manhattan, so you know not of what you speak.
I knew that, lofter; I was just ribbing you.

Do that a lot; hope I didn't offend you.

BrooklynRider

October 5th, 2005, 07:21 PM

You guys will read into anything and hear what you want to hear. I'm not going to keep repeating myself but these are all preliminary models, the built complex will look nothing like this. Go ahead believing it though...

But Stern, can you blame all the skepticism? These were preliminary models - they will change. The descriptions were preliminary - they are changing - no more access to rooftop park. The community amenities were preliminary.

If you live near this thing, you have to wonder what exactly was approved if nothing is what it seems and everything is subject to change.

... Brooklyn has nothing to offer tenants like Jersey City does...

Not being in New Jersey for eight hours a day is its own reward.

...What is this fear of height, anyway? All NIMBYs have it...

First, we need a moratorium on the repeated referral of concerns and desires for facts as "NIMBY." Tallest building in the world? Bring it to Brooklyn. I don't think you'll find anyone in Brooklyn who has a fear of height or who doesn't want certain parts of Brooklyn to grow - especially taller. The issue is plopping this huge hodge-podge of buildings down in an area bordered by primarily brownstone Brooklyn. The other issue is a project of this scope being awarded to a developer who has built crap to date. And that is not the "crap" that Londonlawyer talks about, but new, out of the ground, "we had an opportunity to do something incredible here and didn't" kind of crap. Look at the development campuses built by Ratner: Metrotech and Atlantic Center / Terminal. HORRENDOUS. Now, we getting a project bigger than the two combined from this developer. It is the combination of a project of this tremendous scope and THIS developer. One doesn't have to be a NIMBY to be concerned about the "vision" behind this.

lofter1

October 5th, 2005, 10:07 PM

I knew that, lofter; I was just ribbing you...

Don't worry, I'm tough.

And I'll get you back ;) > http: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67898&postcount=248

ablarc

October 5th, 2005, 10:16 PM

Tallest building in the world? Bring it to Brooklyn.
I concur. Where would you put it?

I don't think you'll find anyone in Brooklyn who has a fear of height or who doesn't want certain parts of Brooklyn to grow - especially taller.
Au contraire; I'll find oodles of them.

The issue is plopping this huge hodge-podge of buildings down in an area bordered by primarily brownstone Brooklyn.
Why? It works fine in Boston (Prudential/Hancock/Christian Science/Back Bay/South End; Beacon Hill/Government Center); and it works fine in Philadelphia.

It also worked fine on the East Side until the skyscrapers had pretty completely supplanted the town houses; that isn't going to happen in this project.

The other issue is a project of this scope being awarded to a developer who has built crap to date. And that is not the "crap" that Londonlawyer talks about, but new, out of the ground, "we had an opportunity to do something incredible here and didn't" kind of crap. Look at the development campuses built by Ratner: Metrotech and Atlantic Center / Terminal. HORRENDOUS.
I agree, but I also know people can learn and improve; that seems to be the case here. And it's fine with me if it's motivated by greed.

Much of that stuff you cite is low-rise crap, actually lower than the brownstones. It's not height that makes buildings out of scale with their neighborhoods. Add a little really enlightened self-interest and you get a better project because it's denser and mixed use, as in the present instance.

Gehry doesn't really ever do crap. You may not like it but it's not crap --any more than Picasso's crap because most folks can't dig it.

Now, we getting a project bigger than the two combined from this developer.
That's what's better about it: it's bigger. The others were single-use, low-density low-rise sprawl, such as you expect to find in suburbia, awash in a sea of parked cars.

It is the combination of a project of this tremendous scope and THIS developer. One doesn't have to be a NIMBY to be concerned about the "vision" behind this.
Maybe not, but you'll have to make a stronger case to convince me.

lofter1

October 5th, 2005, 10:16 PM

It's upwards of 10 blocks away....I don't think there will be much impact on the park.

Visually it could have a big impact.

Now in Prospect Park when you get a few hundred yards inside the park the rest of the city practically disappears.

This was one of the original intents of Olmstead & Vaux -- a respite for citydwellers. It is now described as "a 585-acre urban oasis located in the heart of Brooklyn, New York City's most populous borough." ( http://www.prospectpark.org/general/main.cfm?target=home )

I'm not saying this is the reason to stop the Ratner plan (I've got a list of other reasons) but to pretend it won't have an impact on areas removed from Atlantic Avenue is just like putting your head in the sand.

And in a few years when you're walking across the Long Meadow and see those towers rising up in the northeast, you just might find yourself saying "ahhhh, dag nab it" -- or something to that effect.

ablarc

October 5th, 2005, 10:29 PM

And in a few years when you're walking across the Long Meadow and see those towers rising up in the northeast, you just might find yourself saying "ahhhh, dag nab it" -- or something to that effect.
Or you might say whatever you say when you cross the Sheep Meadow.;)

JCMAN320

October 6th, 2005, 12:06 AM

HAHAHA I went to the Develop Don't Destory Brooklyn meeting tonight at the BRIC at the BAM Harvey Theatre and man you guys got it backwards. This is no where near a done deal whatsoever!!!!! There will be rally at City Hall on October 23 with the press and the organizations against this and man will NYC be enlightened by the truth which has been hazed by Ratners propaganda. Ratner has lied to the media and the residents of NY and thr tri-state saying that the people want it. That is total bullshit. No one who lives within 3 miles of the area wants it. OVER 800 residents will be displaced along with god knows how many the second wave will be once and if this project is built. He says its a blighted area and I don't see how some of the brownstones in this footprint are going for 1million plus dollars and are being called blighted and so if that is blighted than the whole nation is blighted and Ratner is abusing his eminent domain power. The more we delay this thing the more intrest rates build up which make it less likely it will get built which is great. The deals he has cut would reach a mile long. Here is the site for all of you again. http://www.dddb.net/. Letitia James was there and she has man bills scheduled to be voted on against eminent domain, as well as Senator Velmanette Montgomery who also has many bills against eminent domain for the city. Also MANY residents of the area. I got quite a few of the organizations numbers and plan to bring qutie a few people from JC to support these organizations and citizens who oppose this project. I have ALOT of info from the meeting if you want some give me specifics and you'll get it. This project doesn't stand a chance.

Oh and BKrider please seriously Jersey aint bad at all, especially Jersey City.

NoyokA

October 6th, 2005, 12:17 AM

This project doesn't stand a chance.

Want to make a bet?

ASchwarz

October 6th, 2005, 12:29 AM

Anyone want to make a bet what JCMan would think about this project if it were in Jersey?

Develop Don't Destroy is literally a one-man operation. The guy's name is Dan Goldberg or something. He's holding out for more money from Ratner, since he's the last loft-owning yuppie to cash out of the site. He literally runs the entire DDD "organization." All the DDD quotes, press releases and web site updates are from Dan.

JCMAN320

October 6th, 2005, 12:57 AM

Grow up will ya ASchwartz. How do you know what I would like? I would hate this if it was in JC as well because it is too DAMM big for the area. Hey like I said I'll provide the info I got at the meeting just ask for it alright.

BrooklynRider

October 6th, 2005, 01:10 AM

I've maintained all along that the opposition to this project was greater than anyone anticipated or wants to admit. Letiticia James re-elected with 85% of the vote. Marty Markowitz - the blowhard - even came out and said that clearly the project was out of scale with the neighborhood and needs to be downsized. Paid black and latino people from outside the neighborhood, claiming to represent the neighborhood, fooled no one. I am for the arena and the three towers that abut it. I'd like a major sports team in Brooklyn and think it would do well. Other than that, the MTA site should be parceled out and competitively bid - just like BPC.

Leticia James has staked a meteoric rise of a career on fighting this. Brooklyn democrat politicians will fall in line behind her. But, I don't think they will affect policy unless they turn out the numbers.

NoyokA

October 6th, 2005, 01:28 AM

They hold rallies almost weekly. Sometimes the rallies only draw a handful of supportes, always the rallies gain no media attention. The rallies are ineffective. Nothing's set in stone but all things are in Ratner's favor.

BrooklynRider

October 6th, 2005, 01:29 AM

That I'll agree with, but it is an election year.

sfenn1117

October 6th, 2005, 01:30 AM

I guarantee you this gets built. Ratner has the rights to build on the rail yard. At the very least, an arena will inevitably be built. We'll wait and see on the skyscrapers, but it's very likely they will be built too. The ball is in Ratner's court, and a few people at a community board meeting won't stop him.

lofter1

October 6th, 2005, 02:35 AM

Or you might say whatever you say when you cross the Sheep Meadow.;)
Yeah, why recreate that experience in Brooklyn?

ablarc

October 6th, 2005, 09:37 AM

Yeah, why recreate that experience in Brooklyn?
When similar things happen in different places at different times, the later one's not necessarily a re-creation of the earlier one.

All I meant was I couldn't find much to lament if nice-looking skyscrapers popped up in views from Prospect Park: that's just the substitution of one good experience for another. After all, Central Park was once also skyscraper-free, and no one these days rues that it's not.

Alonzo-ny

October 6th, 2005, 10:50 AM

Actually, we who live here know that Brooklyn is lowrise, except for the Downtown area - which does NOT encompass Ratners proposed building area. If you look at the Ratner model, you will see VERY accurate models of the one to three story buildings that abut this monstrosity. The development looks impressive, but, when you extend those one to three story buildings out for miles to the south, west and east, what we are getting is akin to Devil's Tower in Wyoming. An incredibly out of place behemoth.

Thanks for assuming i dont know what im talking about. If you look earlier in this thread you'll see i lived in Brooklyn over this summer, pretty near williamsburg tower. Maybe the rendering very accurate to what is one block either side but if you were looking from manhattan then that is definetly not the level of the skyline.

BrooklynRider

October 6th, 2005, 11:20 AM

Thanks for assuming i dont know what im talking about. If you look earlier in this thread you'll see i lived in Brooklyn over this summer, pretty near williamsburg tower.

I didn't say you didn't know what you were talking about. I had issue with your summary statement that "we all know Brooklyn isn't that small." Besides the Williamsburg Bank Building near where you were staying, what was the average height of ALL buildings in the area? You were in brownstone Brooklyn. I estimated Brooklyn averages 2-3 stories - Aschwarz 3-5 stories - I'll go with his numbers. Compared to this development, that is lowrise.

Maybe the rendering very accurate to what is one block either side but if you were looking from manhattan then that is definetly not the level of the skyline.

Proving you entirely miss the point. The concern of Brooklynites is not what impact the development will have on views from Manhattan. It is the height and bulk and denisity being created in the middle of long established neighborhoods, primarily brownstone . It's about as appropriate as building 2 or 3 Verrazano Bridges across Loch Ness - does that help?

ablarc

October 6th, 2005, 11:37 AM

Proving you entirely miss the point. The concern of Brooklynites is not what impact the development will have on views from Manhattan. It is the height and bulk and denisity being created. It's about as appropriate as building 2 or 3 Verrazano Bridges across Loch Ness - does that help?
I also miss the point.

These are mere assertions. I can make the opposite assertion. Here: Brooklyn would benefit from greatly intensified land use in the vicinity of its downtown, particularly around railroad tracks. Recent projects have attempted to address this, but because of their half-hearted, semi-suburban adherence to calls for limited bulk, they have been dismal failures. The developer involved is now attempting to avoid repeating his mistake. Brooklyn deserves something that better befits its status as the most populous borough.

lofter1

October 6th, 2005, 11:58 AM

Brooklyn deserves something that better befits its status as the most populous borough.

Doesn't Brooklyn (and all of NYC) deserve something that will offer real financial benefits (beware of long term debt!) along with true PUBLIC amenities?

Without getting into it again, the finances have been previously discussed here: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=64296&postcount=856

and here: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=65208&postcount=890

and here: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=65417&postcount=897

and here (funny how the beneficial $ numbers are dropping, eh?): http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=65844&postcount=922

And the public amenities Bait & Switch here: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67432&postcount=945

NoyokA

October 6th, 2005, 12:06 PM

That I'll agree with, but it is an election year.

Would you agree that if pro-development Bloomberg is reelected this will be built? Bloomberg is fully behind this project and Ferrer continues to say stupid and damaging things, so again, this project will most likely be built.

BrooklynRider

October 6th, 2005, 12:25 PM

...Brooklyn would benefit from greatly intensified land use in the vicinity of its downtown, particularly around railroad tracks...

Absolutely, except the Downtown revitalization and rezoning plan did NOT consider the Atlantic Yards as part of Downtown. Downtown Brooklyn as DEFINED by the city and planning department runs roughly from Tillary Street to Atlantic Ave and Court Street to Flatbush Ave.

...Recent projects have attempted to address this, but because of their half-hearted, semi-suburban adherence to calls for limited bulk, they have been dismal failures...

Name them. There have not been any large scale projects proposed, other than Metrotech, prior to this rezoning. There's very little opposition to large scale development in Downtown Brooklyn. The issues that were raised and address with regard to the Downtown Plan were: (1) Brownstone lined streets - specifically State Street - and how the huge empty parcels directly across from them between Jay Street and Hoyt Street would be developed in a way that took the nature of these homes into consideration. The resolution, the Townhouses at State Street. A very impressive development of modern townhouses which will have a substantial residential tower built adjacently. (2) Atlantic Avenue Development which residents of Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill, Carroll Gardens and Brooklyn Heights wanted established as a transitional development zone from the commercial Downtown to the Brownstone Brooklyn Neighborhoods. This was accomplished and the 12 story Courthouse Condos by Two Trees is both beautiful and a nice density packed addition to the neighborhood. (3) The transition from Flatbush to Brownstone Fort Greene. Less consideration was given to Fort Greene as the plan follows the Flatbush commercial zoning line. It has hardly had a negative impact as anyone driving across the Manhattan Bridge can clearly see that every piece of property, commercial and residential from the Bridge to Atlantic Avenue is for sale.

Downtown has the majority support of Brooklyn and, most importantly, the adjoining neighborhoods.

The issues we are seeing arose when Ratner released his plan simultaneously with the city releasing their Downtown Rezoning Plan. Local papers were quick to distinguish between what had come out of months of community and city planning (the Rezoning Plan) and what came out of nowhere (the Ratner Plan). Research on the topic will show that community groups initially supported Ratner development, but suggested he shift it within the rezoning plan and build in areas and on parcels now zoned precisely for what he envisioned.

The arena has had supporters and detracters since day one. Most people want to see major league sports return to Brooklyn, but, as you probably know, there was years of planning for a Sportsplex in Coney Island that was scuttled. The city nixed suggestions to buildthe new arena there. There were also suggestions to build the new arena at the Navy Yard. That died hard because mass transportation is non-existent. The Site for the arena as is seems logical to me. The rest is a 24 acre give away.

...The developer involved is now attempting to avoid repeating his mistake. Brooklyn deserves something that better befits its status as the most populous borough.

Avoid repeating his mistake? His first move out of the block was to repeal access to the public park atop the arena that was paraded before the public as a selling point. Ratner should have been given a portion of the property to build a portion of his proposal. The "all or nothing" approach was in his interest - not the public's.

kliq6

October 6th, 2005, 12:53 PM

if Bloomberg wins, this will be built if he does no twin, this and many other projects wont be built, case closed

ablarc

October 6th, 2005, 02:34 PM

Name them. There have not been any large scale projects proposed, other than Metrotech, prior to this rezoning.
Yup, that's the one. Timid, boring, completely inadequate, this kowtows to NIMBY predilections. Big mistake.

Avoid repeating his mistake?
This time he's building big and bold.

His first move out of the block was to repeal access to the public park atop the arena that was paraded before the public as a selling point.
That's his new big mistake, an unarguable offense. I hope he comes to his senses on this one. Folks should live up to their promises.

Ratner should have been given a portion of the property to build a portion of his proposal. The "all or nothing" approach was in his interest - not the public's.
Agreed. Increments of development should generally be much smaller than they tend to be. But this should have no effect whatever on building height. On the contrary, there should be height bonuses for building on small parcels, to compensate developers for the resulting less-efficient floorplates, while satisfying the environment's need for fine grained footprints and slender proportions.

Ratner's project's not ideal, but it's not bad enough to oppose, and it's better than: 1. what's there now; 2. the alternative proposal (Extell); 3. 75% of alternative proposals that you could realistically expect to materialize.

Give it a B+.

NYguy

October 6th, 2005, 08:03 PM

Recent projects have attempted to address this, but because of their half-hearted, semi-suburban adherence to calls for limited bulk, they have been dismal failures. The developer involved is now attempting to avoid repeating his mistake. Brooklyn deserves something that better befits its status as the most populous borough.

Agreed.

Alonzo-ny

October 7th, 2005, 11:25 AM

I didn't say you didn't know what you were talking about. I had issue with your summary statement that "we all know Brooklyn isn't that small." Besides the Williamsburg Bank Building near where you were staying, what was the average height of ALL buildings in the area? You were in brownstone Brooklyn. I estimated Brooklyn averages 2-3 stories - Aschwarz 3-5 stories - I'll go with his numbers. Compared to this development, that is lowrise.

Proving you entirely miss the point. The concern of Brooklynites is not what impact the development will have on views from Manhattan. It is the height and bulk and denisity being created in the middle of long established neighborhoods, primarily brownstone . It's about as appropriate as building 2 or 3 Verrazano Bridges across Loch Ness - does that help?

Im going to agree to disagree about the how appropriate it is for the neighborhood and instead say I think its wrong to try and protect every neighborhood in the whole city for moving forward. I think its a good plan on ratners part in moving brooklyn from a kind of back office area like jersey city, to a more front office downtown. More of its own city than part of new york, back office to manhattan. If you want to preserve every single thing in the city nothing new will ever be built.

lofter1

October 7th, 2005, 11:32 AM

... brooklyn ... More of its own city than part of new york...

Brooklyn lost that fight in 1898 when it became part of the consolidated city of New York.

See Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-County ) :

New York County, New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_County%2C_New_York) (Manhattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan)) (Note that New York County was for many years coextensive with New York City. When the five-borough "City of Greater New York" was created in 1898 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1898), New York County became coextensive with the two boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx, the latter which was separated from New York County, as Bronx County, in 1916 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916). Richmond County was and remains coextensive with Staten Island. The City of Brooklyn, almagamated to New York in 1898 against the will of the citizens of Brooklyn whose vote was ignored by the New York State Legislature, was and remains - as the Borough of Brooklyn - coextensive with Kings County. The Borough of Queens is coextensive with Queens County, which prior to 1898 included what is now Nassau County.)

BrooklynRider

October 7th, 2005, 11:37 AM

...I think its wrong to try and protect every neighborhood in the whole city for moving forward...

Where do you come up with this stuff? We're talking about a specific project that abuts two landmarked historic districts, Fort Greene and, the city's largest historic district, Park Slope.

Look, I'm not anti-development, I think they should completely plow under Glasgow and rebuild something nice there.

ZippyTheChimp

October 7th, 2005, 02:27 PM

Brooklyn lost that fight in 1898 when it became part of the consolidated city of New York.
That brings up a point about what bothers me about some of the opposition to this project. I don't like it as much now that the commercial component is smaller, but the community resistance (excluding Eminent Domain, which I believe is inappropriate here) is focused on size.

In the century since its consolidation into Greater New York, Brooklyn development as a city has been stunted. And a city it was. At one end of Flatbush Ave, you had a great urban park with a grand boulevard, Eastern Parkway, the first 6 lane road in the world. Cultural institutions were being built, such as the Brooklyn Museum, originally designed to be the largest museum in the world.

Along the northern end of Flatbush were the government institutions, and right in the middle was a road/rail transportation hub. If Brooklyn had remained a city, there is little doubt that its own Pennsylvania Station would have been built at this hub, and a business district would have developed around it.

New York feared Brooklyn's advantage - room to grow out out to Queens, and pushed consolidation. Since then, Brooklyn has been subordinated into a Manhattan suburb, its own industries being shipping and manufacturing. This was fine until the latter part of the 20th century, when those industries eroded and jobs were lost. Today, Manhattan, with 10% of the land, provides over 33% of all city jobs.

If New York is to continue to prosper, then we can no longer consider Manhattan as the place we go to work. Other citywide opportunities must be developed. It does not mean that Brooklyn has to become another Manhattan, but projects such as Extell or others that are in scale with the neighborhood will waste a valuable transportation resource.

kliq6

October 7th, 2005, 04:05 PM

Problem is firms dont consider the outerboros a place they want to go to work in, the cost is still higher there then in surronding states, thus why Brooklyn never became the back office area it was hoped to become

Alonzo-ny

October 8th, 2005, 04:19 PM

Where do you come up with this stuff? We're talking about a specific project that abuts two landmarked historic districts, Fort Greene and, the city's largest historic district, Park Slope.

Look, I'm not anti-development, I think they should completely plow under Glasgow and rebuild something nice there.

Yeah it abuts but it isnt exactly destroying those neighborhoods, It is supposed to be downtown, is it not? What ratner is proposing is a downtown worthy of brooklyn. If brooklynites want to be independent than this would be something i thought you would support. And for the record if someone wanted to do a developement like this through a slice of Glasgow around Central station perhaps, and bring a major sports francise into the downtown area i would support it all the way as it would be a dream come true for my city so think about what your saying before you presume to know my city and my views on development there, at least i lived in brooklyn, dont make comments like that on Glasgow until you live there.

TLOZ Link5

October 8th, 2005, 05:13 PM

lofter1

October 8th, 2005, 05:58 PM

TLOZ: Your last post ^^ was #1000 for this thread!

You should get a prize or something. Maybe lunch with Ratner (bring your credit card).

Alonzo-ny

October 8th, 2005, 08:22 PM

Perhaps the designs of the towers in the plan should be allocated to different architects. Let Gehry keep the arena and Miss Brooklyn, but let other quality architects take a swing at design. Too much Gehry could end up being monotonous.

(I believe that Alonzo said this on another thread with regards to the Madrid Arena project.)

yeah i said hopefully the wtc site would get that treatment, and it is. But its also relevant here as to much of one architect wont be a good thing, if its gehry, calatrava, foster or whoever i think some diversity would make this project stunning.

lofter1

October 9th, 2005, 12:26 PM

Park Causing Rift Among Supporters Of Atlantic Yards Project

October 09, 2005
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=54121

A proposed park to be built on top of the new basketball arena scheduled to be built in Brooklyn for the New Jersey Nets is reportedly causing a rift in its proposed neighborhood.

According to a report in Sunday’s edition of the New York Post, residents of Downtown Brooklyn are angry at developer Bruce Ratner over a rooftop park that is part of the Atlantic Yards project.

According to the paper, the park was originally billed as being open to the public, but in the latest environmental impact statement, Ratner's company reportedly says the park will only be open to residents of the building it's built on.

The paper also says there is a dispute as to how much space will be set aside for affordable housing in the development.

A spokesman for Ratner tells the Post the company did not renege on any promises, saying the park is bigger and will be open to those who use the buildings being constructed.

The spokesman also says half of the rental units being built will be affordable housing.

The Atlantic Yards project faces stiff opposition from a group of area residents who may be forced to move from their homes to make way for the stadium, offices and apartment buildings. Others say it will destroy the character of the neighborhood.

lofter1

October 9th, 2005, 12:43 PM

B'KLYNITES CALL A FOUL ON PARK

By ANGELA MONTEFINISE
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/55062.htm

October 9, 2005 -- A Downtown Brooklyn neighborhood is fuming that it's been locked out of a lush rooftop park atop a proposed new arena for the Nets.

"The roof of the arena offers an exciting opportunity to create new public space, with 52,000 square feet in four lushly landscaped areas for passive recreation," gushed developer Forest City Ratner's December 2003 fact sheet on the sky-high park at the sprawling Atlantic Yards development.

The fact sheet explained the rooftop park would have an ice skating rink in the winter and a track in the summer — and described it as "a destination for community residents."

The Ratner plan for the yards — including the new arena, residential units and commercial space — will require at least $200 million in public funds.

Last week, the description of the rooftop park was decidedly more sober — and less generous."This rooftop open space would be accessible to users of the buildings constructed as part of the proposed project," according to a draft environmental-impact statement released by the state.

The park, with its sweeping view of bustling Atlantic Avenue and Prospect Heights, will now serve as "private recreational space," the draft statement says.

Critics have jumped on the change as the latest alleged betrayal in the contentious development plan for the dilapidated Atlantic Yards.

They also contend Forest City Ratner broke a promise to make half the residential units in the project affordable. So far, only about 30 percent of the total units fit that category.

"[Bruce] Ratner continues to show that he is not a man of his word," City Councilwoman Letitia James (D-Brooklyn) said. "He continues to renege on his promises. The community deserves better."

Forest City Ratner said the park-space change is no big deal, pointing out the total amount of planned public space for the 22-acre Atlantic Yards site has actually jumped from 6 acres to 7.4 acres since 2003.

"Originally, all the buildings around the arena were commercial, and members of the public would be walking in that area," said Ratner spokesman Joe DePlasco. "But now, with all the buildings around the arena being residential, we've made the space accessible to those people."

Critics point to other "broken promises" — like the vow that 50 percent of the residential units would be affordable. Of 7,300 housing units, only about 2,200 will be affordable — more like a 30-70 split, James said.

DePlasco said the 50-50 promise was for the 4,500 rentals only — not the remaining condo units. James countered: "It was 50-50 for all the units. This is not being done right."

Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc.