Proposed: Atlantic Yards Development - Commercial, Residential, Retail, NBA Arena [Archive] - Page 5

lofter1

October 14th, 2005, 01:24 AM

The Times writes another empty story, pretending to expose but winking in approval ...

To Build Arena, Developer First Builds Bridges

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
October 14, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/14/nyregion/14yards.html

In the two years since he announced his ambitious Atlantic Yards development in downtown Brooklyn, Bruce Ratner has lined up an impressive roster of supporters, including Gov. George E. Pataki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/george_e_pataki/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the Rev. Al Sharpton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/al_sharpton/index.html?inline=nyt-per), and even the rap artist Jay-Z.

But it is Mr. Ratner's support from community figures - including a prominent Brooklyn minister, the head of an advocacy group that has battled him in the past, and an organization run by members of the local community board - that in many ways has fueled the project's slow but steady march forward.

Mr. Ratner has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on publicity for Atlantic Yards, the sprawling Frank Gehry-designed office, retail and residential development with an arena for the Nets as its centerpiece. Top executives of Forest City Ratner, Mr. Ratner's company, held dozens of meetings with residents.

The project's supporters - as well as Mr. Ratner's associates - see these tactics as smart business. But opponents see the outreach as something more sinister: a campaign to divide opponents, co-opt those local figures who were interested but skeptical, and create the appearance of broad support where they say little exists.

The developer's effort follows the death of the city's dream of a West Side football stadium amid overwhelming neighborhood hostility.

"He's manufacturing community support, and in terms of political support, he's just relying on old relations," said Councilwoman Letitia James, one of several local politicians who oppose the project, and whose district includes its footprint. "They are Goliath, and we are David."

Bruce Bender, Mr. Ratner's executive vice president, put it another way: "What Bruce's philosophy is is reaching out and getting in and reaching out to the community before the community gets into you, so to speak." Forest City Ratner is also the development partner for the new Midtown headquarters of The New York Times Company.

But from whatever viewpoint, the project's seemingly inexorable movement suggests that Mr. Ratner is creating a new and finely detailed modern blueprint for how to nourish - and then harvest - public and community backing for a hugely ambitious development that is expected to provide more than nine million square feet of apartments, offices, stores and hotel rooms, as well as the arena, in the middle of a populous, cantankerous and often sharply divided city. Mr. Ratner scored a coup of sorts when he received the support of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, the advocacy group that has fought previous Forest City projects, which this time struck a deal to include a significant amount of moderate- and low-cost housing in the project. He has also found an ally in the Rev. Herbert Daughtry, pastor of the House of the Lord Churches on Atlantic Avenue, who initially fought the plan.

Both were among eight groups that signed a community-benefits agreement with Forest City Ratner in June under which the builder will provide job training, housing and business opportunities to local residents.

But it is Mr. Ratner's links to a different group, Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development, or Build, that has drawn the most attention from critics, who say it didn't incorporate until after the plans were announced. The company has denied that it provided financial support to launch the group, but a spokesman said that as part of the community-benefits agreement, the company recently gave Build a $100,000 grant and covers its overhead costs.

"There's no doubt that the development community all over the country is very closely watching what happens in Brooklyn. The movement to build coalitions around development is going national," said John Goldstein, national program director for the Oakland, Calif.-based Partnership for Working Families, which helped negotiate a landmark community-benefits agreement around the Staples Center sports complex in Los Angeles.

Mr. Ratner's street-level and high-level public relations campaign began in the fall of 2003, when his company retained Dan Klores Communications, one of the city's top public relations firms. Their team, headed by Joe DePlasco, a veteran of the city's Democratic establishment, began lining up politicians and other supporters before the December news conference unveiling the initial design.

Since then, the firm has run what amounted to an ambitious traveling road show, organizing presentations for community boards, business groups, block associations, and others, according to a schedule Mr. DePlasco offered. It also worked with the developer's allies to turn out local supporters at press conferences and at several contentious public hearings, and connected Build and other groups with media outlets that were in search of pro-arena voices.

"To the extent that there was a strategy, it wasn't 'Oh, let's go out there and pick off community groups.' It was, 'Let's go out there and talk to people and find out what the major issues are,' " Mr. DePlasco said.

Forest City Ratner also contracted with Knickerbocker SKD, a media consultant, to produce two promotional mailings, each going to more than 300,000 households in Brooklyn. They oversaw publication of a newspaper-style brochure, dubbed The Brooklyn Standard. More recently, Forest City retained the Terrie Williams Agency, a prominent black-owned public relations firm, to represent those groups that signed the community-benefits agreement.

Then there is Build.

The group had its roots in an effort by Roger Green, a longtime Brooklyn assemblyman, and local labor organizers to tackle unemployment among residents in the area's public housing developments. It has since become the project's most enthusiastic local supporter; its president, James Caldwell, has said that Mr. Ratner was "truly sent by God."

Some of the project's opponents, however, charge that Build is an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Ratner because he pays it to be.

There is little doubt that the group, and Mr. Green, figured early in Mr. Ratner's efforts. The two met in Mr. Green's district office in October 2003 to discuss the project, and later dined at Junior's, on Flatbush Avenue, to discuss job-training programs and minority business participation. Later, Mr. Green would help shape the community-benefits agreement that Forest City Ratner would sign with pro-development groups.

Mr. Green's support gave the project local roots; the three other elected officials whose districts include parts of the project - Representative Major Owens, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, and Councilwoman James - adamantly opposed it.

Mr. Green also helped connect Mr. Ratner with others who became allies. Soon after Mr. Ratner purchased the Nets in January 2004, the developer hired Randall Touré, one of Mr. Green's top staff members, to run the firm's community outreach efforts.

Around the same time, Build held a meeting in the firm's offices in MetroTech Center to discuss business opportunities for minority contractors and job-seekers, facilitated by two of Build's co-founders, Darnell Canada (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/canada/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) and Eric Blackwell, and attended by Mr. Touré among others.

Critics have pointed out that Build and Mr. Daughtry, in particular, decided to support the project even as they were in the middle of negotiating the community-benefits agreement. "A lot of us feel that Roger's relationship with the developer was too close, and that he excluded a lot of people," said the Rev. Mark Taylor, a member of the Downtown Brooklyn Leadership Coalition. "That raises questions about whose interests those negotiations were in."

Mr. Daughtry founded the Downtown Brooklyn Leadership Coalition in 2004 but left soon after, in a dispute with other members over whether it would support the project. He later started a new clergy group, the Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance, which supports Mr. Ratner. "I thought we needed to move on this thing," Mr. Daughtry said. "It became rather heated, and I decided at that point that I would resign."

According to Internal Revenue Service documents first reported by The Daily News, Build was not formally incorporated until Feb. 4, 2004, just a few days before the group held a press conference to announce that it was supporting the project. The same I.R.S. form also estimated that the group would receive $5 million over two years from Forest City Ratner as part of the community-benefits agreement then being negotiated. Build officials later said that that amount was never promised by or discussed with the developer.

Soon after the group decided to support Mr. Ratner, Mr. Canada, its original president, resigned, citing in a news release "the need to distance myself from those in the organization who see this organization as financial self gain" rather than "for the needs of the Brooklyn community."" That has led some of Mr. Ratner's critics to question whether the group was too close to the developer to fairly represent the community.

"Build and the other signatories of the so-called community-benefits agreement are Bruce Ratner's partners. They are contractually obliged to speak on behalf of his project," said Daniel Goldstein, a spokesman for the anti-arena group Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn. Mr. Caldwell, the group's current president, and Marie Louis, its treasurer, said late last month that Build was not yet receiving money from Forest City and that neither of them was yet drawing a salary.

But on Tuesday, Mr. DePlasco and a new spokeswoman for Build, Cheryl Duncan, revised that account.

In August, Mr. DePlasco said, two months after the agreement was signed, Forest City disbursed $100,000 to the group. The company also provided space for and is paying the overhead of a new Build office near the Atlantic Yards site, and along with other supporters donated furniture and computer equipment to the group. On Sept. 5, Ms. Duncan said, Build began paying several staff members, including Mr. Caldwell and Ms. Louis, who she said are currently being paid at a rate equal to half the salaries listed on the group's original I.R.S. form. Before the signing of the community-benefits agreement, the staff had been working as volunteers, she said.

Mr. DePlasco emphasized that the money given to Build was intended to fulfill the company's obligations under the community-benefits agreement.

"No money was given to Build prior to the community-benefits agreement. What they're supposed to do is begin outreach and job training so that people are ready to apply for these jobs when they become available. If you are going to commit to programs that otherwise don't exist, you have to find the funding for those programs - or at least a big chunk of that funding," he said. "Forest City Ratner Company believes firmly that supporting nonprofits and community groups, and working with them to identify and address needs, is at the foundation of what they do. It's that simple."

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

NoyokA

October 14th, 2005, 01:38 AM

The Times writes another empty story, pretending to expose but winking in approval ...

Yeah, I couldn't even read through it.

BrooklynRider

October 14th, 2005, 11:27 AM

Mr. Caldwell, the group's current president, and Marie Louis, its treasurer, said late last month that Build was not yet receiving money from Forest City and that neither of them was yet drawing a salary.

But on Tuesday, Mr. DePlasco and a new spokeswoman for Build, Cheryl Duncan, revised that account.

In August, Mr. DePlasco said, two months after the agreement was signed, Forest City disbursed $100,000 to the group. The company also provided space for and is paying the overhead of a new Build office near the Atlantic Yards site, and along with other supporters donated furniture and computer equipment to the group. On Sept. 5, Ms. Duncan said, Build began paying several staff members, including Mr. Caldwell and Ms. Louis, who she said are currently being paid at a rate equal to half the salaries listed on the group's original I.R.S. form. Before the signing of the community-benefits agreement, the staff had been working as volunteers, she said.

Mr. DePlasco emphasized that the money given to Build was intended to fulfill the company's obligations under the community-benefits agreement.

Blah, blah, blah.... Oh, did WE say that before this plan got approval? What we really MEANT was....

Watch for more "revisions"

Revisions to date:
(1) No Public Access to Rooftoop Garden after all presentations declared it would be a wonderful public amenity
(2) Forest City admits it created and funds (i.e pays the salaries of the leaders of) BUILD - after claiming it was one of many community group supporting his project.

Before the signing of the community-benefits agreement, the staff had been working as volunteers, she said.

So, in effect, they are being paid for signing a community benefits agreement. They were not a real existing "community group" beforehand, but became one after signing one for people they didn't represent.

ZippyTheChimp

October 14th, 2005, 12:00 PM

The best way to gauge whether a project has majority support or opposition is to measure the indifference among the wider community.

The less the indifference, the greater the opposition, because people who generally support a project are not as passionate about it. There does not seem to be much peripheral interest in it . Not much from Nets fans either (well, except JCMAN320).

Contrast this to the Jets debate, where everyone had an opinion. Of course, that saga benefited from media-worthy antagonists:

Mayor Mike and the Deputy vs. the Dolan Boys.

It even sounds like WWF. Ratner vs. Leticia? Boring.

It's time for the community to do what CB1 did in confronting Ratner's downtown project - get what you can.

That rooftop plaza is the perfect target. It has all the wrong elements for Ratner - class, privilege, money. He would cave in a minute.

Or maybe Ratner is at least as smart as me, and has already figured this out. A bargaining chip to throw in the pot?

elfgam

October 14th, 2005, 01:10 PM

From the article, a quote from James:
"He's manufacturing community support, and in terms of political support, he's just relying on old relations," said Councilwoman Letitia James, one of several local politicians who oppose the project, and whose district includes its footprint. "They are Goliath, and we are David."

I'm sorry, but in NYC, NIMBY and community groups are the goliath's and developers are the davids -- arrayed against and army of every joe, dick, and harry out to stop the project or stall it either for personla gain or ignorance or fear...

Ratner is making some serious miscalculations, and I hope though that community outcry has the positive effect of reminding him to be careful.

That being said, he may very well be creating points of contention, as the last post said, as "throw away" negotiations: the community gets the rooftop park it was always promised, and in the end feels like it really did a job on Ratner, without really damaging what he wants...

Developers do it all the time: last building I worked on as a renderer, the project was designed, on the order to the developer, was taller than it should've been, bigger, and it blocked the neighboring buildings windows. There was a huge to-do, the neighbor got the developer to put in a small courtyard (always the developers intention, because he himself needed to give his lower appartments windows of their own), and then the neighbors threw their support behind the project -- a project they never would have supported at all if they could help it.

ablarc

October 14th, 2005, 01:25 PM

^ That's a funny story, elfgam.

Human folly: probably endless.

BrooklynRider

October 14th, 2005, 06:50 PM

“Some Guy’s Idea”: MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow Creates Existential Crisis—Resolves with Cronyism
by Brian J. Carreira

The humiliation begins at eight o’clock. It is catered. Bagels, coffee and juice, passed out along with “Jobs, Housing, and Hoops” pins. The union workers have already lined up, sporting the buttons and drinking coffee outside the MTA’s Madison Avenue headquarters, for the September 14 meeting to decide the fate of the Vanderbilt Rail Yards.

“I don’t even know what I’m supposed to do,” remarked Jared Armendariz of Queens, a member of the Carpenter’s Local 20-90, as he sipped his hot beverage. He didn’t know much about Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards proposal—the one he was out to support. “Just what I’ve heard on the news,” he said, then added, with regard to the hearing he stood waiting to attend, “I take it today there’s a meeting or something.”

The union workers came out an hour and a half before the 9:30 a.m. hearing where the MTA would decide to accept the Forest City Ratner Company (FCRC) offer to purchase the Vanderbilt Yards. They were there to fill space and presumably to squeeze out actual Brooklynites. “Once a year, as part of the Union, you have to do some sort of picket duty,” Armendariz explained. “You’ve seen those big inflatable rats on the street? Usually that’s what I’m out doing.” No inflatable rat was in attendance that day.

It was a light turnout compared to previous meetings and events related to the controversial proposal that would plop seventeen skyscrapers (and counting) along with a basketball arena atop an existing neighborhood. Perhaps this is because the outcome of the meeting had already been reported by the New York Times the previous week, and was otherwise widely considered preordained.

First it marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, (‘the exact shape doesn’t matter,’ it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no ‘One, two, three, and away,’ but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out ‘The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, ‘But who has won?’

This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, ‘everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’

The meeting came to order. Many strode forth to bear witness to the powers of their own speech. Knowing that a decision had already been reached attendees were freed of the usual restraints of topicality, accuracy, or advocacy.

Reverend Herbert Daughtry urged for the MTA’s approval of the Forest City bid for his “domestic tranquility,” as his wife would stand to gain an intergenerational center at the development as part of the Community Benefits Agreement. “Hopefully you’ll participate in this historic effort,” he implored with grandiosity, “and leave your footprint on the sands of time.”

City Councilman David Yassky, relatively quiet as the nearly two-year long debate over Atlantic Yards has raged in the district adjacent to his, contrasted Daughtry’s flourish with tepidness. Summoning excruciatingly mild language, Yassky requested that the MTA “wait until a project of an appropriate scale is approved by the state,” and then seek the best value for the yards at that time.

State Senator Carl Kruger, representing unaffected Brighton Beach, Midwood, Mill Island, and Bergen Beach residents, strongly lauded the Ratner proposal as part of the process by which “neighborhoods are being re-gentrified,” and that the Senator heralded as a “new era.” Excited that the project was “for all of us in Brooklyn that are proud of our heritage and our lineage,” he looks forward to the day that he can say, “the Vanderbilt Yards will no longer be the cesspool that they currently are.”

Shabnam Merchant, in a comment on the MTA’s lack of “courtesy to pretend that this is part of the democratic process,” ceded her remaining time at the podium to silence. Daniel Goldstein addressed Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, not in attendance, regarding her willful ignorance over the threat and potential use of eminent domain that have been essential to Forest City’s success. Norman Oder talked about his 173-page report on the New York Times’ coverage of the project.

And it would continue like this. Chairman Kalikow created the room with no walls. The marrow of relevancy sucked dry, the stage was set for an apocalypse of noise tempered only by individual time limits and a sign-in sheet.

“The voting public is particularly cynical about government and about politicians. Now I know why,” City Councilwoman Letitia James lashed out against the board. The councilwoman then proceeded to unfurl a litany of reasons she feels the project is bad for her district and bad for Brooklyn: “This is really for Manhattanites. This is for the rich.” Then to counter the mantra from Forest City and their supporters that Atlantic Yards will provide a great boost to the community—and the African-American community in particular—she added, “This is a project that will only benefit the investors. Ninety-eight percent of the investors on this project are not people of color.”

The offer from Forest City Ratner for the yards was $100 million cash. This is $50 million more than their initial cash offer, yielding the much desired headline that the developer had “doubled” their bid. Of course, as Ratner’s people are quick to assert when asked about a number which undercuts both the scuttled Extell offer of $150 million and the MTA appraised value of $214.5 million: their meat is in rail yard improvements, cash is just a portion of the deal. Forest City throws in a revamped rail facility and platform that the developer has posited are worth $345 million. Thus, by their estimate, FCRC actually far exceed the politically neutralized rival bid and the MTA value.

Forest City didn’t blanche as most of the press, including the New York Times, mischaracterized the new bid as “double,” when it was in fact only increased by 12.6%. A factor of two also has a nicer ring than the reality that FCRC’s package is mostly made up of fuzzily estimated improvements with a mere 22% in hard currency. But these are just numbers. Atlantic Yards has always been about perception.

As to the non-cash portion of their bid, Forest City VP Jim Stuckey implored, “That’s not funny money. That’s real cash.”

But why not just offer the whole thing in cash? The answer might lie in the February MOU. In section 8, paragraph (i), it is noted that the already promised state subsidy of $100 million “shall be used to fund costs of site preparation and public infrastructure improvements on and around the Arena Site.” The city’s $100 million can be used for the same.

Paragraph (ii) also notes that FCRC is responsible for all other costs, “Provided however, that the Public Parties will consider making additional contributions for extraordinary infrastructure costs relating to the mixed use development on the Project Site.” This is strikingly similar language to the “Platform and Other Extraordinary Infrastructure” that accounts for $163 million of the developer’s bid, according to a Ratner Fact Sheet released on September 14.

The money might be “real cash,” but a substantial portion will likely come from the taxpayer’s pocket to feed a taxpayer-funded agency, with Forest City simply giving it a good wash along the way.

Managing to arouse the slumbering journalists for a moment from the methodical plod, MTA Board member Michael Pally had a brief exchange with Chairman Kalikow. As cross as futility can manifest, Pally, the lone dissenting vote, suggested that the board shouldn’t consider the non-cash segment of the bid. He contended that per the MTA’s own 20-year needs assessment, “The Long Island Railroad and the MTA would not have made improvements to the Atlantic Yards. These funds are not being used to substitute for a project the Long Island Railroad wants to do, they are being used for a project the Long Island Railroad does not want to do.”

He also questioned the aspect of the deal that requires Forest City to put only 10% down of their cash offer pending approvals from the state. “Why is the approval of this project subject to entities over which the MTA has no control?” Pally asked, noting that the West Side Stadium process left the MTA without anything to show for the Hudson Yards due to a similar deal structure.

It was during these comments that Kalikow leapt into the abyss by asserting that the $214 million estimated value of the property, appraised by Daniel P. Lane and Associates and paid for by the MTA, “is some guy’s idea of what it is worth.”

It wouldn’t matter. The rich help themselves in Mike Bloomberg’s New York. The idea that logic and proportion might apply to the MTA’s decision, or any other along Ratner’s triumphal march towards his cement and glass crown, is evidently more absurd than the contortions the politicians and sycophants have made to justify their actions.

“Sometime in the summer of next year,” is when Jim Stuckey hopes to erase Prospect Heights in favor of Ratner’s Wonderland—“maybe earlier.” In their actions though, the politicians and the developer continually demonstrate that by their understanding the neighborhood is an empty slate, and always has been.

‘I never heard of ‘Uglification,’’ Alice ventured to say. ‘What is it?’

The Gryphon lifted up both its paws in surprise. ‘What! Never heard of uglifying!’ it exclaimed. ‘You know what to beautify is, I suppose?’

‘Yes,’ said Alice doubtfully: ‘it means—to—make—anything—prettier.’

‘Well, then,’ the Gryphon went on, ‘if you don’t know what to uglify is, you are a simpleton.’*

This about sums it up.

*Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. London 1865. Chapter III, A Caucus-Race and A Long Tale. Chapter IX, The Mock Turtle’s Story

ablarc

October 15th, 2005, 09:28 PM

Everybody's obsessed with process on this project. Is the process in New York ever really above-board on the big ones?

What I'd like to see is an update on the product.

BrooklynRider

October 17th, 2005, 11:22 AM

Both the process and the product are being obscured.

Ratner has finally begun creating the jobs he promised. In Park Slope this weekend, there were newsies (all minorities - there he goes creating quality jobs) hawking a "new newspaper". It was the Weekly Standard, which was, in fact, an advertisement for the development in newspaper format. It did state on the cover in tiny lettering a "Forest City Ratner Publication." The most galling aspect of it was the "public notice" placed in their by Ratner. How does posting a public notice in a newspaper with no history, credibility or circulation count as "public notice."

Anyone outside Park Slope see these things?

I'm sure our non-resident neighbors will start the NIMBY chants, but this was a Ratner offensive. Fighting lies and propaganda it isn't NIMBY. It's American.

Another Ratner sham.

He ought to withdraw the grander project. Concentrat on the arena and three towers and let the city bid out the the rest of the land as parcels to competing developers.

This will be a disaster. Each time I walk by the STILL INCOMPLETE Atlantic Terminal with the "signature" glass atrium entryway MISSING, I am reminded of the hollowness of Ratner promises.

kliq6

October 18th, 2005, 01:03 PM

Another great post Brooklyn

Alonzo-ny

October 19th, 2005, 09:20 AM

I agree all those buildings is just too much gehry for one man to take

lofter1

October 19th, 2005, 09:59 AM

Hoping to see a post with a report from someone who was at the public meeting on Tuesday 10/17 ...

lofter1

October 19th, 2005, 10:36 AM

Here's what the Times has to say:

The People Speak (Shout, Actually) on Brooklyn Arena Project

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
October 19, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/nyregion/19yards.html

Simmering tensions over a sweeping development project in Brooklyn erupted last night at a public hearing, as opponents and supporters took turns applauding, booing and interrupting one another. The meeting exposed deep divisions between residents who want jobs and housing and those who fear the traffic that the project might bring, as well as a host of other problems.

The crowd shouted down several speakers, including Marty Markowitz, the borough's president and the project's leading booster, who endured a withering chorus of catcalls while he described the project as "a wonderful addition to Brooklyn."

Eric McClure, a member of Park Slope Neighbors, a local group that opposes the project, insisted: "If and when ground is broken for this project, there will be no turning back, no second chances. The surrounding community will feel its effects for decades." He added, "Nothing less than the future of Brooklyn depends on a thorough, comprehensive and effective" environmental review.

The debate over the Atlantic Yards project - a 9-million-square-foot office, residential and commercial project designed by Frank Gehry (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/frank_gehry/index.html?inline=nyt-per) with a basketball arena at its center - ran well beyond the three hours scheduled for it. The hearing, intended strictly to consider environmental concerns related to the project, instead became a referendum on the proposal's myriad flaws and virtues.

Both sides were well represented at the hearing, nearly filling an 880-seat auditorium at the New York City College of Technology in Downtown Brooklyn.
Most people spoke on behalf of local block associations, community boards and business groups. But opponents appeared to outnumber supporters in number, intensity and volume.

And those who spoke quickly revealed the fault lines that have divided the neighborhoods around the project, which has been proposed by the developer Forest City Ratner Companies.

Opponents, many of whom said they lived at or near the project site - near Downtown Brooklyn at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues - cited overburdened sewer lines, overcrowded schools and the project's sheer physical size as drawbacks. Supporters focused narrowly on the promise of employment and inexpensive housing.

"I'm here for one reason, and one reason only: jobs," said Reinaldo Torres of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, one of several unions that sent members to express support for the project.

"This Forest City Ratner is the right way to go," Mr. Torres added, speaking over and through a deafening crescendo of catcalls and applause. "He's got a very good record. He builds union 100 percent of the time."

Mr. Torres, who is from Staten Island, said that his union had 900 members in Brooklyn and supported the project. Forest City Ratner is also a development partner for the new Midtown office tower being built for The New York Times.

The hearing was contentious from its start, despite an early admonition by Ted Kramer, a lawyer hired to moderate, that "anyone who interrupts will be asked to leave." He was applauded by some audience members, then interrupted and eventually ignored. Few of the speakers succeeded in observing the three-minute time limit, and even fewer managed to finish their statements without disturbance. At times, the hecklers heckled one another, trading barbs and the occasional threatening gesture across rows of auditorium seats.

The crowd was impatient with those who seemed to have not yet made up their minds. Councilman David Yassky of Brooklyn, who has expressed cautious support for the project, said, "If done right, the benefits will outweigh the costs." But he added that it was "out of scale" and would "change irretrievably and irreversibly the character of the surrounding neighborhoods."

That prompted one audience member to yell out, "Are you for the project or against it?"

Mr. Yassky repeated that he was for the project if it was "done right."

But street congestion, asthma and gentrification were only a few of the concerns raised. One speaker, Alan M. Rosner, said that the planned arena's soaring glass walls would endanger pedestrians on the street in the event of a terrorist attack. Another, Lumi M. Rolley, who has a blog devoted to the project, raised the issue of "reflected light," which she described as an environmental hazard rooted in Mr. Gehry's use of titanium panels in his buildings.

She said that temperatures on the sidewalk near the Gehry-designed concert hall in Los Angeles had exceeded 136 degrees. "Passing motorists were blinded by the glare, while pedestrians had to cross the street to avoid the intense heat," she said.

By 8 p.m., with nearly 150 people signed up to speak, the hearing was extended for three hours.

The environmental hearing, the first of two, was among the first steps in a state process that is likely to last through the end of the year. It was sponsored by the Empire State Development Corporation, the agency charged with guiding the Atlantic Yards project along the long path toward final approval by the state.

The project has been bitterly opposed by some local politicians and residents since Bruce Ratner, the president of Forest City Ratner, proposed it in December 2003. But they have had few formal opportunities to register disapproval because most of the project is not subject to the city's stringent land review process, which requires multiple public hearings, input from community boards and a vote by the City Council.

The agency's staff is to consider all remarks from last night's hearing, and written statements submitted through the Oct. 28 deadline for public comment on the project, before releasing a draft environmental impact statement this year or early next year. The second public hearing will follow that release.

"I think it's a wonderful discussion that we're having," said James P. Stuckey, Forest City Ratner's executive vice president for development, who spoke to reporters outside the hearing. "Given that there's been so much discussion about the public process, and so much discussion about whether or not people are going to be heard - here we are tonight, and hundreds of people have come out to be heard."

Mr. Stuckey was asked to specify which of eight groups that signed a community benefits agreement with Forest City Ratner last June were currently receiving funds from the developer. (Under the agreements, the builder will provide job training, housing and job opportunities to local residents.) Last week, the company announced that one such group, Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development, had received more than $100,000 during the summer to promote the Atlantic Yards project and to create job training programs.

He said that Forest City Ratner had also provided $50,000 in seed money to the Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance, a group founded by the Rev. Herbert Daughtry, a prominent supporter of the Atlantic Yards project. The money was intended to help pay for programs for children and the elderly.

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

BrooklynRider

October 19th, 2005, 11:50 AM

What! Ratner's only paid off two groups so far? But he promised all of them they would have their pockets stuffed with cash!

NoyokA

October 19th, 2005, 12:24 PM

What! Ratner's only paid off two groups so far? But he promised all of them they would have their pockets stuffed with cash!

Conspiracy!

BrooklynRider

October 20th, 2005, 02:56 PM

October 20, 2005
From Huge Project, a Mighty Anger Grows
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

To longtime opponents of the proposed Atlantic Yards development, the intensity and rancor of Tuesday night's environmental impact hearing was not a surprise. They have spent the last two years, after all, mobilizing coalitions of community groups to oppose the project, passing out reams of antidevelopment pamphlets and news releases, and starting Web sites to dissect the project's every twist and turn.

But the high-decibel hearing on Tuesday clearly demonstrated that the complexion and scope of that opposition has changed since the developer, Bruce Ratner, and his firm, Forest City Ratner Companies, unveiled plans for the office, residential and commercial development in December 2003. As the project has moved out of its conceptual phase, awareness of its sheer size - nine million square feet, the equivalent of four Empire State Buildings - and potential impact has spread across Brooklyn, charging a much broader debate about its virtues and flaws.

"I think people began to realize how big this is," said Assemblywoman Joan L. Millman, who, in a setback for the developer, announced at the hearing that she would oppose the project.

The meeting also revealed that whereas early opposition was driven by a core of residents in Prospect Heights - the neighborhood that would bear the brunt of the new construction - opponents now draw support from a broader swath of neighborhoods in north Brooklyn and elsewhere in the borough, particularly Park Slope. Residents of that neighborhood, south of the project site, accounted for an unusually large number of speakers at the meeting, as did residents from nearby Boerum Hill.

Many of them did not talk about eminent domain, housing or jobs, subjects that dominated the first stage of debate. They spoke about the project's broader impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, including greater demand for day care slots, slower response times for the police and firefighters, and runoff into the Gowanus Canal, the object of a decades-long community revitalization effort.

"Park Slope was out in force last night," :p said Councilwoman Letitia James, who represents Prospect Heights and was an early opponent of the project. "There's no question about it, they have brought more energy to the opposition.":p

But James P. Stuckey, the developer's executive vice president for development, said it would be a mistake to characterize all of those who spoke as opponents of the project.

"I don't think that saying, 'We're concerned about the height of buildings, or shadows or traffic,' necessarily means opposition," Mr. Stuckey said. "These are incredibly smart people who think very seriously about the quality of life in their neighborhoods."

There is little doubt, however, that awareness of the project has grown significantly. Opponents say it has been driven by several major developments.

In June, the Bloomberg administration's dream of a West Side stadium died, suddenly making Atlantic Yards the largest residential project currently being envisioned in the city. (Forest City Ratner is also a development partner for the new Midtown office tower being built for The New York Times.)

In July, the project's architect, Frank Gehry, released designs that vividly illustrated the skyscrapers that would tower over the surrounding neighborhoods, overshadowing the historic Williamsburg Savings Bank tower and casting shadows for blocks around.

And in September, the Empire State Development Corporation released one of the first formal planning documents for the project, beginning its official public review phase.

"For a lot of Park Slope residents, especially, the point of galvanization came with the unveiling of the latest Gehry design," said Eric McClure, a member of Park Slope Neighbors, one group that opposes the plan.

It is unclear what effects the sentiments expressed at the hearing will have. In some respects, Mr. Ratner beat his opponents to the punch, taking care in the project's early days to line up support from community leaders and elected officials beyond the footprint. They include Councilmen David Yassky and Bill de Blasio, who represent most of the neighborhoods to the west of Flatbush Avenue, as well Marty Markowitz, the borough president.

"Strategically, we've always understood that this project was going to be something that all the surrounding neighborhoods will pay attention to, especially in what people call the Brownstone belt," Mr. Stuckey said yesterday. "I actually was not surprised at all that they came last night."

The project is also well insulated from direct public pressure. Because a state agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, is sponsoring the proposal, it will not have to wind through the city's labyrinthine land-use process, which requires input from the local community boards and a vote by the City Council.

Brad Lander, director of the Pratt Institute's Center for Community Development, pointed out that even if the project were subject to city approval, Tuesday's hearing would still have been the first where the public could have aired concerns about it. "A public process doesn't begin until there's an official plan," he said.

Mr. McClure said this might have added to the intensity. "Certainly on the antidevelopment side, the nerve that's being touched there has a lot to do with what has been perceived as a real lack of opportunity for public input into the whole project" until now, he said.

He described Forest City Ratner's dozens of talks before community boards and groups as "a PowerPoint presentation, without much chance for dialogue. This whole idea was kind of predetermined and packaged and presented to the community, but not in a way that it could have any meaningful input and effect on it."

Some residents took solace in Assemblywoman Millman's decision to oppose the project, and from a statement by one of her colleagues, Assemblyman James F. Brennan, expressing concerns about it.

Yesterday, Ms. Millman said she would urge Sheldon Silver, the Assembly Speaker, to oppose the project. Mr. Silver sits on the Public Authorities Control Board, which must vote on the project.
"He usually tends to follow what the people who represent the area say," she said. "So I intend to chime in with my thoughts on that."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

NYguy

October 27th, 2005, 09:06 AM

DAILY NEWS

Freddy fires Net salvo
He'd downsize 'mother of all real estate deals'

BY MICHAEL SAUL

Democratic mayoral hopeful Fernando Ferrer meets with Daily News Editorial Board yesterday.

Mayoral hopeful Fernando Ferrer proposed a massive scaleback of the controversial Atlantic Yards project, saying yesterday it shouldn't be the "mother of all real estate deals."

"As mayor, I want to scale that project down dramatically," Ferrer, the Democratic nominee, told the Daily News Editorial Board yesterday.

The 9-million-square-foot office, residential and commercial project features a basketball arena to house the NBA's Nets as its centerpiece.

Last week, a contentious hearing on the project devolved into an ugly display of shouting, heckling and gesturing, underscoring the simmering tensions in the neighborhood.

Ferrer told the Editorial Board that he supported the project's affordable housing and other benefits it would bring to the community, but he lambasted the overall "secrecy and lack of transparency" surrounding the development.

He also rebuked what he called "apparent abuses of eminent domain," citing a secret memo that recently emerged about two businesses that could be evicted if a site were not made available by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

"We're talking about a lot of mass in that project, a lot of mass. And if we don't deal with a lot of the other issues - like traffic, like schools, like police protection, like sanitation and health care - I think we have a problem," Ferrer said.

"We've got to make this human-size now," he concluded. "This can't be the mother of all real estate deals. If it is that, then, I think it's wrong."

Ferrer declined to specify precisely what part of the project he intended to scale back. He said he would only support eminent domain for businesses that were "unperforming."

The former Bronx borough president's strong comments on the project come after more than a year of railing against Bloomberg for his support of the failed $1.9 billion West Side stadium - a prime example, he often says, of Bloomberg's misplaced priorities.

Stu Loeser, a Bloomberg campaign spokesman, said Ferrer's proposal "means less affordable housing, less jobs, and less economic development for Brooklyn and the city."

"Can Freddy Ferrer find any economic development project in New York City that he supports?" Loeser asked.

Joe DePlasco, who represents the project's developer, said the development team disagrees with Ferrer and welcomes the opportunity to explain the project to him.

"We have generated so much support and excitement because the project will also generate thousands of jobs and thousands of affordable apartments in an area with a dire need for housing and jobs."

Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, who supports the project and Bloomberg's reelection bid, said Tuesday on New York 1 he, too, wants to scale back the project.

"There's no question that the community is right when they call for downscaling the size," he said.

NYguy

October 27th, 2005, 09:07 AM

What! Ratner's only paid off two groups so far? But he promised all of them they would have their pockets stuffed with cash!

Give'em time...

NYguy

October 27th, 2005, 09:51 AM

NY OBSERVER

Observer Poll: Nets Stadium Gets Nod From Brooklynites

By: Matthew Schuerman
10/31/2005

After Bruce Ratner sent the plans for his mammoth live-work-play complex in Brooklyn through a state review process in September, he got nipped by the autumn winds.

Even his most trusted foot soldier, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, said the 22-acre project, which includes a basketball arena for the new Ratner Nets, was too big.

Then a community group that was supposed to give the $3.5 billion project street cred proved itself incapable of filling out tax forms correctly. Finally, a pro forma public hearing on Oct. 18 turned into a talent show for Mr. Ratner’s opponents, and the media declared that the tide of public opinion was turning.

Then again, maybe not.

A poll commissioned by The New York Observer and conducted by Pace University finds that more New Yorkers support the plan to bring the Nets to Brooklyn than oppose it—and the trend remains even when people find out more about the project.

Asked outright what they think about the plan, 39 percent of the 538 voters polled said they support it, 23 percent oppose it, and the rest were undecided. Support was even stronger among Brooklynites (50 percent) and black men (59 percent). A set of follow-up questions gave the best arguments in favor (jobs, housing, civic spirit) and against (the large size, a $200 million taxpayer subsidy, use of eminent domain) and then asked respondents to rate their support: 46 percent were somewhat or strongly for it.

Between 30 percent and 36 percent of the public opposed it, depending on how the question was worded.

“Many times, people have very visceral reactions to real-estate development, and what I’m pleased about is that people in Brooklyn have obviously been paying attention and understand the concept and the issues,” said Jim Stuckey, executive vice president for Mr. Ratner’s company, Forest City Ratner. “Obviously there are questions, and obviously there are concerns—and there should be. And we will be addressing those.”

The poll, cosponsored by WNYC Radio and WCBS-TV, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

“The poll shows a low level of public awareness, but we conducted it in such a way to get a good sense of where New Yorkers would be if they were well informed,” said Jonathan Trichter, the director of the Pace Poll. “There are plenty of tools that the opposition can use to derail this project, but public opinion is not one of them.”

The public has rarely been polled about the so-called Atlantic Yards project, a 22-acre, Frank Gehry–designed complex with 7,300 apartments and substantial retail and office space. Its 16 towers jut up out of the ground at strange angles and bend back and forth, as if Mr. Gehry, advancing in years, tried but could no longer crumple tin cans the way he did in Bilbao or Los Angeles. The tallest tower reaches 620 feet high. It would become the tallest building in Brooklyn by 100 feet and conveniently stay that way for many years. Even the recently up-zoned downtown is now capped at 600 feet.

The telephone survey, fielded Oct. 14 to 19, comes months after the West Side stadium controversy and amid deep frustration over the sluggishness of Ground Zero development, which may partially explain why Mr. Ratner’s plan comes across so much better than it did on earlier occasions. The New York Times, in an unpublished part of a poll in June, and the Quinnipiac Poll last April both found more naysayers than boosters.

Project opponents also point to the Democratic primary results in September as a sign of how strongly people living close to the project feel about it: Two vocal opponents of the arena plan, City Councilwoman Letitia James and Norman Siegel, a candidate for Public Advocate, overwhelmingly beat their rivals among local voters.

“I suppose the closer you get to the actual site, the more people you will find against it,” said State Assemblywoman Joan Millman, a critic of the plan who represents neighborhoods along the western edge of the footprint. “I was at a Christmas party in Sheepshead Bay and the question was asked, and everybody was for it. That’s because they don’t have to live with it.”

Count Mayor Bloomberg among those outsiders who offer their support without sullying their shirtsleeves. When confronted by an arena opponent at a Brooklyn greenmarket recently, Mr. Bloomberg responded, according to The New York Times: “If I lived here, maybe I wouldn’t like it either.”

Count Governor George Pataki among the supporters as well—and Mr. Pataki appoints the members of the Empire State Development Corporation, the state economic-development agency, which is acting as both a regulator and a participant in this project. The ESDC will condemn any land through eminent domain that the landlord won’t voluntarily give up, and it has agreed to serve as the conduit for a $100 million state subsidy. (The city is also kicking in $100 million.) Currently, the ESDC is determining the parameters of the environmental-impact study, which will begin this fall or early winter.

A groundbreaking could take place as soon as late spring 2006.

Daniel Goldstein, spokesman for Develop—Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, criticized the Observer survey for low-balling the total cost of the project to taxpayers, which has been estimated to reach $1 billion, everything included. Nonetheless, Mr. Goldstein said the poll results show there is substantial opposition—and not just from neighbors.

“Surveys work well in political races, but in a complicated issue like this, it’s hard to tell that much,” he told The Observer. “It basically appears that there is a split. Maybe it’s leaning a little toward supporting it, but when you look below the surface, when you tell people just a little bit more, they get more troubled and have more questions. A survey will never be able to illustrate this.”

He added: “Still, considering that the developer is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, on lobbying and on public relations, including two newspapers—and grassroots activists just can’t match that—the results are pretty good.”

Mr. Goldstein and his ilk had better be prepared. They can expect Forest City to spend more money and stage more press events in the coming months, much of it focused on the developer’s promises to deliver jobs and affordable housing to nearby residents. One such event took place on Oct. 25: the announcement of a minority firm, McKissack & McKissack, as construction manager.

On the other hand, opponents may have an even more volatile event coming up. The Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, a network of 25 groups that is officially neutral on the Atlantic Yards project, has been gathering its own surveys from members and other residents. Those surveys have been concentrated on those living nearest the project, and the council is expected to announce the results soon. A spokeswoman declined to provide an advance peek at the results, except to say: “There are grave concerns.”

BrooklynRider

October 27th, 2005, 12:25 PM

I feel that most Brooklynites support the arena and want a major league team in the Borough. I think there's very little opposition to that. But, the question of whether people support the "arena" project does not fairly reflect wherethe opposition is. Would people want the arena even if the rest of Ratners plan did not get approved? Yes. If there is a feeling of opposition is it to the arena or other issue related to the development? Other issues.

The poll is not very good in that it doesn't ask questions that reflect knowledge of what the issues are and it lets people make assumptions that are just not true. We'd like an arena. We like a revitalized downtown churning out a higher level of economic activity. And, we want the integrity of existing neighborhoods to be respected with parcels such as Atlantic Yards integrated - not separated - from what exists now.

If it is going to take 10 - 15 years to build the entire project, why bid out and approve it all now? Phase it, so at each step the success of what is completed is taken into consideration and what is needed can be built in. The arena and intial 3 towers can be bid, approved and built by the end of the decade with an aggressive schedule. That would give Ratner time to, on the one hand, build the arena and signature skyscrapers and, on the other hand, build credibility and trust with neighborhood groups that are representative of residents - not paid employees of Ratner.

lofter1

October 27th, 2005, 07:29 PM

Observer Poll:

“The poll shows a low level of public awareness, but we conducted it in such a way to get a good sense of where New Yorkers would be if they were well informed,” said Jonathan Trichter, the director of the Pace Poll.

So, in otherwords, "the public we polled don't know nuthin', but we pretended they did" ???

NoyokA

October 28th, 2005, 09:22 PM

The New York Daily News:

Beep's downsize call
BY HUGH SON

Friday, October 28th, 2005

Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz - the leading cheerleader for developer Bruce Ratner's huge Atlantic Yards project - now wants its building heights to be reduced.

Plans for the 22-acre miniature city proposed for Brooklyn call for an NBA arena and 16 towers up to 620 feet high.

Nine million square feet of new office and residential space would dwarf surrounding structures, including the iconic Williamsburgh Savings Bank building, currently Brooklyn's tallest.

Markowitz told the Daily News that benefits from the $3.5 billion project such as jobs, affordable housing and park space should be preserved while building heights are reduced.

"The urban design challenge is how do we [preserve] the benefits and downscale the heights of the buildings proposed," Markowitz said.

He didn't offer a specific reduction, however.

"If he's proposed 50 stories, should it be 30 or 40? I don't know," he said.

Markowitz, who has increasingly acknowledged community concerns about the massive project and its impact on traffic and city services, made his strongest statements during a Tuesday NY1 interview.

"Now listen, we've got to downscale it," Markowitz said on the TV show. "There's no question that the community is right when they call for downscaling the size, and they're right on that."

Markowitz, who first persuaded Ratner to bring the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn as part of a blockbuster land deal, presumably has the ear of the billionaire developer.

"I'm confident that there will be modification in the original proposal," Markowitz said yesterday. "There has to be - there will be."

Ratner spokesman Joe DePlasco said in a statement that "Forest City Ratner will always sit down and discuss [Markowitz's] concerns with him."

Atlantic Yards foe Councilwoman Letitia James (WFP-Fort Greene) cautiously approved of Markowitz's sentiments, but accused him of being fixated on bringing a professional sports team to the borough.

"He's changing his tune," James said. "It's unfortunate he was unaware of the size of the project from Day 1 and was only focused on the arena."

But Baruch Public Affairs professor Doug Muzzio said Markowitz was "recognizing the legitimate concerns of members of the community.

"As the project begins to approach the stage of having shovels in the ground, the opposition will increase as people realize the full extent of the adverse impacts," Muzzio said.

lofter1

November 6th, 2005, 12:53 AM

Routine Changes, or 'Bait and Switch'?

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
November 6, 2005
NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/nyregion/06yards.html

When the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn was unveiled in 2003, pamphlets given out at a news conference said it would feature "iconic" new buildings while balancing "the needs of the existing communities and those of the people who would live, work in or visit the new complex."

It would provide 10,000 office jobs and more than 4,000 units of rental housing, half of it set aside for low- and middle-income families. Its centerpiece would be a Frank Gehry (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/frank_gehry/index.html?inline=nyt-per)-designed arena for the Nets basketball team, topped by a "lushly landscaped" public park with "outstanding panoramic vistas facing Manhattan."

Most of those features are still recognizable in the project's most recent iteration, described in planning documents released in September and in the latest designs from the developer, Forest City Ratner Companies.

The Nets arena remains the centerpiece. The tallest building, dubbed Miss Brooklyn, will bring Mr. Gehry's trademark titanium waves to Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues. The other towers - some smaller than before, some larger - still stand amid acres of green space carefully sculptured to welcome residents of the adjoining streets.

In other respects, however, the Atlantic Yards envisioned today looks very different from the one unveiled nearly two years ago. The project's size has jumped by a million square feet, and its dollar cost by 40 percent, to $3.5 billion. Commercial space, once a substantial portion of the overall square footage, has dropped dramatically, replaced by thousands of for-sale apartments and a hotel.

Nearly three-quarters of the office jobs originally projected are gone; the new apartments do not count as part of the so-called 50-50 agreement under which 2,250 apartments are to be rented below market rates, and the park on the arena's roof is to be accessible only to residents.

"Projects change, markets change," said Forest City Ratner's executive vice president for development, James P. Stuckey. "When you do a project over a long period of time, it's very difficult - unless you're Nostradamus - to figure out what the market changes and land changes and all those things are going to be."

But critics of the project say some of the changes, particularly the reduction in office jobs and the addition of thousands of market-rate condominiums, make Atlantic Yards into a less sweet deal for Brooklyn residents. The Democratic mayoral candidate, Fernando Ferrer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/fernando_ferrer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), recently attacked the project as "the twin brother of Mike Bloomberg's West Side stadium boondoggle."

Some opponents go further, saying the developer lured politicians and community groups with grand promises and then backtracked after the spotlight had passed.

"They were willing to say anything to get community support, and that is why it is dangerous for the community to accept promises from the outset," said the Rev. Clinton M. Miller, a member of the Downtown Brooklyn Leadership Coalition. That group began talks with the developer over jobs and housing in 2004 but has since come out against the project.

Several factors have converged to raise the project's price tag, including increasing construction costs, the above-market prices the developer has paid to buy out residents who live on the project's footprint, the extra $50 million the developer offered for rights to build over the Metropolitan Transportation Authority rail yard, and the cost of renovating the yard itself.

Officials of Forest City Ratner said they eventually realized that they would have to reduce the amount of commercial space, to accommodate condominium units that would help pay for the project, including the below-market rental housing.

But large real estate projects are subject to "the butterfly effect": Change one thing, and another changes.

Because estimates of office jobs were based on the project's commercial square footage, less commercial space meant fewer office jobs. The earlier estimates were also based on a ratio of one job per 200 square feet of space, but the Empire State Development Corporation, which released the September planning documents, uses a less generous ratio of one job per 250 square feet of space, amplifying the reduction.

The move to include more housing also increased the total square footage of the project. Because the ceilings of residential units are several feet lower than those of commercial units, however, it did not require more floors in each building. Indeed, the project will have one building less than originally planned, lowering its overall density somewhat.

Critics said, though, that even the reduced job estimates were overstated, because they do not account for likely vacancy rates or for jobs lost when businesses currently occupying the site are forced out. Based on those factors, they said, the net gain from the project would be fewer than 1,000 new office jobs.

Officials of Forest City Ratner - the development partner in building a new Midtown headquarters for The New York Times Company - gave several reasons for the switch to a private park. One was that as the buildings rimming the arena were re-mapped to house more residential units, there were fewer public access points for the roof of the arena. Another was that the city building code would have treated the park as a public assembly area, requiring cumbersome safety features. Finally, Mr. Stuckey said, discussions with planning experts revealed that "generally, open space up in the air doesn't work - people don't use it."

While the new plan closes the park to the public, he said, it adds more park acreage to the overall project.

"We took what was on the roof and put it on the ground where people can use it," he said.

It may be the changes to the projections of new housing that have provoked the sharpest outcry.

"The problem is, Bertha Lewis and Mayor Bloomberg and Ratner are out there calling it a 50-50 plan, not a 50-50 plan just for rentals," said Daniel Goldstein, the spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn. "It's a bait and switch. What they announced as a revolutionary housing deal is not." Ms. Lewis, executive director of the advocacy group Acorn, signed the housing agreement last spring with Bruce Ratner, president and chief executive officer of Forest City Ratner and principal owner of the New Jersey Nets.

The 50-50 deal and the more generous job numbers were frequently cited by politicians and others supporting the project, and favoring Mr. Ratner's bid to buy air rights over the rail yards for tens of millions of dollars less than their appraised worth.

In letters dated last June and July - weeks after Mr. Stuckey outlined the potential conversion to more residential units at a May hearing - more than two dozen union leaders and elected officials expressed their support for Mr. Ratner's bid. Many of them cited the developer's earlier promise of 10,000 permanent jobs in the project's commercial portion and the so-called 50-50 housing deal with Acorn.

"The more than 10,000 jobs that will be created at Atlantic Yards will be a historic achievement for the future of Brooklyn's economy," read a letter from the Brooklyn borough president, Marty Markowitz. Similar letters came from Senator Charles E. Schumer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/charles_e_schumer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum and several members of the City Council.

In an interview, Mr. Stuckey, the executive of Forest City Ratner, suggested that Forest City Ratner was paying a price for being forthcoming about its plans. He noted that the developer had met with dozens of community groups, had appeared at two Council hearings though it had no legal obligation to do so, and had publicly released pages and pages of documents before it would have been required to.

"What's interesting is that we've been out talking to people for two years. And this week, the approval process began," he said in an interview in October. "Here we are opening ourselves up - tremendous transparency, for two years. Yet the criticism is, 'Wait a second, they didn't tell us something about the evolution of their planning process before the public process began'? Just think about what that means."

"It's Orwellian, almost," Mr. Stuckey added.

The agreement signed last May between Mr. Ratner and Ms. Lewis applied only to the 4,500 rental units envisioned in the original plan. But it included a provision that if the developer added more residential units, the firm would develop 600 to 1,000 moderately priced for-sale units on or near the project site, in effect offering something close to a 50-50 ratio for all the housing associated with the project.

At the time, officials of Forest City Ratner said they were already contemplating adding 1,500 condominium units, in part because community leaders had pushed Mr. Ratner to include more housing in the project. That would have given the project 6,000 units of housing. But during a City Council presentation in May, Mr. Stuckey said the developer was contemplating adding an extra 1,300 for-sale units, bringing the total to 7,300 units.

Those additions were specified in the September planning document, cementing the transformation of Atlantic Yards into essentially a large residential development with an arena and a relatively small amount of office and retail space attached to it.

Forest City Ratner officials said that they had remained faithful to the Acorn agreement, which did not require that half of the new for-sale units be priced affordably. But if the developer chooses to build the maximum of 1,000 moderately priced for-sale units described in the Acorn agreement and builds them off-site, then the total number of for-sale and rental units associated with the project would reach 8,300, of which 3,250 would be priced below market rates - about 40 percent.

Much of the city's moderately priced housing is built through an arrangement called the 80-20 Program, under which city and state agencies subsidize construction projects by providing developers with tax-exempt bonds . In exchange, the developers set aside 20 percent of the apartment units for tenants who earn 50 percent or less of the area's median income.

Ms. Lewis said that Acorn remained a strong supporter of the project and of the agreement with Forest City Ratner. But she said she was negotiating with the company, and with the government agencies that help subsidize housing, to help make a greater proportion of the for-sale apartments available below market prices.

"We know that when we get through this thing, half of all the housing is going to be affordable - half of the rental, half of everything else," she said. "We haven't gotten down to the last part of this. But our whole principle is 50-50."

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

ZippyTheChimp

November 6th, 2005, 06:53 AM

Nearly three-quarters of the office jobs originally projected are gone;
The compelling aspect of the original project was the commercial development of the Flatbush-Atlantic transport hub. Now, it's just a giant residential development.

THe Nets arena will bring marginal revenue. As it stands, unless you think that bringing Gehry to Brooklyn is worth it, the project is almost as big a waste of a valuable resource as doing nothing.

BrooklynRider

November 6th, 2005, 03:45 PM

Nice for the NY Times to catch up with the news after the fact. It would be comparable to reporting on the Indian Ocean Tsunami now. Big deal - thanks for nothing. NY Times is just so irrelevant if you want your news timely and unskewered.

By the way, Markowitz was on the defensive during a recent Brooklyn Borough president race debate. He's the worst kind of political hack out there is. The way so many of us rant about Bush and Congress selling out the average American, so Markowitz has sold out Brooklyn. I was pleased to see so many people at the Marathon today campaigning against him.

lofter1

November 13th, 2005, 12:04 AM

The Project That Ate Brooklyn

NY Times
By JOHN B. MANBECK
Op-Ed Contributor

November 13, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/opinion/nyregionopinions/13CImanbeck.html

WE owe the existence of Brooklyn to the urban developers of more than a century ago. Since that time, the borough's open land has disappeared. That's how it goes in cities the world over; only a dead city never changes.

But just as we'll always have developers, community activists and environmentalists will invariably seek to check their greed and broaden their foresight. The tension between these two groups can be a creative one - except when it leads developers to exaggerate their ambitions and activists to simply obstruct them.

That's where we are with Forest City Ratner Companies' plan to build a sports arena surrounded by 17 imposing high-rise buildings on the Atlantic Avenue railyards. The plan is overkill, for which public officials are partly to blame. But the community's response to it - a mix of not-in-my-backyard rejection and idealized nostalgia - is overkill as well.

At the core of the Atlantic Yards plan is an arena for the New Jersey Nets on the very site that was denied the Brooklyn Dodgers 50 years ago.

This arena proposal makes good sense. The neighborhood's residents fear a traffic snarl, but with 10 subway lines and the Long Island Rail Road serving Atlantic Avenue station, that's unlikely to be a problem. And the arena would stimulate construction on Boerum Hill's vacant lots while helping to increase ridership on the underused Flatbush branch of the L.I.R.R.

But the Atlantic Yards proposal doesn't stop with the Nets. The 14-million-square-foot project includes a 620-foot-high office building, taller than the neighborhood's landmark, the 512-foot-high Williamsburgh Savings Bank. The proposal replaces 162 dwellings with 8,300 new units, 40 percent of which will be allocated to low- and middle-income housing. The influx of new residents will swiftly overload the neighborhood's social services and commercial amenities, and the project's footprint will encroach on historic neighborhoods like Prospect Heights.

Still more disturbing than the scale of the project is the active support that Forest City Ratner, a private company, has received from the borough, city and state governments. All told, Forest City Ratner's Brooklyn plan will cost the public $1 billion in tax breaks, subsidies and noncompetitive bidding.

(Forest City Ratner is also the development partner for the new headquarters that The New York Times Company is building in Manhattan with the help of $26.1 million in tax breaks.)

The idea behind such generous infusions of public money into private enterprise, presumably, is that the returns will benefit government as well as the developer. But quite apart from being a misuse of public funds, a project that relies heavily on subsidies rarely works. If anything, the very fact that a developer can't make a project float on its own should signal that something is wrong with its scale.

There is a responsible role for government to play in urban development, and it isn't the role of share-holder. Rather, the city should provide oversight, offer input and, if necessary, exert control over such projects to prevent overbuilding, particularly in areas where growth is as vibrant as it is in Brooklyn.

Officials need to consider the existing profiles of neighborhoods as well as the immediate goals of developers. They should recall the visions of Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, who sought to provide green space in Brooklyn's parks. That goal should still be honored, with the officials making sure that . the green space envisioned in the Atlantic Yards project remains accessible to the public.

There are plenty of good precedents to look to. The developer Greg O'Connell created an environmentally friendly Red Hook waterfront where once there was simply blight. In Dumbo, David Walentas reconfigured vacant factories and storage spaces to create housing. The city's planning commission needs to hold developers' feet to the fire, to make sure that they are always aware of the responsibility they bear to the city.

Brooklyn's developers have a habit of submitting audacious initial proposals. That way, when the public balks, as it inevitably does at new development, the developer can retreat to a more conservative plan that satisfies his true ambitions while allowing the public to feel that it has staved off disaster.

When Brooklyn Law School faced community resistance to its proposal for an oversized dormitory building, the developer pulled back and compromised.

Now Forest City Ratner has revised its plan, but the size has jumped and the costs escalated. Too bad the company did not instead retreat to a place that balances a forward-looking vision with respect for Brooklyn's heritage.
John B. Manbeck is a former Brooklyn borough historian.

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

ablarc

November 14th, 2005, 08:45 PM

He should let go of the subsidies. I bet he could do the project without them, and he'd shed a lot of critics along with the subsidies.

NYguy

November 18th, 2005, 08:02 PM

BROOKLYN PAPERS

Ratner to Gehry: Try again
‘Yards’ architect sent back to drawing board

By Ariella Cohen
The Brooklyn Papers

Bruce Ratner has reportedly sent his world-renowned architect Frank Gehry back to the drawing board to revise the developer’s 24-acre arena-and-skyscraper project at the Atlantic Yards.

And Gehry has just two weeks to come up with a new scheme, according to a report in Crain’s New York Business this week.

Ratner’s sudden rejection of Gehry’s initial design — whose mammoth scale and glitzy aesthetic stunned even supporters of the project when it was unveiled in July — was viewed with suspicion by longtime opponents.

“Ha!” said Prospect Heights activist Patti Hagan.

“Anytime Ratner sends drawing back to Gehry back for a redesign it comes back bigger and uglier.

“That last drawing looked like an explosion was going on. Very garish — or should I say ‘Gehryish.’”

Gehry’s preliminary design — unveiled amid much ballyhoo in Dec. 2003 — featured three soaring office towers and 4,500 new apartments flanking an arena.

But only the glass-walled arena had been fully designed at that time. The rest of the project — presumably to feature Gehry’s iconic curved metal style — was rendered in bare blocks.

But last July, Gehry unveiled a substantially different — and substantially bulkier — look for Atlantic Yards. The project now included 15 Vegas-style towers and three more acres of footprint.

The total project would comprise 7,300 units of housing and 1.9 million square feet of office space.

It remains unclear what Ratner has asked Gehry to change — but architects said that redesigns are quite common during the development process.

“Renderings change with the wind,” said Manhattan architect Sitil Patel. “They’re like politicians’ principles — they change depending on what developers think they can get done.”

David Smiley, an architecture professor at Columbia University, added: “Part of what happens in this stage of the process is just the show of adjustment and changes. Changes made now could be very substantial things or it could be window dressing.”

Negative community reaction to Gehry’s July design made even Ratner supporters question the direction of the project.

Borough President Marty Markowitz — a strong supporter of Ratner’s initial plans — began calling for a downsizing of the project during his run for reelection this fall.

And two state Assemblymembers who had supported the plan have also recently expressed their concerns.

Smiley, the Columbia professor, thought the negative reaction might have pressured Ratner into sending Gehry back to the drafting table.

“The design [in July] was quite a bit different than it had been in any model before,” he said.

“Whether people think Brooklyn is the place for it or not, the design had gotten big and more dynamic.”

Markowitz cites building height as an element of the project that should change but has not come out publicly with any other suggestions for revision.

“Since I am not an urban planner, I want to explore all options that reduce the scale of the project while still maximizing the affordable housing, jobs, open space and maintaining a world-class arena,” he said in a statement.

Ratner declined to comment on how — or even whether — the new design would change. But observers say the revisions point to an inevitable truth about the controversial project: It is a work in progress.

Though still supported by the majority of elected officials, the project has a long road to fruition.

Before construction can begin, two state agencies — the Empire State Development Corporation and the Public Authorities Control Board — must approve funding for the plan.

That process begins in January.

“We have time to make the buildings fit to the Brooklyn skyline,” said former borough historian John Manbeck. “I’d like the buildings a little more traditional and shorter — that’s an ideal. But of course, Ratner is not a philanthropist. Bill Gates maybe — not Ratner.”

It’s not the first time Gehry has had to revise initial designs.

In fact, he was forced to sandblast the metal roof of his famed Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles in 2003 when drivers complained they were being blinded by the glare.

“You would have thought he would have thought about the glare being that he lived in LA for decades,” said Aric Chen, an architecture gossip writer.

“Gehry is used to getting carte blanche, but at the same he is known to be flexible.”

In Brooklyn, the concern has not been glare, but traffic, congestion and community input.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has called the mega-project a “capstone” of Brooklyn development. The mayor pledged that no city money would be needed to fund the project directly.

The project would be built in stages, with the arena going up first, with a scheduled opening in 2008. Tax revenue generated by the arena through the sale of everything from tickets to hot dogs to parking to even the players’ multi-million-dollar salaries, would finance the rest of the project.

Hearings in January will be held by the Empire State Development Corporation and will be followed by an up-or-down vote by the Public Authorities Control Board –– the same little-known state panel that killed the West Side Stadium proposal earlier this year.

Gov. Pataki and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno are known to support the project, while Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is playing his typical, Sphinx-like role.

‘We are listening to all kinds of opinions,” said Eileen Larabee, his spokeswoman.

Although the approval process is similar to the failed West Side stadium bid, there is at least one main difference.

Atlantic Yards requires far less public funding — a direct allocation of an estimated $200 million for the $3.5-billion project as opposed to the $1 billion in public cash that would have made the $2.2-billion Jets stadium possible.

If Atlantic Yards gets past the Albany hurdles early next year, it will still take at least eight more years for it to be completely built, officials said.

NYguy

November 18th, 2005, 08:04 PM

NY POST

ACTRESS IN BATTLE TO FOIL NETS' ARENA BID

By PATRICK GALLAHUE
November 14, 2005 -

Actress Rosie Perez, of the basketball movie "White Men Can't Jump," lent her name to the anti-Nets arena movement and marched against the $3.5 billion plan yesterday afternoon.
"I've lived here all my life and I'm glad we don't have skyscrapers," said the Brooklyn native who lives in Clinton Hill.

The state is reviewing plans for developer Bruce Ratner to build 17 commercial and residential towers around an NBA arena in Prospect Heights for the New Jersey Nets. He has already cut generous deals with most property owners in the area, but the state could end up seizing land via eminent domain from those who won't sell.

"The size of the project doesn't respect the character [of the neighborhood] and I think the thing that really hurts is the people being displaced," Perez said before a walkathon around the arena's footprint to raise money for lawsuits against Ratner. About 350 people marched yesterday, raising about $50,000.

Perez is the first celebrity to stand against the arena, as opposed to a bevy of superstars supporting the plan.

NYguy

November 18th, 2005, 08:05 PM

No sleep till Brooklyn: Jay-Z won't rest until Nets take over town

http://www.mercurynews.com/images/realcities/realcities/13174/173563562670.jpg

BY OHM YOUNGMISUK
New York Daily News

NEW YORK - In his posh VIP room at his 40/40 sports bar, Jay-Z is surrounded by a pool table, framed autographed jerseys, two arcade video games and two 42-inch flat screen televisions that are locked on ESPN.

This playboy's dream room is where the rap superstar likes to kick up his S. Carter Reeboks, put aside his CEO duties and rap persona and become a cheeseburger-eating sports fan.

"I think Allen Iverson broke dress code already," the rap mogul and part Nets owner says, jokingly, as he watches a clip of Iverson wearing a leather jacket on opening night.

David Stern doesn't have to sweat Jay-Z's outfit for the next Nets game. The retired rapper, who also goes by "Hova" and "Jigga," is more CEO than thug, more button-down shirt than throwback jersey and do-rag.

The man born as Shawn Carter is president of Def Jam Recordings, co-founder of Roc-A-Fella records and the Rocawear clothing line. He's the first non-athlete to have his own shoe line, which turned out to be the hottest selling Reebok ever, and his personal bling-bling wealth is estimated to be $320 million, according to Fortune magazine.

Everything Jay-Z raps turns to platinum. And now the self-proclaimed "best rapper alive" hopes to have the same effect on the Nets, an organization that has been about as hip as Vanilla Ice.

In his second full season of ownership, Jay-Z has recruited free agents, booked halftime talent and helped design a VIP room at the Meadowlands. In the spirit of his hit "Dirt Off Your Shoulder," the NBA's trendsetting owner is planning his most ambitious takeover yet: helping the soon-to-be Brooklyn Nets brush the Knicks aside.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Daily News, Carter rapped on everything from growing up in the projects, the dress code, and the relationship between hip-hop and the NBA to what it means to put Brooklyn back on the professional sports map.

"People grew up on the Knicks," the Brooklyn-born Carter says. "The Nets have always been the cousins. I hope to change that. On all fronts, whether it be my relationship with players or the (VIP) rooms... everything besides messing with Rod Thorn. I am like the guy in 'Ray' who turns down the lights. It needs to be done."

On the "December 4th" track on his last solo record, "The Black Album," Carter's mother discusses how avid a sports fan Carter was. Growing up in Brooklyn's notorious Marcy projects, Carter says he played everything he could but was never into organized sports.

Like most rappers, Carter was too busy getting into trouble.

"I was a bad kid," the 35-year-old Carter says. "Practice and all that meant more school and I didn't want to do none of that. Stay after school to play basketball? Naw."

Carter spent a portion of his late teens and early 20's dealing drugs. After nearly being shot, he stopped selling and focused his attention on his music.

With Damon Dash and Kareem Burke, Carter started the Roc-A-Fella label and did what struggling artists have to do to jump-start their careers.

"I was the CEO, executive producer of my first album," Carter says of "Reasonable Doubt," which went platinum in 1996. "I was the promotion guy, the artist, everything, the driver. We were vikings. We would go anywhere for a show. I drove two hours for a five-minute show one time somewhere in upstate New York. It was maybe 12 people and I might have performed in a classroom for maybe $1,500 dollars."

Ten platinum albums and over 33 million records later, Jay-Z is a multi-million dollar business. He launched a clothing line which reportedly generates $400 million a year.

Carter nearly risked it all when he was arrested for stabbing a rival producer, Lance Rivera, in a nightclub in 1999. He pleaded guilty and received three years' probation.

Carter said the incident shook him and made him more careful about his lifestyle and image. He became more of a businessman, venturing into the sports world. He opened his trendy sports club on W. 25th Street and named it for baseball's exclusive club of those who hit 40 homers and steal 40 bases in a season.

Carter also joined forces with Reebok to design the S. Carter shoe line. The first limited-edition kicks sold out the day they debuted in April 2003, reportedly grossing $100 million in sales.

"How is that for a first-time designer?" says Carter, chuckling in his distinctive staccato laugh.

A piece of an NBA team, however, especially one that will move to Brooklyn, was never something Carter dreamed of adding to his empire.

At his much-anticipated Powerhouse concert last month at the Meadowlands Arena, Jay-Z welcomed a standing-room-only crowd that included several Nets.

"This is my house," Jay-Z screamed as thousands cheered. "I mean, this is my house. I own the Nets!"

The rapper said he wasn't bragging but sharing his joy.

"It is like score one for us, for all the disenfranchised, for all the kids that came up hard, all the kids from the projects," Carter says. "It gives them faith that this can happen to us too."

It also gives athletes something to shoot for after they retire. Toronto's Jalen Rose says Carter is proof that African-Americans, even those with a rough past, can become owners. Carter is aware of this.

"They know I am a real person," Carter says of why he relates to athletes like no other owner. "Not like these politicians who have never stolen anything out of their Mom's purse or inhaled or anything like that. I am a real person who has made mistakes and I have tried to correct them. But for the most part, I am just a good guy."

Jay-Z's involvement with the Nets began with an assist from - who else? - Jason Kidd.

Two years ago, Kidd threw a birthday party at 40/40 when the Nets' point guard approached Carter with the idea of buying into the Nets. A joke turned into several meetings and before Carter knew it, he was signing up with principal owner Bruce Ratner to bring professional sports back to Brooklyn.

"We were laughing about it," Carter says of Kidd and himself. "I knew Drew Katz who started with the old ownership, who knew this person and it all came together in some weird way. I still didn't believe it happened even as I was signing the contract to be a part of the ownership. I was like, 'What is this? Is this real?' It was just so surreal. I still can't believe when I say it."

Ratner didn't know much about Jay-Z or the rap world before he met Carter.

The bespectacled Ratner and Jay-Z, whose songs contain what some consider to be misogynistic lyrics, are an unlikely marriage. When the two recently greeted each other after a game, they shared an awkward hug, hardly the handshake and quick embrace rappers and players usually exchange.

"I really didn't know very much about rap," Ratner says. "Someone in my office gave me the lyrics to one of his rap songs off the Internet and I said, 'Oh my God.'"

But the charming and approachable Carter, who seemingly never turns down autograph and picture requests at games, eased Ratner's worries in a meeting in Brooklyn. Jay-Z doesn't run with huge entourages or a posse of bodyguards.

"Any preconceived notion I had about rap artists - the lyrics made me wonder - changed," Ratner says. "You could see right away, you spend 10 minutes with Jay-Z, he is a soft-spoken, mild-mannered, intelligent guy who really knows what is going on. Then I (later) learned there was something called the radio version."

If anything, Ratner had to convince Carter to buy a piece of the Nets. Both sides declined to reveal how much of a stake Carter has and while league sources say it is less than 5 percent, Carter makes it clear he is not just lending his fame to Ratner's group for street credibility.

"Nobody gave me anything," says Carter, who Ratner says is one of his five most active investors in the team. "I spent my money like everyone else and I came in and added value."

Like Ratner, Stern may have had his initial reservations about adding a rapper to his stable of owners. But Carter impressed the commissioner with his business savvy.

"(There are concerns) only about character issues that we have with all owners," Stern says. "We met with him and we were very impressed with him. He seems to be a solid businessman who has a hard background who has righted himself and is now an icon of types."

Carter also had the chance to join the Bobcats' ownership group. Charlotte owner Robert Johnson asked Carter to join his club but the rapper opted for the Nets because of the proximity and the future in Brooklyn.

"Besides being one hell of an artist, he is one hell of a marketing expert," says Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television and the first African-American majority owner in pro sports. "To have his input in owning an NBA team could be invaluable. He thinks of himself as a brand. He has a keen intellectual understanding of market forces and how to create market dynamics. He has a personality and style of behavior that makes him attractive to sponsors and a good business head. It is the same ingredients that any entrepreneur would have. He just happens to be an entrepreneur and rapper."

Soon after, Nelly followed Jay-Z into the NBA ownership world, teaming with Johnson's Bobcats. Last season, Usher invested in the Cleveland Cavaliers' new ownership group as well.

"If I had come in here with just (expletive) and treated it like a joke, then there is no Nelly, no Usher," Carter says. "Are you kidding me? They've seen the experiment works."

Stern says he has learned to live with some of his new owners and some of the unsavory lyrics in their songs which are often played in edited versions during games around the league. Just about every arena plays at least one beat from a Jay-Z or 50 Cent track during play or timeouts.

"It wouldn't be my choice but in terms of the artistic merit I understand that there is a contrary view," Stern says. "I just decided not to start making ownership decisions based on what someone has written."

Stern understands that his league is becoming as intertwined with the hip-hop culture as Iverson's zig-zag cornrows. Many players dress like rappers, drive the same kind of cars and use the same slang. Shaquille O'Neal, Ron Artest and Iverson have tried to cameo as rappers while Master P., has repeatedly tried to make an NBA roster.

"Either you play basketball or you rap," Richard Jefferson says. "That is where you get your street cred."

Vince Carter estimates that "95 percent or more of the NBA is hip-hop. ... Just everything, style of play, dress, communication, everything is hip-hop."

Besides rappers entering ownership, many are coming out with their own sneakers. After Jay-Z's success, Reebok has created shoes for Nelly, 50 Cent and Pharrell and has plans to add more musical talent to its roster.

Jamal Crawford and Kenyon Martin are part of the "S. Carter Academy" as is the Cowboys' Roy Williams.

"(Jay-Z) is so credible, so stylish, so cool and when he said something was hot (or) something was wack, kids took it as gospel," says Que Gaskins, Reebok's V.P. of entertainment marketing. "He opened our eyes to the reality that entertainers and lifestyle icons sell products. What makes them so marketable and authentic (is) they have a voice on the radio that kids can hear and an image on BET and MTV that kids can see. They have as much if not more visibility than some athletes."

That image isn't exactly for everyone. Stern imposed a dress code last month that was met with some criticism. Indiana's Stephen Jackson, among others, hinted that it smacked of racism.

Stern countered by saying that his hip-hop owners do not dress "sloppy."

"If you look at the way Jay-Z dresses and Usher when they work, when they are at games and the like, they are usually pretty elegantly attired," Stern says.

Carter does not think the dress code is racist or a form of censorship on hip-hop culture.

"(If) they want to have a more professional look, that's well and good," says Carter, who attends games wearing casual collared shirts and jeans. "But to spring it on someone as a mandatory thing in the last two weeks, that rubs me wrong a little way. It is not a classy thing to do. But if that is implemented starting next year, we have to start wearing suits and dress up, hey, the rules are the rules."

"As far as what I have seen, people relate to guys like Allen Iverson because they feel like he is one of them," Carter continues. "Know what I am saying? Not too many people are walking around from where he comes from with Armani suits on."

In a way, though, Carter has been preaching about dressing up for some time now. Prior to the dress code mandate, the rap impresario was already working on his own high-end Shawn Carter brand of clothing that caters to the 30-something generation that still listens to hip-hop but is too old for the oversized throwback jerseys of the younger set.

"I guess they want the NBA to look like Jay because he is the only rapper that wears suits," says Memphis Bleek, a popular rapper who is one of Carter's best friends.

Kidd says players were leaving their throwbacks in their closets before the dress code, thanks to Jay-Z.

"The effect (Jay-Z) had on throwback jerseys in one of his songs when he said to button up, he almost shut down that whole industry," Kidd says. "The power that he has and the people he can touch is just incredible."

Carter's worldly influence humbles him.

"I never thought the places rap would reach," Carter says. "People everywhere are growing up and rap is their first music. In Brazil, it is not merengue, they are growing up with rap as their first music. All over the world. I never imagined an artist with his own sneaker. Definitely never imagined an artist having ownership in a pro sports team."

Since signing with Ratner and the Nets, Carter has slowly become more involved and visible with the team. Last season, he produced a remix of his hit "The Takeover" for Nets playoff games. He is now a regular sitting in the "Hollywood" Rocawear seats that are right next to the Nets' bench. And last Saturday against the Bulls, fans buzzed when Carter arrived in the first quarter with girlfriend Beyonce right behind him.

Carter regularly exchanges E-mails with Nets Sports & Entertainment CEO Brett Yormark on marketing issues, attends ownership board meetings and signs off on in-game entertainment such as the Nets' new video intro. He also recruits.

Lawrence Frank, who has a Jay-Z ring tone on his cell phone, enlisted Carter's help this summer , asking him to place a call to Shareef Abdur-Rahim. The player picked the Nets before the team rescinded its sign-and-trade because of concerns over his knee.

"We didn't get the team just to sit on it," Carter says. "It's not just a real-estate play somewhere."

Of course, it is the impending move across the rivers that helped convince Carter to become a Net owner. He will consult Ratner on designs for the proposed arena and "may shed a tear" when the Nets tip off in Brooklyn.

"I don't have any kids yet," Carter says. "But I can imagine that being like having your first kid because I am from Brooklyn. Brooklyn pride is something else. We are a part of New York City and we love everybody from New York. But Brooklyn is like its own planet."

Ratner hopes to open doors for the 2008-2009 season. By then, Carter may own another team across the ocean. Reports say Carter is looking into purchasing Arsenal , a soccer club in London. Soccer hooligans and hip-hop?

"There is a ghetto everywhere," Carter says, laughing again. "It started as a rumor and it really turned into something. Like all these things, they just really happen funny in my life, man. I have good karma. I am really lucky."

This is a guy who couldn't get a record deal, who started his own label, went platinum on his first album, signed a major deal with Def Jam Records and then turned around and became the CEO of the company.

"Go figure. Right? If you put that in a movie, man, people would be like, 'That movie was wack.' How are you going to go from being a rapper with no deal to being the president of Def Jam?" he asks.

The only thing more Hollywood would be if Carter unretired like his favorite basketball player - Michael Jordan.

"I don't know," Carter says when asked if he'll ever release a new album. "If M.J. got one of those old 45 jerseys hanging around, I might have to grab it one day

TLOZ Link5

November 18th, 2005, 10:23 PM

Citytect

November 18th, 2005, 10:37 PM

Just kidding, Rosie Perez is still all right.

...For a NIMBY.

lofter1

November 19th, 2005, 12:42 AM

Perhaps we should change that to NIMBO (not in my borough) ...

NYguy

November 19th, 2005, 09:54 AM

Rosie's got more to say...(Brooklyn Papers)

Rosie: Yards could court crackheads

http://brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_45/28_45rosie.jpg

Actress and Brooklynite Rosie Perez marches with members of Develop — Don’t Destroy on Sunday.

By Ariella Cohen
The Brooklyn Papers

How big is Bruce Ratner’s proposed Atlantic Yards development?

Well, it took a half-hour for a professional baton dancer to twirl the perimeter of it during a festive protest of the $3.5-billion project on Sunday.

Twirla, the burlesque performer, joined more than 350 Brooklynites — including White Men Can’t Jump star Rosie Perez — at a walk-a-thon hosted by Develop — Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, a Ratner opponent.

“On a basic level, I am here the same as everyone else,” Perez told The Brooklyn Papers. “I could have lived anywhere in the nation but I chose to live here, in Brooklyn.”

Perez returned to her native borough after eight months living in a distant part of the city called the Upper West Side.

Now she fears the project’s 17-skyscrapers and 19,000-seat basketball arena will bring too much density to Brooklyn’s low-rise blocks, spoiling the home she loves.

“When I lived in Manhattan, I knew the crackhead on my corner better than my neighbors,” she said. “That could happen here, if we don’t stop this project.”

Develop — Don’t Destroy said the protest raised about $60,000, which will fund an ongoing legal battle against Ratner’s project.

While Perez kept a low profile in dark sunglasses, a low newsboy cap and a simple blue jacket, others stopped traffic with spangles, face paint, hand-written signs and tight, bright Develop — Don’t Destroy tank tops.

The walk began at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Pacific Street, on a sidewalk facing the eight-acre rail yards where the proposed 19,000-seat arena would sit. The entire project would be built on a 24-acre footprint.

Just a few yards from Ratner’s Atlantic Terminal shopping mall, a marching band played and children with basketballs bowled down cardboard-model skyscrapers in a game called Boondoggle Buildings.

“I like playing ball, but I don’t need to watch it here, not if here if they are going to take people’s homes,” said 10-year old Prospect Heights resident Chelsea Ettlinger.

As the walk-a-thon hit Vanderbilt Avenue, motorists stopped and cheered.

TLOZ Link5

November 19th, 2005, 06:49 PM

::snaps fingers and waves hand sassily::

Don't be stupid, Ratner! You no develop good or nothing!

ablarc

November 19th, 2005, 07:15 PM

Crackheads. Definitely.

Also axe-murderers.

And don't forget the child molesters.

antinimby

November 20th, 2005, 05:46 AM

Looks like her elocution lessons with Peter Griffin have paid off.
::snaps fingers and waves hand sassily::
Don't be stupid, Ratner! You no develop good or nothing!You mean "you no develop good or nothin'!" (She missed a session) :D

BrooklynRider

November 21st, 2005, 11:50 AM

There might be more in it for Perez than the arena fight. I believe she lives in a waterfront "estate" in the Vinegar Hill section of Brooklyn. One of those weird, out-of-place homes on the outskirts of the Navy Yard. She will find that location impacted by the coming high-rises on the waterfront.

JCMAN320

November 21st, 2005, 01:26 PM

Eminent threat
Fed ban on condemnations could doom Ratner's big B'klyn plans

By WILLIAM M. TREANOR

Set in the 1950s, "West Side Story" was filmed on the upper West Side of Manhattan. The impoverished neighborhood where the Sharks and Jets once fought is now the Lincoln Center neighborhood, one of the most powerful engines of the city's economy. The revitalization shows how urban renewal plans that wisely use private developers and nonprofit organizations can transform local economies and invigorate city life. But the future of this important redevelopment tool is in jeopardy.
A few weeks ago the House, by an overwhelming majority, passed legislation that would deny federal funds to state and local governments that use their power of eminent domain to convey private property to another person or entity. The Bush administration supports the bill, which is now before the Senate. If the bill becomes law, it could prevent any possible use of eminent domain for projects such as Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards development, which includes a new arena for the New Jersey Nets, and Columbia University's planned expansion into West Harlem.

The bill is the product of the bipartisan furor caused by the Supreme Court's June decision in Kelo vs. New London. In Kelo, a divided court held that government could use its eminent domain power, as part of an urban redevelopment program, to take private property and then transfer it to a private developer.

The transformation of the upper West Side shows what is at stake. In 1955, Robert Moses, then chairman of the Mayor's Committee on Slum Clearance, announced a plan for renewal of Lincoln Square. As it evolved, the plan had three private anchors: Fordham University, Lincoln Center and Lincoln Towers. The birth of Lincoln Center addressed the needs of three of the city's preeminent institutions. The Philharmonic had been facing eviction from Carnegie Hall, and the Metropolitan Opera had been seeking a new site. Similarly, with its Manhattan classes operating out of an office building, Fordham benefited from a new campus.

Helping the three anchors dramatically helped the city. Together, Lincoln Towers' 3,800 middle-class apartments, Lincoln Center's jobs and crowds and Fordham's students, faculty and staff gave the neighborhood great vigor. The upper West Side today is the result.

The redevelopment involved real costs, though. It displaced many people, primarily poor people, and Moses did not create housing for those whose homes he destroyed. More broadly, while the Fifth Amendment requires that property owners receive full compensation for the economic value of their property, the psychological loss of a home is not compensated.

Some urban redevelopment projects do more harm than good.

These problems suggest that the merits of individual projects should be closely examined by politicians and citizens. The bill that the House approved, however, is a blunderbuss rule that would effectively take an invaluable urban planning tool away from governments. Had this been law in 1955, the troubled upper West Side of West Side Story might still be a reality.

Treanor is the dean of Fordham Law School.

Originally published on November 20, 2005

By the way I went to the march that day and it was great. Should of been there. The people that support this white elephant would of got their heads out of the clouds and gotten drilled back into reality. I also donated $200 to help raise money for an attorney and so far everyone who is involved with Develop Dont Destroy Brooklyn had donated over $50,000. So as you can see I care about my team and keeping them out of Brooklyn and keeping the people of that area in their homes and those ugly highrises out. We will win!!!

krulltime

November 21st, 2005, 01:29 PM

Ratner and Columbia you must act quickly!!! Use the power!!!

kliq6

November 22nd, 2005, 11:23 AM

ratners plans May even be blocked by Silver

krulltime

November 23rd, 2005, 06:14 PM

Nets plan
flushed out

Paul D. Colford
November 23, 2005

How does a wildflower meadow and boardwalk on the roof of the new Nets arena strike your fancy?

What do you say to an entryway with stoop-like seating and a new marsh to handle storm water runoff?

These are among the striking elements under consideration for Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards project, star architect Frank Gehry and landscape designer Laurie Olin revealed last night.

In back-to-back presentations at the Center for Architecture in Greenwich Village, they pulled back the curtain on how they're trying to reshape the 22-acre expanse in Prospect Heights and yet "have it feel like it's still Brooklyn," as Olin put it.

Gehry's 18,000-seat home for the Nets is planned at Atlantic and Flatbush Aves.

He showed how giant images might be projected on the floor, as well as the ceiling. "The idea is to make so much stuff happen that it feels full all the time," he said.

In one whimsical touch, he illustrated how the street surfaces outside the arena might be striped with the Nets' team colors - now red, white and blue.

Forest City Ratner Cos.' proposed $3.5 billion development, which critics say will overwhelm the area, also calls for up to 7,300 units of housing and 628,000 square feet of office space.

It now faces an environmental review.

Gehry said he's committed to varying the scale of the 16 buildings and alternating among glass, metal and brick. But he also cautioned that his design is still a work in progress.

All contents © 2005 Daily News, L.P.

lofter1

November 23rd, 2005, 07:40 PM

... striking elements under consideration for Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards project, star architect Frank Gehry and landscape designer Laurie Olin revealed last night ... giant images might be projected on the floor, as well as the ceiling. "The idea is to make so much stuff happen that it feels full all the time," he said.

In one whimsical touch, he illustrated how the street surfaces outside the arena might be striped with the Nets' team colors - now red, white and blue...

he also cautioned that his design is still a work in progress.

Keep working on it, Frank ...

NYguy

November 25th, 2005, 07:20 PM

BROOKLYN PAPERS

Gehry: My design was ‘horrible’
Architect tinkers to reduce impact of Atlantic Yards

http://brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_46/28_46gehryhagan.jpg

Before unveiling his latest tweaks for Atlantic Yards this week, architect Frank Gehry waved at an old acquaintance in the fourth row: Patti Hagan of Develop—Don’t Destroy Brooklyn. Giving a wide grin, Gehry accepted an invite to tour Prospect Heights with the longtime Atlantic Yards opponent. “I think Bruce Ratner will fire me,” Gehry joked.

By Ariella Cohen
The Brooklyn Papers

Even world-renowned architect Frank Gehry thinks his design for the Atlantic Yards project — a scheme so massive that even its supporters grumbled after it was unveiled in July — was “horrible.”

Gehry made the stunning admission on Tuesday, as he showed off new details of his design for a 19,000-seat basketball arena, 7,300 units of housing and nearly two million square feet of commercial and office space atop 24 acres in the heart of Brooklyn.

Gehry’s lighting-fast PowerPoint presentation, made at an American Institute of Architects forum, was full of small details, but avoided the Big Picture.

The new design for the $3.5-billion project remains pretty much like its predecessor — minus the architect’s trademark bling. It’s now a bit softer, more inviting, greener and even features a marsh-like pond.

“We didn’t want iconic warfare between 20 buildings,” he said. Translating from Architectese, Gehry means that the glitzy, Vegas-like towers he unveiled to widespread rancor will be toned down and re-clad with warmer brick.

The project’s centerpiece — the glass-walled arena for the Brooklyn Nets at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic avenues — remains as shiny as ever.

Yet the architect played defense for most of the forum and repeatedly used the word “horrible” to describe how he felt about the earlier design when he saw it splashed all over the front page of the New York Times in July.

It’s no surprise that Gehry is tinkering with the project. Last week, The Brooklyn Papers reported that developer Bruce Ratner had sent his starchitect back to the drafting table.

The new renderings showed the project’s seven acres of public space filled with autumnal trees and featuring two fountains, one similar in style to the popular waterworks at the Brooklyn Museum.

Yet key parts of the development — such as the roof of the arena — remain unresolved. Gehry again said he wants housing on the 52,000-square-foot roof. “I am still fascinated with getting people up there,” he said.

Ratner has long advertised that area as public space. But The Brooklyn Papers reported last month that the developer nevertheless planned to eliminate public access to the site.

In his own PowerPoint presentation, renowned landscape architect Lauri Olin said the roof could include a two-acre wildflower meadow. Such a scheme would restrict human use of the roof, but be a boon for migrating birds, said Olin, whose designs for Bryant Park and the Battery Park City esplanade are widely admired.

Many in the audience at the AIA forum cooed like those migrating birds when Olin unveiled his renderings.

But others asked the designers to defend their decision to close off Pacific Street for green space and residential development, creating a megablock.

“They think park space is going to sell the plan, but to create that park, they have to cut off two streets,” said Genevieve Christy of the Boerum Hill Association. “That creates significant questions about who will have access to the space and how they will get there through the traffic.”

Other issues also remain up in the air. At one point, Gehry aimed his red pointer at a blank quadrangle on one of his renderings and said he didn’t know what would go there.

His uncertainty quickly came back to haunt him.

“I live pretty much where you pointed your red pointer,” said Peter Krashes, chair of the Dean Street Block Association, before asking about plans for managing traffic in the neighborhood.

Krashes said he was bothered that Gehry could point to a place that means a lot to him — his home — and yet not know what he plans to put there.

After the exchange, Forest City Ratner Executive Vice President Jim Stuckey urged Krashes to call him to hash out the project’s impact.

Earlier, Stuckey made news when he said that the project’s commercial space might be increased during the upcoming state environmental review.

NYguy

November 25th, 2005, 07:25 PM

"Brooklyn Night" at the Garden....(BROOKLYN PAPERS)

Knicks promo targets Brooklyn

By Vince DiMiceli
The Brooklyn Papers

Can two National Basketball Association teams share the same city without driving each other crazy — or hurting Knicks ticket sales?

That query won’t be answered — until the New Jersey Nets move into their new Frank Gehry-designed arena in Downtown Brooklyn in a few years.

But in the meantime, it appears the Knicks will be proactive in keeping their fan base.

For the first time in its history, the team will be featuring a season-long campaign designed to “honor their fans” — and keep Brooklynites from defecting to the “Dark Side of the Force,” which the Nets will become once they take up residence across the East River.

So on Sunday, Jan. 8, the world’s most famous arena will become Brooklyn West, as the Knicks take on the Seattle Supersonics on what’s being touted as “Brooklyn Night.”

During the evening, business and community leaders from the borough will be featured in on-court ceremonies, and Brooklyn residents will receive discounts on apparel and food at Madison Square Garden concession stands.

Leading up to the game, die-hard Knick fans are being asked to e-mail a photo of themselves to www.nyknicks.com showing why they should be the Knicks’ “Borough Fan of the Night.”

The fan chosen as the winner will then be invited to the game, where his or her photo will be displayed on the Garden scoreboard and during the game’s broadcast.

Last year, the Nets were purchased by mega-developer Bruce Ratner, who promised to move the team from its home in East Rutherford, N.J. to an arena he planned to construct above part of the Long Island Railroad yards at the crossroads of Atlantic and Flatbush avenues.

While still not approved, Ratner hopes his arena will be finished in time for the 2008 season. Ratner’s plan has the backing of Mayor Bloomberg and Borough President Markowitz and would not require any city oversight, as it would sit atop land owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The controversial project also includes numerous residential and office skyscrapers which would tower over the borough’s tallest building — the 512-foot Williamsburgh Savings Bank building on nearby Hanson Place.

antinimby

November 25th, 2005, 07:57 PM

The Knicks are a joke.
They are so pathetic that they have to resort to such petty and silly promotional gimmicks.
This and the campaign against the Jets this summer says a lot about their sad state of affairs.
Maybe people would care if they worked more on beating their opponents on the basketball court instead of worrying about other teams playing nearby.
BTW, MSG is a dump and should be razed, but that's for another thread . . .

Alonzo-ny

November 28th, 2005, 06:02 AM

I think brooklyn will have the nets and the rest of the city will go for the knicks. I will be staying with the knicks

kliq6

November 28th, 2005, 10:56 AM

Dolan really should have spent his time trying to kill this satdium and not the other one. this deal and the Nets moving here will have a much bigger effect on the Knicks then anything else. I think many people from BK, SI and Queens will go here over MSG.

ZippyTheChimp

November 28th, 2005, 11:06 AM

Dolan's main interest is the Garden, not the Knicks.

Problems with the Knicks can be more easily fixed (a few good draft picks) than direct competition from another venue a few blocks away.

NYC can easily support two NBA teams.

BPC

November 28th, 2005, 11:42 AM

TLOZ Link5

November 28th, 2005, 12:34 PM

Treanor is so full of it. While Lincoln Center brings its own cultural benefits to the City, it has HINDERED, not helped, the economic revitalization of the West Side. The blocks of residential buildings bulldozed for the complex were perfectly lovely (check out the old pictures some time). Most would be selling for millions of dollars in today's housing boom. Instead, the sides and back end of Lincoln Center (the parts the opera goers don't see) remains some of the more problematic blocks in the Upper West Side.

Indeed, Jane Jacobs used Lincoln Center of an example of how NOT to place cultural buildings. She explained that cities do best when they sprinkle such cultural buildings around different neighborhoods, as opposed to clump them together. That way, the neighbrohood benefits from the mix of uses -- residential, retail and cultural -- alll in the same spot. Think Carnegie Hall, and indeed manyof the cool clubs and theaters spread throughout this town. The neighborhoods around them are much more livable than the ass end of Lincoln Center.

Ouch. Scathing, but I agree with every word. However, like it or not, Lincoln Center is here to stay and we'll have to make the most of it.

ZippyTheChimp

November 28th, 2005, 01:54 PM

Treanor is correct in his opinion about the House legislation; he just used a poor example.

The original spirit of the Eminent Domain laws was not to prohibit private ownership, but to facilitate projects that were essential for the public good.

The laws were used extensively to construct railroads, but these were not publicly owned.

Vague interpretations by local governments in support of developers have diluted the concept of Eminent Domain. They have no one to blame but themselves for the current backlash.

NYguy

November 29th, 2005, 09:01 PM

I think brooklyn will have the nets and the rest of the city will go for the knicks. I will be staying with the knicks

The debate continues...

NY PRESS

HOLLANDER V. SULLIVAN
ISSUE: “Can a real New Yorker root for the Nets?”

http://nypress.com/18/47/sports/SP-ballers.jpg

By Dave Hollander and C.J. Sullivan

HOLLANDER: Just like the Giants and Jets, the Nets are simply another originally New York-based team that plays its games just outside the city in New Jersey's Meadowlands Sports Complex. Not only are they a legitimate rooting interest for New Yorkers, but the Nets are actually more New York than the Knicks.

First of all, the Nets are the last New York professional basketball franchise to win a championship (ABA, 1976). And the team was led by local boy Julius Erving. That's a fact.

Watch today's Nets play and you'll see an unselfish, fast-break style much more reminiscent of the championship Knicks than any team in recent New York metropolitan-area memory. Jason Kidd runs the point with an old-school cool that makes Clyde blush. (Ahem, Stephon: Kidd, not you, is the best point guard within 12 miles of Manhattan.) Foreign players like Zoran Planinic and Nenad Krstic give the Nets a hip, international sophistication that's very New York and sorely lacking from the Knicks.

Compare coaches: Nets coach Lawrence Frank conjures images of a feisty, young, over-caffeinated Red Holzman. The way he charged across the floor and verbally abused a referee early this season made this Gotham hoops fan a little misty. On the Knicks bench, Larry Brown is more like a tired actor from central casting. He looks and sounds like he belongs here but he's lost that essential New York truth.

Compare owners: Nets owner Bruce Ratner has been intensely involved in New York City's government, civic and philanthropic affairs, arts funding and private development since 1967. If you're not down with Ratner, try ****ing with Nets minority owner Jay-Z's New York street cred. In stark contrast, the Dolans—piggish interlopers from Long Island—have done little but hoard and mismanage beloved New York City attractions (Madison Square Garden, Knicks, Rangers, Radio City Music Hall) and earn consensus enmity from all of New York City, especially sports fans.

Lastly, the Nets play-by-play announcer is Marv Albert. You don't get more New York than that.

Really C.J., I don't see where the argument is.

_________________________________________

SULLIVAN: You defile the memory of Red Holtzman, the greatest Knick coach of all time, when you compare him to Lawrence Frank. Frank is a policy wonk compared to the balls-to-the-wall Holtzman. He died in 1998 and his bones just rolled over in his grave when he caught your comparison. Really, Dave, you need to be more careful when speaking of the dead.

I cannot and will not defend the Dolans—in that you are right. But Ratner? Come on, Dave, stop being naive. Ratner is only involved with the Nets so he can make a land grab in Brooklyn. He has no emotional stake in the Nets and will dump them once he gets the real estate he cravenly desires. He got Jay-Z involved so silly white, brown, and black men like yourself can thump your chest about how the Nets are keepin' it real.

Jay-Z—one Mr. Sean Carter—fronts as a street thug when he has become The Man. He is a millionaire many times over. He lifted himself out of the ghetto as many have before him and become a success. But when he was on the streets of Brooklyn he got scared straight when it got "too real."

Witness his 1999 stabbing of record-industry goof Lance "Un" Rivera—for which he got a mere three years parole. Any true Brooklyn street thug would have stabbed and killed "Un"—and then gotten away. Jay-Z stuck the guy like a punk to add to his Fugazy street cred and sell more CDs. These NBA and hip-hop wannabe thugs are not the playas they think they are. Hollander, all the tough guys are dead or in Rikers. They are not rapping, playing ball, or owning NBA teams.

It amazes me how you kick the Knicks when they are down. Yes, Jason Kidd is a better point guard than Marbury, and the Nets are the better team. But they are not New York and they know it—which is why they all crave the move to Brooklyn. Once that happens I will join you in agreement.

You can't compare the Jets and Giants to the Nets. The Giants and Jets had a long and storied history while playing in New York. The Nets began in 1967 as the New Jersey Americans and then in 1968 they moved to Long Island. I liked the ABA but the Nets always felt like a suburban neighbor—close to New York but not New Yorkers.

Any self-respecting New Yorker, Hollander, has to be a Knick fan. Your argument, like your life, borders on heresy.

_____________________________________________

HOLLANDER: C.J., the issue is not whether I'm a Knicks fan. (I am.) The issue is whether a real New Yorker can embrace the Nets. I'm sure your totally insane screed urging nascent violent criminals to consummate their homicides gets a lot of back-slapping support at your favorite Upper East Side watering holes, but it's irrelevant to the matter at hand. The Nets, I argue, are a perfectly reasonable New York fan option. The other reasonable choice is the Knicks. So far you've said nothing to refute that.

You do say once the Nets move to Brooklyn you and I will "join … in agreement." Not likely.

The precise moment the Nets move to Brooklyn, real New Yorkers should shun them. Real New Yorkers must not stand by while hundreds of other real New Yorkers are dispossessed for one man's enrichment. Real New Yorkers shall not abide the handing over of $1 billion dollars in tax breaks, subsidies and noncompetitive bidding to Forest City Ratner. Real New Yorkers cannot stand in league with the dark forces who march unabated in their quest to turn this city into a theme park for Euro-idiots who want to say they visited "Brooklyn." [Preach it, Brother Hollander.—The Eds.]

While in New Jersey, the Nets, like the Giants, Jets, Yankees and Mets, considerately locate themselves in a place where real New Yorkers can conveniently go to enjoy a stadium-sized athletic spectacle and then return back to the diverse urban environment where they live. The Brooklyn Cyclones nestled themselves in Coney Island without ejecting long time residents. Currently, the Nets offer real New Yorkers a chance to see a world-class professional team without sucking the marrow from New York's backbone.

It saddens me that you so mindlessly lap up the slop served at the government-sponsored media trough. You're like a dumb, happy sheep totally unaware that he's heading to his slaughter. If we listen to you, real New York is in real danger.

_____________________________________________

SULLIVAN: Dave, embrace the Nets all you want, but New York remains a Knicks' town. Your fevered attempts at logic are quite funny—though not in a good way. You flip-flop like Ferrer over the Diallo shooting.

First Ratner is the "good," owner but should he develop a rundown part of Brooklyn he is "bad." Having lived in New York my whole life, this city is all about change. Chicken Littles like yourself can squawk all you want, but progress and change are as New York as, well, the Knicks.

Building a Nets arena would not suck the "marrow from New York's backbone." Hell, 9/11 couldn't do that. New York is bigger then me, you, the Dolans, or even Bruce Ratner. And that is why New York is great and a Knicks' town. We tear down our past, but we do not dishonor it.

Volume 18, Issue 47
©2005 All rights reserved.

NYguy

November 30th, 2005, 09:04 AM

Quotes from an article in the NY OBSERVER
http://nyobserver.com/finance_financialpress-3.asp
Ratner Sends Gehry To Drawing Board

By Matthew Schuerman

Prospects in Albany

...Meanwhile, the project itself—16 high-rise towers over 22 acres of land, including some now occupied by apartment buildings that will be bought or taken over by eminent domain—is wending its way through a state approval process.

A number of local officials, including Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, have called for it to be scaled down, but have not given specifics.

The Mayor supports it, and the Governor supports it. Charles Gargano—who, as chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, is overseeing the approval process—supports it as well. “There is no need to scale down the project,” Mr. Gargano said, although the environmental-impact study that will gauge the project’s impact on traffic, sewage, school population and so on is still underway.

“He has been trying to put in a lot of plums all around,” Mr. Gargano added. “Which is a nice thing. I don’t mean the word ‘plum’ to be derogatory; these are things that will really benefit the community.”

Among the plums is about seven acres of open space behind and between the buildings that will be open to the public.

Oddly enough, the only person who can stop this project, or reshape it, will be Roger Green. That’s because the state legislature will have to sign off on $100 million that the state is contributing to cover up the train yards, and the legislature generally follows the lead of the local lawmaker. That is likely to happen again, even though the lawmaker in this case, Mr. Green, pled guilty last year to seeking state reimbursement for travel expenses provided by a private company doing business with the state.

On the Senate side, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery opposes the project—but since she’s a Democrat in a Republican-led chamber, she has less clout.

Forest City officials, meanwhile, are denying rumors that they have sent their architect, Frank Gehry, back to the drawing board to come up with a less bulky alternative.

“We will listen; we have said all along that we will listen,” Mr. Stuckey said.

TLOZ Link5

November 30th, 2005, 12:08 PM

I can't see why some of the more interesting buildings can't be preserved and integrated into the project. The arena and office towers are fine, but does the neighborhood really need more than a dozen apartment buildings?

By all means, complement the existing skyline of Brooklyn, but don't overwhelm it.

lofter1

November 30th, 2005, 02:23 PM

Forest City officials, meanwhile, are denying rumors that they have sent their architect, Frank Gehry, back to the drawing board to come up with a less bulky alternative.
Odd that FC is denying this as Gehry has pretty much admitted it...

Even world-renowned architect Frank Gehry thinks his design for the Atlantic Yards project — a scheme so massive that even its supporters grumbled after it was unveiled in July — was “horrible.”

...Yet the architect played defense for most of the forum and repeatedly used the word “horrible” to describe how he felt about the earlier design when he saw it splashed all over the front page of the New York Times in July.

It’s no surprise that Gehry is tinkering with the project. Last week, The Brooklyn Papers reported that developer Bruce Ratner had sent his starchitect back to the drafting table.

...Other issues also remain up in the air. At one point, Gehry aimed his red pointer at a blank quadrangle on one of his renderings and said he didn’t know what would go there.

...Earlier, Stuckey made news when he said that the project’s commercial space might be increased during the upcoming state environmental review.

Fabrizio

November 30th, 2005, 03:54 PM

"Even world-renowned architect Frank Gehry thinks his design for the Atlantic Yards project (.......) was “horrible.”

"....the architect played defense for most of the forum and repeatedly used the word “horrible” to describe how he felt about the earlier design when he saw it splashed all over the front page of the New York Times in July."

Funny...I used the same word:

"Horrible"

ablarc

November 30th, 2005, 08:12 PM

ZippyTheChimp

December 1st, 2005, 11:19 AM

Step 2 on the road to salvation for the Repentant Architect
http://www.qi-whiz.com/mizar/flagel.gif

ablarc

December 1st, 2005, 12:54 PM

^ That step's already been taken.

Next step: a better design.

Hope it's not much smaller though.

BPC

December 1st, 2005, 03:04 PM

Great. So when exactly will Nic Ouroussoff repent for his HORRIBLY fawning review of Frank Gehry's HORRIBLE design?

Seeking First to Reinvent the Sports Arena, and Then Brooklyn

By NICOLAI OUROUSSOFF

Published: July 5, 2005

Frank Gehry's new design for a 21-acre corridor of high-rise towers anchored by the 19,000-seat Nets arena in Brooklyn may be the most important urban development plan proposed in New York City in decades. If it is approved, it will radically alter the Brooklyn skyline, reaffirming the borough's emergence as a legitimate cultural rival to Manhattan.

More significant, however, Mr. Gehry's towering composition of clashing, undulating forms is an intriguing attempt to overturn a half-century's worth of failed urban planning ideas. What is unfolding is an urban model of remarkable richness and texture, one that could begin to inject energy into the bloodless formulas that are slowly draining our cities of their vitality. ...

Such touches reaffirm that Mr. Gehry, at 76, is an architect with a remarkably subtle hand. Yet what makes the design an original achievement is the cleverness with which he anchors the arena in the surrounding neighborhood. ...

What is more, Mr. Gehry has gone to great lengths to fuse his design with its surroundings. The tallest of the towers, for example, are mostly set along Atlantic Avenue, where they face a mix of retail malls and low-income housing. Along Dean Street, the buildings' low, stocky forms are more in keeping with the rows of brownstones that extend south into Park Slope. ...

This is no small miracle. Even in this early stage of development, the design proves that Mr. Gehry can handle the challenge better than most. His approach is a blow against the formulaic ways of thinking that are evidence of the city's sagging level of cultural ambition. It suggests another development model: locate real talent, encourage it to break the rules, get out of the way.

ZippyTheChimp

December 1st, 2005, 04:05 PM

Gehry sort of left Nicolai hanging out there, didn't he.

For me, Gehry's redemption will be Beekman. All will be forgiven. If he screws that up, the next step in the redemptive path is too horrible to mention.
l

NYatKNIGHT

December 1st, 2005, 05:36 PM

We'd have him frozen in Carbonite.

ZippyTheChimp

December 1st, 2005, 06:01 PM

...or dinner with Eisenman

lofter1

December 1st, 2005, 09:17 PM

^^ ouch :eek:

NYguy

December 1st, 2005, 09:42 PM

Odd that FC is denying this as Gehry has pretty much admitted it...

I don't know, maybe FC is denying the reason Gehry is back at the drawing board. Maybe he was sent back to add more commercial space, and not because it's "too bulky" as many have suggested. Who knows, but Ratner and Gehry need to make up their minds on at least the Beekman Street tower.

ZippyTheChimp

December 3rd, 2005, 03:38 PM

Gehry may get redemption sooner.

krulltime

December 6th, 2005, 06:48 PM

ARENA WILL SNARL TRAFFIC: B'KLYN BEEP

By RICH CALDER
December 6, 2005

Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz — a major backer of the borough's push for a pro-basketball arena — acknowledged yesterday that the development could create more traffic than Madison Square Garden does in Manhattan.

The comment followed traffic consultant Samuel Schwartz's suggestion that Brooklyn use the area around the Garden as a transportation model.

Like the Garden, the Downtown Brooklyn arena can expect about 40 percent of the audiences for sporting events and concerts to arrive by car, 50 percent by subways and buses and 10 percent on foot, Schwartz said at a public forum at the Brooklyn Borough Board, which he heads.

Markowitz disagreed.

"I don't think you can compare Madison Square Garden to Brooklyn. There's a huge part of Brooklyn that does not have public transportation," he said — adding that parts of Staten Island and Queens, too, are out of the reach of public transportation leading to the arena's designated site at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush avenues.

The controversial project, to be developed by New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner, calls for a $3.5 billion, 7,300-unit residential high-rise complex anchored by the arena.

Meanwhile, Schwartz, a former city Transportation Department commissioner, announced that Ratner's firm wants to hire him as a consultant.

Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc.

kliq6

December 7th, 2005, 10:20 AM

I think traffic would be worse, its not half as accesible as MSG is,

NoyokA

December 13th, 2005, 01:00 AM

For all those who call for other architects to be brought in, its seems as though Gehry is on your side.

An excerpt from Columbia News:

Meanwhile, he hasn't convinced Ratner to do something else: bring in other architects to design parts of the project, to ensure a variety of styles. "He wanted to be able to deal with one person, so he refused," Gehry said.

Faced with the challenge of designing the entire project on his own, Gehry decided to develop a "design hierarchy," where several "iconic towers" will be surrounded by "background buildings."

But the dilemma, he said, is that the background buildings end up looking ordinary, like standard-issue housing projects. "Sometimes I think I should be less polite," he said -- implying that life would be easier if his buildings were all attention-getters.

"I'm very insecure about it," Gehry said of the Brooklyn project. "I've brought all kinds of people in to beat me up, because I want to get it right."

NoyokA

December 13th, 2005, 01:08 AM

Also in the interview:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/media/05/392_citizen_gehry/citizenGehry.ram

Another request that has been made here, that certain building's be saved, is the same thing that Gehry petitioned for...

I believe alot of you have your blame in the wrong place...

Citytect

December 13th, 2005, 03:00 AM

I believe alot of you have your blame in the wrong place...

I don't know. I see your point. But until Gehry refuses to go along with Mr. Ratner on these issues, he deserves all the blame he receives.

fioco

December 13th, 2005, 04:35 PM

Stern, thank you for posting the link to the Gehry dialogue at Columbia. The video is one-hour in length, but if anyone is interested in his conversation regarding the Brooklyn project, play the segments that follow the 18 minute mark, and that follow the 48 minute mark. As Stern has tried to convey, there is a lot of misinformation and incorrect interpretation of Gehry's concepts and of his intellectual and creative struggles to create a suitable design for the Atlantic yards. People can choose to vilify Ratner and Gehry, but they do so in the advancement of their own agendas and not in search of a larger truth.

The disagreements may be profound, but they need not become a stanglehold that snuffs out the possibility of new life in the area, an injection of life that will transform our very concept of this place. Scary? yes. But dialogue and an honest effort to reach some understanding will yield far greater benefit than the shameless name-calling and accusations. If your position is honorable, then defend it in an honorable fashion.

lofter1

December 16th, 2005, 11:46 AM

Another Step for Downtown Brooklyn Project

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
New York Times
December 16, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/nyregion/16demolish.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1134747667-b35yZW0qy/2RGTFPXLAFVg

Six buildings near the Vanderbilt railyards in Brooklyn will be demolished next month, the first physical manifestation of the 9.1 million square foot Atlantic Yards project that may one day rise over the area.

The plans were described yesterday by officials of Forest City Ratner Companies, which owns the buildings and is the developer of Atlantic Yards.

Demolition of the buildings was recommended by LZA Technology, an engineering firm the developer hired to inspect newly acquired properties on the Atlantic Yards site, after a four-month study revealed severe structural damage to the six buildings.

"The question is, God forbid that a building collapses, God forbid that a falling brick hits someone in the head, or that there's a fire," said Bruce Bender, the developer's executive vice president for community affairs. Mr. Bender said the firm was providing warning of the plans in part to defuse criticism from opponents of the project.

"We don't want people to say, construction has already begun, this is a backroom deal," he said.

Forest City Ratner is the development partner in building a new Midtown headquarters for The New York Times Company.

Daniel Goldstein, a spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, a coalition that opposes the Atlantic Yards project, said the demolition plans were "a scare tactic that won't work, and we believe it is illegal."

"To justify eminent domain, Bruce Ratner wants to argue that this neighborhood is blighted," Mr. Goldstein said. "It is not. This is his attempt to create developers' blight."

Five of the buildings - two former auto-repair garages on Pacific Street, two unoccupied apartment buildings at Dean Street, and the Underberg Building on Atlantic Avenue - are near the western end of the project's proposed site.
The sixth is farther east, on Dean Street near Carlton Avenue.

Though many of the buildings appear sound from the outside, a tour of the interiors reveals the damage done by years of wind, rain, and insufficient maintenance.

Inside the Underberg Building, which years ago housed a food-supply store, the once-busy floors sag three or four inches; some of the ceilings have collapsed, and snowdrifts pile up on the torn linoleum floors. The garages' concrete floors are pocked with car-sized holes, while in the rooms above, strands of insulation hung from the ceiling like kelp. The brick facade of one apartment building on Dean Street - where people lived as recently as last year - bulged ominously, while a pillar in the basement had already cracked and bent.

All the buildings are littered with debris: broken glass, crumbling brick, tin-ceiling panels, drywall, even a broken-down piano.

Each one, according a report by LZA engineers, has floors and ceilings on the verge of collapse, largely because of water damage. Some of the damage has occurred only in the past few months.

The firm's report found that the cumulative damage at each site posed "an immediate threat to the preservation of life, health, and property." The firm will begin remediation work - chiefly the removal of asbestos materials - on the buildings beginning next week.

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

http://www.developdontdestroy.org/footprint_large.gif

BrooklynRider

December 16th, 2005, 02:55 PM

It's just hard to understand the footprint of the development. Why is there that notch in the foorprint to the south? If there is justification for this massive development, how is that property omission explained?

ZippyTheChimp

December 16th, 2005, 03:26 PM

I see it from a different viewpoint.

The parcel along 6th Ave is necessary for the arena/towers, but why does the project include the rectangle on the right, between Carlton and Vanderbilt Aves? It is not needed to develop the arena or the railyards - which I thought was the original purpose of the project.

BrooklynRider

December 16th, 2005, 06:36 PM

Right. I just felt it should be parceled. Here you go Bruce - you develop this corner of Atlantic Ave and Flatbush. You get enough for the arena and the three towers. Do a magnificent job and we can talk about more building sites. Do a lousy job and we bid it out. Incentives are important and there are none once this deal is signed off on. We need to hope he has developed a big enough ego to build something great.

MonCapitan2002

December 23rd, 2005, 11:37 PM

These renderings show it even better:

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

Large version (with detail) : http://www.dddb.net/todaytomorrow.pdf
I hope it happens.

ZippyTheChimp

January 19th, 2006, 01:36 AM

January 19, 2006

Local Groups Sue to Halt Big Project in Brooklyn

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

In the first legal test for the largest real estate project in Brooklyn history, a coalition of community groups filed suit yesterday against a state agency, charging that it wrongfully approved the demolition of six buildings on the site of the proposed Atlantic Yards development.

While the immediate purpose of the lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan against the Empire State Development Corporation, is to stop the demolition, plaintiffs said it was also intended as a broader challenge to the agency's environmental review of the project. The review is still under way, and opponents say it has been overtly friendly to the developer.

Forest City Ratner Companies, the developer, and the opponents have been locked in a two-year struggle over the 9.1 million square-foot residential and arena complex.

The lawsuit also seeks the disqualification of the agency's outside lawyer, David Paget, because he previously represented Forest City Ratner. The plaintiffs - 11 community groups and a variety of individuals - are also seeking to block the Empire State Development Corporation from issuing a final environmental impact statement until an independent lawyer has reviewed it for potential conflicts of interest.

"The rubber-stamping of this request for demolition has pointed up the fact that E.S.D.C. is not an impartial reviewing agency, but is in league with Forest City Ratner to push this project through," said Candace Carponter, a spokeswoman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, one of the groups in the lawsuit. "We want to let the E.S.D.C. know that they're going to be held accountable and that we will be watching for any missteps in the future."

A spokeswoman for the state development agency, Deborah Wetzel, said it had not received legal papers, but added: "We intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Beyond that, it is our policy not to comment on pending litigation."

The lawsuit comes one month after Forest City Ratner officials announced that it planned to destroy six buildings on the site, saying an engineer hired by the company declared the buildings to be so dilapidated that they were a threat to public safety.

Opponents of the project have said that engineer's report overstated the deterioration of the buildings. Razing them, they argued, was meant to give the Atlantic Yards project momentum and to bolster Forest City Ratner's claim that the site meets the state standard for "blighted," which would make it possible for the developer to force reluctant residents to sell their property.

City Councilwoman Letitia James, whose district includes the site and who is an outspoken opponent, asked the company to allow her to inspect the buildings with a different engineer. At first, Forest City Ratner officials agreed to the inspection, but said later that Ms. James could not bring an engineer.

State law forbids developers to alter the site of any proposed project until it has been approved, but the law makes an exception for "emergency actions." According to the lawsuit, the Empire State Development Corporation, in consultation with Mr. Paget, declared that the buildings qualified for emergency demolition without independently examining them. The suit also says that the agency did not consider alternative measures of ensuring public safety.

In a statement, Bruce Bender, an executive vice president of Forest City Ratner, defended its initial engineering report and said the lawsuit amounted to "delay tactics."

"While the opponents have another agenda," Mr. Bender said, the developer "will not play games with the public safety and is proceeding as any responsible property owner should and must."

The project is in the midst of an environmental review and must go through extensive review before it can be approved by state agencies. Forest City Ratner is a development partner for the new Midtown office tower being built for The New York Times.

Philip Weinberg, a professor at St. John's University and an expert on the state's environmental review law, said the lawsuit faced "an uphill battle" in trying to get Mr. Paget disqualified. "There's nothing in the law or the regulations saying they can't have the same counsel," he said.

In general, he said, courts have tended to defer to public agencies on questions of fact, which might include whether the buildings are unsafe enough to warrant demolition. Still, Mr. Weinberg added, the agency "is supposed to play it down the middle," and "courts are supposed to step in if it doesn't pass the smell test."

During the 1980's, he noted, a federal court blocked the Westway highway project in Manhattan after finding that an environmental review by the Army Corps of Engineers failed to document the project's likely effect on striped bass in the Hudson River.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

NYguy

January 20th, 2006, 11:06 AM

DAILY NEWS

Judge won't stop Ratner wrecking ball

A Manhattan judge yesterday refused to grant a temporary restraining order barring developer Bruce Ratner from tearing down six buildings to make way for the controversial Atlantic Yards complex.

However, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Edmead ordered the two sides back for a hearing Feb. 14 - about a week before Ratner officials said demolition would begin. The decision came a day after neighborhood groups sued Ratner and the Empire State Development Corp., which approved the demolition.

Ratner officials charge the buildings are unsafe, but opponents are demanding an independent evaluation. They also charge a lawyer who used to represent Ratner now represents the Empire State Development Corp., and signed off on the demolition.

Elizabeth Hays

londonlawyer

January 20th, 2006, 11:52 AM

These people in Brooklyn are nuts. Flatbush Avenue is currently such a rancid hole. This development and others will transform a blighted dump into a great thoroughfare.

JCMAN320

January 20th, 2006, 05:04 PM

Jack Krohn

January 20th, 2006, 05:57 PM

I'm looking forward to the demolition. It will be nice to finally see some visible progress on this project. I'm tired of staring at that massive hole in the ground.

londonlawyer

January 20th, 2006, 09:38 PM

Hey knock it off you know not everything has to be so damm sterile and and glass and gleaming. God damm all they have to do is repair on the buildings that are there. Oh and calling it a rancid hole is lil extreme. No repsect for the people that live and work there.

I apologize. I did not mean to offend you. However, that area is extremely run down and dilapidated. No one will dispute that other than NIMBYS who want to bust Ratner's balls. Moreover, nice does not mean sterile. London and Paris are pristine, and yet, they're hardly sterile.

bkmonkey

January 21st, 2006, 04:19 PM

I do and live and work in the area, and I can say that many parts are run down and rancid........ yes, not everything has to be glass and gleaming, but it sure wouldnt hurt. (That was a joke). I love brownstone brooklyn, but those buildings along pacific street, and the atlantic railyards are difinatly not it.

antinimby

January 21st, 2006, 04:38 PM

I'm all for the project. Brooklyn will be better off immensely with it than w/o.
Just imagine, if Brooklyn was its own separate city, it would be the fourth largest in the country. But other than population, we would not have anything remotely comparable to other large cities in terms of a business district, attractions and so on.

People, we have to think big and get out of the mindframe of being a backwater to Manhattan. Brooklyn used to be its own city (before being annexed by New York/Manhattan). Just ask yourself, if we were to stand on our own two feet, could we even be in the same class as or compete with the likes of Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia or even Boston? If the answer is no (and it is), then we need to get movin' (and building).

TLOZ Link5

January 21st, 2006, 09:16 PM

Culturally speaking, at least, Brooklyn could most definitely hold its own. In addition to BAM, there's a thriving music scene; and it organized its own professional opera company in 2000.

NYguy

January 21st, 2006, 11:47 PM

Brooklyn used to be its own city (before being annexed by New York/Manhattan). Just ask yourself, if we were to stand on our own two feet, could we even be in the same class as or compete with the likes of Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia or even Boston? If the answer is no (and it is), then we need to get movin' (and building).

Soon, soon....

BrooklynRider

January 22nd, 2006, 09:13 PM

...Just imagine, if Brooklyn was its own separate city, it would be the fourth largest in the country....

That's a very old statistic.

...People, we have to think big and get out of the mindframe of being a backwater to Manhattan. Brooklyn used to be its own city (before being annexed by New York/Manhattan).....

Over 100 years ago. We're not talking that it was a recent thing that somehow needs to get back on track.

...Just ask yourself, if we were to stand on our own two feet, could we even be in the same class as or compete with the likes of Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia or even Boston? If the answer is no (and it is), then we need to get movin' (and building).....

I get your point, but the question is irrelevant. We are part of NYC. The powers of this city and state were instrumental in the degradation of Brooklyn. It was only a matter of time before Manhattan-centric planning would hit a wall.

ZippyTheChimp

January 22nd, 2006, 10:56 PM

That's a very old statistic.It's still valid.

JCMAN320

January 22nd, 2006, 11:49 PM

Brooklyn does not need this. What another super block structure forcing out families than making false promises to them telling that they will have homes in the new buildings when the prices are too high for them to afford. Ratner is breaking rules and promises and trust me if this get built many are going to wish it wasn't. It's already a becoming a white elephant and it hasn't even come close to breaking ground yet.

Jack Krohn

January 24th, 2006, 10:03 AM

"What another super block structure forcing out families than making false promises to them telling that they will have homes in the new buildings when the prices are too high for them to afford."

900 of the apartments will go to families making less than 32K a year. Using a conservative estimate of two people per apartment, that alone exceeds the number of people who would be displaced by the project, let alone people in the low-income bracket.

NYguy

January 24th, 2006, 10:38 AM

JCMAN320

January 24th, 2006, 10:03 PM

I've read the stats "low income" to Ratner is someone making 1,000 or 2,000 a year. I'm part of the Develop Don't Destory Brooklyn organization and have sat on many of the meetings and public addresses. You know how would you like it if your were told to move and change the way you live and you had no say in the matter. I don't think you would like it too much unless you enjoy getting bossed around.

Also he says the area is "blighted", there are brownstones and homes in that footprint and the area that are going for a cool Million dollars maybe even a lil more than that. Also those two big warehouse buildings in the footprint that we are trying to get declard historic are not run down and if even if they do need a lil TLC, they are not beyond making a few minor repairs that may they need. If that is his understanding of the word blighted than maybe he needs to go pick up a damm dictionary.

Jack Krohn

January 25th, 2006, 09:13 AM

"You know how would you like it if your were told to move and change the way you live and you had no say in the matter. I don't think you would like it too much unless you enjoy getting bossed around."

That very thing has happened to me more than once. That is the nature of being a renter, and it can happen to anyone in any place. In my case, sure, I didnt' like it, but I moved on and found another place to live. I think that demolishing the buildings and displacing the residents in the footprint is a fair price to pay for getting a stadium and thousands of units of housing (900 of them affordable - many more than Tish James or anyone else could bring to the district).

The only section of the footprint that I consider somewhat scenic is Dean Street between Flatbush and Sixth Avenue; beyond that, I think that the rest is worthy of demolition. Again, to me that is a fair price to pay for the stadium and housing.

TonyO

January 25th, 2006, 09:41 AM

Jack Krohn

January 26th, 2006, 03:25 PM

This type of project is inevitable. If it isn't Ratner (who is actually being fairly pragmatic and thoughtful in this development) it may be someone who really doesn't work with the community. The battle against Ratner is a misguided one IMO.

I agree. A main reason I've always felt that the battle against Ratner was doomed to fail was the "take no prisoners" attitude adoped by opponents. I think the only thing that would satisfy them would be if the railyards stayed undeveloped forever. It's been quite a sight to see Tish James deteriorate. Now that she has lame duck status, she can spend even more time supporting this losing battle. She alienated Gifford Miller and has now openly criticized Quinn, which will only invite retribution. This means less bacon for her district. But, hey, it's a hell of a lot easier to holler leftist platitudes into a bullhorn than it is to engage in the complex negotiations of NYC politics.

And, IMO, therein lies the failure of this battle. Opponents are more interested in proving their "enemies" wrong than they are in trying to persuade others to join them. No finesse, no compromise, no nothing. You're either with them or against them.

BrooklynRider

January 26th, 2006, 04:51 PM

I agree. A main reason I've always felt that the battle against Ratner was doomed to fail was the "take no prisoners" attitude adoped by opponents. I think the only thing that would satisfy them would be if the railyards stayed undeveloped forever...

You're clearly not familiar with the arguments of the critics of the plan. And, if we are to believe that it is the losing battle you speak of, please explain the reversal of Marty Markowitz, who called for a reduction in the scope. Explain David Yassky's calls for a reduction in scope. Explain Gehry's assertion that the design needs a lot of work. This was expected to be a slam dunk, done deal that would move forward quickly with every politician on board. It doesn't seem to be smooth sailing for Ratner at this point.

Also, could you expand upon your observation that Letiticia James is deteriorating? On what basis do you make that assertion? The same flimsy generalization that says the battle against Ratner is doomed, when it has managed to slow the process down and force the developer back to both the design table and the negotiating table? If the opponents had no chance, I'd expect we'd see holes in the ground and construction sheds up. Seems that's a bit off in the future. What could possibly be holding Ratner up?

Jack Krohn

January 26th, 2006, 05:11 PM

You're clearly not familiar with the arguments of the critics of the plan. And, if we are to believe that it is the losing battle you speak of, please explain the reversal of Marty Markowitz, who called for a reduction in the scope. Explain David Yassky's calls for a reduction in scope. Explain Gehry's assertion that the design needs a lot of work. This was expected to be a slam dunk, done deal that would move forward quickly with every politician on board. It doesn't seem to be smooth sailing for Ratner at this point.

Also, could you expand upon your observation that Letiticia James is deteriorating? On what basis do you make that assertion? The same flimsy generalization that says the battle against Ratner is doomed, when it has managed to slow the process down and force the developer back to both the design table and the negotiating table? If the opponents had no chance, I'd expect we'd see holes in the ground and construction sheds up. Seems that's a bit off in the future. What could possibly be holding Ratner up?

If delaying the process is your definition of an important goal, then your standards are low. In cases where things really matter, the opposition has failed. They didn't stop Ratner from buying the Nets, they didn't stop the MTA from selling to Ratner, they didn't stop Pataki, Bloomberg, Markowitz, and numerous members of the city council from lending their support to the plan, and they didn't stop the Supreme Court from ruling in favor of eminent domain. The reduced scale only underscores your naivete. The scale, IMO, was deliberately made too large to begin with so that an eleventh-hour reduction would present the appearance of a compromise. Regarding Letitia James (I'm surprised that someone from DDDB hasn't logged on and corrected your misspelling of her first name - they love to nitpick like that), I meant that she is behaving more like a community activist than a politician. Politic maneuvering is about compromise, whereas, IMO, she appears to relish conflict with authority. This might win her friends in radical circles, but it doesn't help her district.

pacific

January 28th, 2006, 01:19 AM

I agree. A main reason I've always felt that the battle against Ratner was doomed to fail was the "take no prisoners" attitude adoped by opponents. I think the only thing that would satisfy them would be if the railyards stayed undeveloped forever. It's been quite a sight to see Tish James deteriorate. Now that she has lame duck status, she can spend even more time supporting this losing battle. She alienated Gifford Miller and has now openly criticized Quinn, which will only invite retribution. This means less bacon for her district. But, hey, it's a hell of a lot easier to holler leftist platitudes into a bullhorn than it is to engage in the complex negotiations of NYC politics.

And, IMO, therein lies the failure of this battle. Opponents are more interested in proving their "enemies" wrong than they are in trying to persuade others to join them. No finesse, no compromise, no nothing. You're either with them or against them.

c'mon now jack, you are being dishonest or disinegnous. DEVELOP Don't Destroy Brooklyn wants to see the "railyards stay undeveloped forever?"
You know that is folklore.
C'mon Jack, stop being dishonest about what so-called "opponents" want.
http://www.theslatinreport.com/top_story.jsp?StoryName=0708yards3.txt&Topic=Place&fromPage=Place

ZippyTheChimp

January 28th, 2006, 01:36 AM

I have problems with the scale of the Ratner project (area, not height), but that Extell proposal is horrible. I'd rather the railyards remained as is.

TonyO

January 28th, 2006, 09:34 AM

c'mon now jack, you are being dishonest or disinegnous. DEVELOP Don't Destroy Brooklyn wants to see the "railyards stay undeveloped forever?"
You know that is folklore.
C'mon Jack, stop being dishonest about what so-called "opponents" want.
http://www.theslatinreport.com/top_story.jsp?StoryName=0708yards3.txt&Topic=Place&fromPage=Place

Slatin tells it like it is. However, the article is hardly a glowing endorsement of Barnett ("he is no white knight") and the comparison of his bid to Cablevision's is justified. Extell's talk of financing is just that, talk.

Jack Krohn

January 31st, 2006, 12:12 PM

Pacific, I said that partly out of frustration, as it seems that Ratner opponents do nothing but complain. All of their activities, including their initial involvement in this matter, have been in response to Ratner's proposals, not original ideas. If Ratner had not come forward, there would have been no talk whatsover of developing the yards.

Does anyone know what's going on with the Scope of Analysis? DDDB predicted on its web site that it would be done by mid-January, but I have heard nothing further.

BrooklynRider

January 31st, 2006, 05:17 PM

If delaying the process is your definition of an important goal, then your standards are low. In cases where things really matter, the opposition has failed.

Always nice to toss in a qualifier that wasn't previously there. Actually, slowing down the process is extremely important to getting this project right. It was sailing through CB meetings and approval processes too, ignoring the issues being brought forward by the community. "Delaying" would imply that the project will, none-the-less, proceed as planned in the end. That is not the case. Also, on whose behalf do you speak when you state, "In cases where things really matter..."

They didn't stop Ratner from buying the Nets,.

Not a single person or group in Brooklyn tried to stop Ratner from buying the Nets. NOT ONE. Educate yourself before posting.

they didn't stop the MTA from selling to Ratner,

NO ONE tried to "stop" the MTA from selling to Ratner. Opponents tried to open up the bidding process to make it more competitive. People were interested in seeing the MTA (1) seek competitive bids for the property (2) receive the maximum return on the railyards sale and (3) have community input into the parameters of development so that a developer doesn't impose his vision on an existing community. This project is not JUST on undeveloped railyards, which might have made much of the hardcore protests less intense. He, unilaterally absorbed privately owned property into his plan with a stated plan of using emminent domain to acquire those properties.

they didn't stop Pataki, Bloomberg, Markowitz, and numerous members of the city council from lending their support to the plan,

Actually, you are wrong on every aspect. Pataki had very little to do with this plan, although they are seeking to place it under the auspices of state review - less stringent than the city land use review. Bloomberg is solidly behind the plan and even granted Ratner unilateral rights for increased density on the property now housig PC Richards. With regard to Markowitz and city council members who initially supported the plan, they have all come out and said that the project is out of scale with neighborhood and has to be scaled down. This in response to meetings with community groups, once the process was slowed down. Even the DOT has concerns about the volume of traffic a project this size will produce on already overcrowded roads.

and they didn't stop the Supreme Court from ruling in favor of eminent domain,

Uh, that suit was brought by citizens of a Connecticut town, not people adverse to this project, although they watched the case very closely.

The reduced scale only underscores your naivete. The scale, IMO, was deliberately made too large to begin with so that an eleventh-hour reduction would present the appearance of a compromise,

So, you are calling me naive for not sharing your opinion. Do you work for Ratner? Do you work for the developer? Can you substantiate the claim about what was "deliberately" done. It seems alot of these arguments are pulled from the same thin air as this silly statement.

Regarding Letitia James (I'm surprised that someone from DDDB hasn't logged on and corrected your misspelling of her first name - they love to nitpick like that), I meant that she is behaving more like a community activist than a politician.,

Any elected representative that isn't an activist for their district and constituency is not doing their job. James is strdently fighting for her district, because Ratner attempted to totally circumvent the community on this plan. At the time the initial plans were released, there had been NO community input.

Can you substantiate you claim that members of DDDB have ever corrected someone for misspelling Letitia James' name or is that just another exaggeration to justify these ridiculous comments?

Politic maneuvering is about compromise, whereas, IMO, she appears to relish conflict with authority. This might win her friends in radical circles, but it doesn't help her district.

Hmmm. Once again you are presenting your opinion as the fact against which you claim the errors of others were made. Do you live in her district? What help are you claiming the district it needs? What do you base these claims on? Do you live in the immediate vicinity of this project? Within five miles? within ten miles? Do you live in the borough?

Lots of people have offered their opinions on this project, but you are storming into this thread with a very poor grasp of the facts and and even poorer knowledge of the involvement and understanding of people here in the issues.

BrooklynRider

January 31st, 2006, 05:21 PM

...If Ratner had not come forward, there would have been no talk whatsover of developing the yards.

Actually, if the MTA had put out an RFP, we might be considering more than one proposal at this moment. Ratner is not the saviour here. He saw an opportunity and went for it. The neighborhoods surrounding the railyards thrived despite his blighted developments in the area - not because of his contributions to date. He hasn't been a very good neighbor. And we're still waiting as the Atlantic Terminal languishes, wondering if the LIRR atrium entrance will ever be built.

JCMAN320

February 1st, 2006, 12:10 AM

The longer we draw out and delay the project the more intrest the project builds up and the more it will cost. So each time we delay it, it is a small victory and small steps to possibly stop this horrendous project.

ZippyTheChimp

February 1st, 2006, 01:15 AM

JCMAN320 is working hard trying to keep those Nets in New Jersey.

JCMAN320

February 1st, 2006, 01:57 AM

You know it. I'm donated 200 dollars to help fille the lawsuit against Ratner along with everyone else in DDDB organization that I'm in. I'm a life long fan of the Nets and New Jersey and New York is not gonna get MY team without a long hard fight. If I had the money and was that rich I would buy the team from Ratner and file my own lawsuits. Also Ratner is not going to get get away with forcing out hundreds of families into the streets on a dream made of lies, false and broken promises and smoke screens. I would love to see the roles reversed and have Ratner living in that area in moderate-low income and see how he would like it. Hey maybe we can do that, find his big ass house our apartment building, "knock it down for construction of something that is for the betterment of the community and public" (definition of eminent domain) like a SCHOOL or FIREHOUSE or PARK or COMMUNITY CENTER (notice arena and 16 private residential skyscrapers does not fit into that definition or group).

Also God-willing that this Brooklyn boondoggle falls through, the State of New Jersey, the City of Newark, and the New Jersey Devils have allowed for the Nets to move into the arena in Newark and Newark's will be finished long before Ratner's, that is if it ever breaks ground. So in a sense Ratner can have a place for his franchise that he would not have to pay for to be constructed and be saving himself a lot of money and aggrevation and it would have as many mass transit options with near by Newark Penn. Nah wait that wouldn't work because he's an Ohio hick tryin so hard to be New Yorker and trying to get fake street cred and failing miserably at it so much so that he wore a Boston Red Sox hat to the rally when this was first announced thinkin that it was a Dodgers hat. lol. Proving that he knows as little about New York and it's sports as those tour guides on the sightseeing buses do!

Food for thought ;)

Develop Don't Destory Brooklyn
http://www.dddb.net/

Fans For Fair Play
http://www.fansforfairplay.com/

Damm my soap box is gettin a work out. :)

Jack Krohn

February 1st, 2006, 09:26 AM

Wow, BklynRider, you sure got your panties in a twist!

Despite your long-winded rebuttal, my original points still stand. All of the efforts by Ratner opponents have accomplished nothing of significance. I stand by my belief that delaying things is minor. Regardless of whether or not opponents specifically set out to stop the things I mentioned, those things are major steps forward to seeing the arena and towers built. So, I reiterate: "In cases where things really matter, the opposition has failed. They didn't stop Ratner from buying the Nets, they didn't stop the MTA from selling to Ratner, they didn't stop Pataki, Bloomberg, Markowitz, and numerous members of the city council from lending their support to the plan, and they didn't stop the Supreme Court from ruling in favor of eminent domain."

"So, you are calling me naive for not sharing your opinion."

No, I'm calling you naive for believing that efforts of arena opponents were instrumental in the calls for the project to be scaled back.

And, of course, my favorite:

"Do you live in her district? What help are you claiming the district it needs? What do you base these claims on? Do you live in the immediate vicinity of this project? Within five miles? within ten miles? Do you live in the borough?"

Yes, I do live in the vicinity of this project and yes, I do live in L-e-t-i-t-i-a James's district (my apologies, NoLandGrab was the one who nitpicked about the spelling of her name). But what if I didn't? How close or far from the area does one have to live for their opinion to be worthwhile?

"but you are storming into this thread with a very poor grasp of the facts and and even poorer knowledge of the involvement and understanding of people here in the issues."

Last time I checked, I didn't need approval from you or anyone else before posting on this or any other internet board. I especially like the term "storming". Funny, when someone posts views that differ from your own, you select a negative term. And, of course, I love the usual conspiratorial question about working for Ratner. Classic anti-Ratner paranoia.

NYguy

February 1st, 2006, 09:44 AM

You know it. I'm donated 200 dollars to help fille the lawsuit against Ratner along with everyone else in DDDB organization that I'm in.

Good luck. But I think you would be better off blowing the 200 bucks in Atlantic City or on powerball or something.

I'm a life long fan of the Nets and New Jersey and New York is not gonna get MY team without a long hard fight.

Would you be willing to return the Giants and Jets to keep the Nets?

kliq6

February 1st, 2006, 10:22 AM

JCMAN, i usually dont agree with you at all since i, well ill be honest hate NJ, but were can i donate to that fund, i dont want to see my home boro ruined by this crap proposal that does nothing for the area at all but force out hard working people.

JCMAN320

February 1st, 2006, 12:43 PM

I would be willing to return the Jets considering I'm a Giants fan and the Jets suck and are more of the NYC team and the Giants identify more with New Jersey and they have Giants Stadium here already and Jets are the only team in the NFL that have to pay rent lol ahh Jets are such a second rate team. So most def trade one "ets" team for another is fair, if thats what it came down to.

But I do have a problem because I don't feel we have to keep a team whos name is the NEW JERSEY NETS and he team started in NJ in 1967 for cryign out loud. The orginzation originated in the ABA in 1967 (did not move to the NBA until moving back to New Jersey) in NJ in Teaneck under the name New Jersey Americans, called the Nets in 68-69 season when they moved to LI for 9 years and sitll moved around in LI having their longest stay in an arena in LI only last 4 seasons. Have been in New Jersey since 1978 playing in the RAC at Rutgers while the Continental Airlines Arena was finished in 1981 when they moved in. So we win in case of origin and seniority. :)

JCMAN320

February 1st, 2006, 12:51 PM

Well I'm glad we can put our differences aside for this. Yea mos def here is the link: http://www.dddb.net/

That is the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn website.

kliq6

February 1st, 2006, 01:02 PM

Thanks, and i wouldnt say difference, i work in real estate to build Ny and you defend your home, its all fair. This project however is just a waste

JCMAN320

February 1st, 2006, 01:31 PM

Your right about the project being a waste and your citings on where we stand. I'm actually studying to be an urban developer or city planner so def in same ballpak in intrest just in two different cities.

NYguy

February 9th, 2006, 05:57 PM

I would be willing to return the Jets considering I'm a Giants fan and the Jets suck and are more of the NYC team and the Giants identify more with New Jersey and they have Giants Stadium here already and Jets are the only team in the NFL that have to pay rent lol ahh Jets are such a second rate team. So most def trade one "ets" team for another is fair, if thats what it came down to.

But I do have a problem because I don't feel we have to keep a team whos name is the NEW JERSEY NETS and he team started in NJ in 1967 for cryign out loud. The orginzation originated in the ABA in 1967 (did not move to the NBA until moving back to New Jersey) in NJ in Teaneck under the name New Jersey Americans

Am I missing something? Or were the Giants and the Jets originated in Jersey too?

NYguy

February 9th, 2006, 06:01 PM

Architect Gehry speaks at Tate

http://media.smudailycampus.com/vimages/shared/vnews/stories/s-43e988beda4d0-27-1.jpg

Architect Frank Gehry speaks to the Tate Lecture Series crowd in a chair that he designed for a furniture collection.

By Brian Wellman
February 08, 2006

You know you’re famous when you have become a one-time star on the hit series cartoon comedy “The Simpsons,” chatting away with Homer and the gang. At least, this was the case for world-famous architect Frank Gehry, who paid a visit to McFarlin Auditorium last night as a part of the Tate Lecture Series.

Hundreds of people, including a variety of alumni and student body, filed into the auditorium to hear just what Canadian-born Gehry had to say about his engineering life.

The respected architect, who commenced his career after graduating from the University of Southern California, began his lecture with cartoon comedy credentials, claiming that he strongly “tries to avoid” giving speeches of that sort.

After apprenticing part-time with Victor Gruen Associates and serving one year in the army, he was admitted to Harvard Graduate School of Design to study urban planning. Gehry then went on to start his own firm in Los Angeles, where his wife works as the chief financial officer.

Five minutes into the presentation, Gehry was already utilizing the slide projector to demonstrate and explain his mentality as an architect.

He flashed many photographs of the different buildings he designed, but came nowhere close to sharing all 30-some-odd existing structures.

Most slides consisted of a computer-generated design or man-made model of a particular building, along with an actual snapshot of the existing structure. Gehry explained that the future of architecture will solely use computer software rather than sketches.

He flashed pictures of his most famed works: the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, the Frederick R. Weisman Art Museum at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles.

Although not yet built, his design of the New Jersey Nets complex in Brooklyn brought the most impressive gasps throughout the audience, probably because of the phenomenal technological advancements being brought to the table. Most of the buildings engineered by Gehry are all similar in their curvaceous structures and sculptural design.

Gehry acknowledged that the titanium material he typically uses allows his art “to succeed because of what nature does to it,” describing the sun’s role in the production of vibrant color reflections.

Near the end of the presentation, the audience had the opportunity to ask Gehry a few questions

When asked if he would design the Bush Presidential Library if it were brought to SMU’s campus, Gehry chuckled and said, “If he [Bush] wants me to. I’m not a Republican, though.”

ablarc

February 9th, 2006, 07:06 PM

When asked if he would design the Bush Presidential Library if it were brought to SMU’s campus, Gehry chuckled and said, “If he [Bush] wants me to...”
...and he's not likely to ask.

BPC

February 9th, 2006, 08:54 PM

...and he's not likely to ask.

Bush Jr. couldn't do worse than Clinton, whose presidential library looks like a giant trailer dangling over the river after a mud slide.

ablarc

February 9th, 2006, 08:56 PM

Bush Jr. couldn't do worse than Clinton, whose presidential library looks like a giant trailer dangling over the river after a mud slide.
Polshek.

STT757

February 11th, 2006, 11:09 AM

I hope the Nets move to Newark with the Devils!

Nets might stay in N.J. until 2010
Friday, February 10, 2006

Star-Ledger Staff
With delays mounting for their proposed arena in Brooklyn, the Nets and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority are now in serious negotiations to keep the team at Continental Airlines Arena through the end of the decade.

Officials involved with negotiations for a new lease for the Nets said the agreement would last at least through the 2010 season with options to continue playing at the arena as long as the Nets need to be there. If the parties reach an agreement on a new lease it would replace the current lease, which is set to expire in 2008.

George Zoffinger, chief executive of the sports authority, declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations. However, he said the Nets have been an outstanding tenant at the sports complex and he would like to keep them there.

"I really believe the new management of the team under Brett Yormark is accomplishing some terrific things," Zoffinger said. "We have been getting along very well with them and we want to keep it that way."

Yormark, the Nets chief executive for business operations, did not return phone calls seeking comment on the negotiations.

When Bruce Ratner purchased the Nets in 2004, he had hoped to move the team into a new arena in downtown Brooklyn just months after the current lease at Continental Airlines Arena expired.

However, the Brooklyn arena remains a controversial project whose costs grow with each delay. That arena, which at a cost of nearly $600 million would be the most expensive ever built, is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by a community group that opposes it. In addition, the arena and Ratner's planned development of roughly 5,000 apartments surrounding the building have become bogged down in New York's complicated land use approval process.

Ratner won the right last year to purchase the land on which he plans to build the arena from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The decision gave him control of about 85 percent of the land he needs to complete the arena project.

However, he is still seeking some $200 million in funding from New York City and New York State as well as approvals from both the city and state governments before he can begin what is likely to be at least a three-year construction process.

Meanwhile, his team needs a place to play, and remaining at Continental Airlines Arena has always been the Nets' top alternative to Brooklyn.

New Jersey officials relish the opportunity of keeping the Nets, but are seeking significant changes to the current lease which now costs the state some $2 million each year.

A new lease for instance, is unlikely to include the state's current obligation to buy $750,000 of Nets tickets each year. The sports authority will also ask the team to take on more of the expenses associated with hosting the Nets games. In return, the Nets are likely to receive a larger portion of the revenues from sales of luxury suites, naming rights, and advertising at the arena, in part because they will no longer have to split this money with the Devils.

Zoffinger's attempt to keep the Nets for several more years sets up a potential battle between Continental Airlines Arena and the new Devils arena in Newark. The Devils arena is under construction and scheduled to open in October 2007.

Devils executives had calculated that shortly after their building opened, the Nets would move to Brooklyn, and the state would have little reason to subsidize operations at an arena in the Meadowlands with no major professional sports teams.

The state would then opt to close Continental Airlines Arena, and the Devils arena in Newark would become the home of New Jersey's top concerts and family shows. However, the longer the Nets remain at Continental Airlines Arena, the more time the Devils arena must spend competing with it for the concerts and family shows.

Devils principal owner Jeff Vanderbeek declined comment on negotiations between the Nets and the sports authority. He said his focus is on building a world-class facility in Newark and building a successful business there.

"We are going to build the best arena in the country," Vanderbeek said.

Teno

February 11th, 2006, 02:46 PM

Does JCMAN care about preserving the current quality of life in Brooklyn. Or does he not want Brooklyn to develop and compete with Jersey or take away the Nets.

JCMAN320

February 11th, 2006, 07:21 PM

Yes I do care about preserving the quality of life in Brooklyn at all costs. I love Brooklyn. If there was any other place in the world that I would be like to be born and bread other than Jersey City, it would be Brooklyn. Jersey City and Brooklyn share MANY, MANY similarities in character, people, and urban life and feel.

I care about keeping the Nets in Jersey and keeping the families of Brooklyn in there rightful homes and not get forced out. My mother was a victim of unruly development in Newark when she lived in the North Ward as a very young child and they destoryed it for huge apartment towers that later failed and were torn down. They later moved to Jersey City and has lived here ever since and loves it here. So I have a personal vendetta here with this boondoogle. I have vehmently opposed this project here in JC and in Brooklyn where I have been going to meetings religiously.

Also lets be real no disrespect but Brooklyn missed the boat to compete with us with office space. All those projects are becoming residential. Even "Thors Tower" might be downsized or be made residential. JC has more office space than Atlanta and Miami combined. I have no problem with Brooklyn competing at all. The idea is too STRENGTHEN THE ENTIRE METRO AREA to compete with metro areas in the country and the world.

Have ALOT OF LOVE for Brooklyn, but my Nets are a Jersey team and will stay that way hopefully atleast for the rest of the decade as indicated by the previously posted article.

This great news. Ratners project will get an increase intrest the longer the Nets stay here and it will cost him more therefore he just might give up. See Jersey always fights not like the old days where NY use to walk all over us!!! We will fight to the bitter end. I hope though that they do go to Newark with the Devils and be one family like they currently are in the CAA.

Derek2k3

February 11th, 2006, 07:38 PM

Kris

February 15th, 2006, 05:23 AM

February 15, 2006
Demolition Can Proceed for Brooklyn Arena Project
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

The Forest City Ratner Companies, the developer of a proposed Brooklyn real estate project, can proceed with the demolition of six buildings it owns on the site, a state judge ruled yesterday.

In an unusual move for a highly charged case turning on fine points of law, Justice Carol R. Edmead of State Supreme Court in Manhattan ruled from the bench immediately after a long and at times raucous hearing in a suit brought by opponents of the $3.5 billion Atlantic Yards project.

The demolitions were approved in December by the Empire State Development Corporation, the agency supervising the state's environmental review process, after Forest City Ratner officials said the buildings were in danger of collapse and posed an imminent threat to public safety.

State law forbids developers to alter the site of any proposed project until it has been approved, but the law makes an exception for "emergency actions." Justice Edmead said that there was no basis for challenging the agency's determination that Forest City Ratner's buildings merited the exception, and that the agency was under no obligation to obtain an independent engineering review.

But in another decision, Justice Edmead found that a prominent environmental lawyer's earlier work on behalf of Forest City Ratner disqualified him from representing the Empire State Development Corporation in the Atlantic Yards case. The decision is likely to cause concern among the ranks of environmental lawyers.

In December 2003, Forest City Ratner retained the lawyer, David Paget, to consult on environmental compliance for the Atlantic Yards project. A year later, after the development corporation assumed oversight of the project, it arranged for Mr. Paget to serve as outside counsel during the coming environmental review.

When that review formally began in September 2005, Mr. Paget stopped advising Forest City Ratner on the project, although his firm, Sive, Paget & Riesel, continued to advise the developer on unrelated matters. As outside counsel to the development corporation, he later concurred with the agency's decision to permit the buildings' demolition.

In her decision, Justice Edmead acknowledged that it was not uncommon for environmental lawyers to work for many different clients over the years, sometimes finding themselves working against a client they once worked for. (Jeffrey S. Baker, the lawyer representing the community groups that had asked Justice Edmead to block the demolition, is himself an alumnus of Mr. Paget's firm.) She even mused out loud about whether her decision would be overruled by a higher court.

But in the end, she wrote, Mr. Paget's work history was "prima facie evidence of a conflict of interest."

Mr. Paget, who was not at the hearing, did not return phone calls yesterday. The project, which would rise over a railyard and adjacent land off Flatbush Avenue near Downtown Brooklyn, includes 9.1 million square feet of residential towers, a basketball arena, offices and retail space.

The two-and-a-half-hour hearing ranged far beyond the narrow legal issues at hand, as the developer and its opponents reiterated nearly every argument they have had over the project since it was unveiled. But Justice Edmead, declaring her affection for the "minutiae" of law, repeatedly yanked the discussion back to the matters in dispute.

She rejected a contention by Forest City Ratner lawyers that the relationship between a developer and its sponsor, in this case the Empire State Development Corporation, was essentially "collaborative." And her disqualification of Mr. Paget apparently broke new legal ground on what even proponents of the state's environmental review law have described as one of its contradictions.

"There's a built-in ambiguity or inconsistency to the law there," said Philip Weinberg, a professor at St. John's University and an expert on environmental review. "The whole principle behind review is to have the agency deciding whether to go ahead with the project review the project's impact themselves. But they are also supposed to play it down the middle."

In practical terms, Justice Edmead's refusal to block the demolitions may deprive opponents of an early chance to halt the project's momentum. A lawyer for Forest City Ratner, Jeffrey L. Braun, said later that unless the opponents appealed, demolition would probably begin within 10 days.

But Mr. Baker said the judge's disqualification of Mr. Paget bolstered a potential future challenge to the agency's environmental review findings.

"It colors everything else," he said. If the agency's environmental impact statement is released quickly, he argued, it will be "per se tainted" by Mr. Paget's recent involvement. "If the final scope is lopsided, and says, for example, that we are not going to look at any other locations for the arena, then that process is tainted," he added.

Forest City Ratner is a development partner for the new Midtown office tower being built for The New York Times. In her decision, Justice Edmead stopped short of saying that Mr. Paget's involvement had led to any actual prejudice in favor of Forest City Ratner, writing that the opponents "have failed to allege a single valid deficiency in the E.S.D.C.'s environmental analysis."

Instead, the judge emphasized the potential for conflicts of interest, and the need for the public to have confidence that the state agency was representing its best interests.

"Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety is critical in a case of this magnitude," she wrote.

Both sides said they were unsure whether they would appeal.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Jack Krohn

February 15th, 2006, 12:48 PM

This is getting so predictable: arena opponents find something that they believe will make a difference to their cause, but in the end Ratner comes out victorious. It happened with the BUILD tax documents, it happened with the bidding for the railyards, and now it's happened with the attempt to secure an injunction against demolition.

In other cases, even where opponents did not take specific action to block events, such as Shaya Boymelgreen's sale to Ratner, Ratner's winning the bid to buy the Nets, and Ratner's buying out of property owners in the footprint, Ratner has emerged the winner.

I, for one, am thrilled that this is coming to pass (that's right - no guilt feelings). Seeing the digital renderings presented above, I think that this is going to be an exciting development for Brooklyn.

JCMAN320

February 15th, 2006, 01:43 PM

No shot. This project will die not to worry. :P

Jack Krohn

February 15th, 2006, 01:52 PM

What makes you think that this project will die?

No sarcasm here, just curious to learn more about your opinion.

ablarc

February 15th, 2006, 01:59 PM

Seeing the digital renderings presented above, I think that this is going to be an exciting development for Brooklyn.
Finally New York City will get a decent third skyline. And Brooklyn will emerge as a Manhattan rival. I think it's great.

RS085

February 15th, 2006, 03:52 PM

Dont forget about Jersey City and developing Queens, thats 5.

ablarc

February 15th, 2006, 03:55 PM

^ Sure, but technically JC isn't in New York City, and Queens is mighty rudimentary.

ZippyTheChimp

February 15th, 2006, 05:57 PM

There is no building mass data in the Google database for eastern Brooklyn.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2854/atlanticmap012mp.th.jpg (http://img46.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atlanticmap012mp.jpg) http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/5972/atlanticmap020au.th.jpg (http://img447.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atlanticmap020au.jpg) http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/8800/atlanticmap033sv.th.jpg (http://img447.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atlanticmap033sv.jpg)

http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/3435/atlanticmap049tw.th.jpg (http://img447.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atlanticmap049tw.jpg) http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7991/atlanticmap057oa.th.jpg (http://img46.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atlanticmap057oa.jpg) http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/1292/atlanticmap061ct.th.jpg (http://img46.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atlanticmap061ct.jpg)

ablarc

February 15th, 2006, 06:27 PM

^ Can't wait.

antinimby

February 15th, 2006, 06:37 PM

...Brooklyn will emerge as a Manhattan rival...No, not rival. Complementary and supplementary, yes. You want all parts of the city to be strong. With a renewed Downtown, and a strong upcoming Brooklyn and Queens, we would be hard to beat. Build more housing in the underused areas throughout the five boroughs and lowering taxes on businesses would make us untouchable. We are losing new immigrants and residents to LA and Philadelphia because there is simply no place to live. People want to be here but there is not enough housing.

ablarc

February 15th, 2006, 06:44 PM

OK, complement and supplement. Any way you put it sounds good. This will be a great project.

BrooklynRider

February 15th, 2006, 11:55 PM

H-man

February 16th, 2006, 12:18 AM

imagine what the view will be like from the top of that tallest building

JCMAN320

February 16th, 2006, 12:49 AM

I agree that Queens is very rudimentary. Brooklyn Rider your right people that agree with this project don't fully see the scope of the problems with this project. It is too big and blantenly ignores the low rise brownstone charcter of the enitre area. This project will fail because as this project is pushed back intrest on the property will increase which will raise the cost of the project and the cost of the materials will go up every year for concrete and steel. NJ is currently pushing to extend the lease of the Nets till 2010 which will mean that the Nets couldn't move in until the 2011-2012 far past the 2008-2009 goal Ratner hoped for. Also the state and city still haven't provided the legal and economic deals yet that are required for this to move forward. The only thing they have allowed is demolition of two buildings which is small beans as of being siginificant sign of this project moving foward. It is crystal clear that the Newark Arena will be finished before or even if this project is built where the Nets can move and most likely move in with the Devils even if it is temporary, they will be in what the owners and developers are calling to be the "best arena in the country". So I think personally that this project stands no chance and will fail like the West Side Stadium.

lofter1

February 16th, 2006, 01:53 AM

This view is really frightening -- like something in central Berlin after WW2: http://img46.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atlanticmap012mp.jpg

***

JCMAN320

February 16th, 2006, 02:10 AM

See!!!! My point exactly. That could not look more out of place!!!!

NoyokA

February 16th, 2006, 02:40 AM

Oh yes, a Starrett City for the 21st Century, plunked right down in the middle of Brownstone Brooklyn. It should be just as dazzling. You really must all get down to Starrett City to appreciate the "vision" you are embracing.

Starett City doesn't include very tall buildings, a professional sports arena, and it most definetly wasn't designed by an A-List architect.

Kris

February 16th, 2006, 06:07 AM

Starrett City. Central Berlin after WW2.

Soon after this project is fully realized such comments will seem more than just absurd or laughable (as they do now), they will seem incomprehensible.

ZippyTheChimp

February 16th, 2006, 07:58 AM

JCMAN320: After the histrionic comparisons to Cold War architecture and towers-in-the-wetlands, I think your comments are a welcomed bit of comic-relief.

Jack Krohn

February 16th, 2006, 10:13 AM

Oh yes, a Starrett City for the 21st Century, plunked right down in the middle of Brownstone Brooklyn. It should be just as dazzling. You really must all get down to Starrett City to appreciate the "vision" you are embracing.

I have friends who live in Starrett City, and I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of. As Stern said, it's not a fair comparison, but it still provides affordable housing for thousands of people - as will the Atlantic Yards project.

bkmonkey

February 16th, 2006, 12:03 PM

Lets not forget that the density patterns in prospect hieghts, and park slope are on the upswing. There are scores of high rise projects being planned for the area, it is very likely that the arena project will not be "out of place" by the time it is completed.
The comparison between Starett City and the Arena plan is silly. They are two complety different projects, with two different goals. Ratner wants to design a popular tourist destination, in the new "times plaza" area, not a backwater residential abode.
This project will suceed because it has broad support from the city and the state. Most brooklynites support the project.

BrooklynRider

February 16th, 2006, 12:33 PM

I anticipate that, after the arena and initial three buildings are completed, Ratner winds this project down and we see it c-r-a-w-l along. I might be wrong, but, given all the opinions and predictions, someone will end up being wrong. If I am wrong, I'll admit it. So, stick around until 2025.

lofter1

February 16th, 2006, 01:11 PM

Central Berlin after WW2.

...such comments will seem more than just absurd or laughable (as they do now), they will seem incomprehensible.
Look at the google pic -- without the buildings around Grand Army Plaza it does look like an area that has been cleared by carpet bombing.

To clarify: I wasn't inferring anything about the Atlantic Yards Project, just in regards to the vast wasteland shown in the pic -- yep, pretty darned funny!! ;)

JCMAN320

February 16th, 2006, 01:30 PM

JCMAN320: After the histrionic comparisons to Cold War architecture and towers-in-the-wetlands, I think your comments are a welcomed bit of comic-relief.

Why are they comic-relief. I'm dead serious. Also how do you know for a fact that most Brooklynites like this project. Why beacuse Ratner says that. Again check the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn website and be enlightened.

MidtownGuy

February 16th, 2006, 01:46 PM

I don't really understand all the cries about how this will destroy the nature of Brooklyn and how it is so out of context with the area. It's in Downtown Brooklyn, which is full of towers. The Williamsburg tower is right next to his project. Not to mention all the large buildings across Flatbush Ave. that form the already existing cluster of high rises. And a sea of project towers in areas all around.

The railyards are a wretched hole in the fabric of downtown Brooklyn and that is what this would patch and revive.. Designed by Ghery, it will even draw more tourists to the area, and they'd end up spending a day in the borough when they see all it has to offer.

Not long ago I used to live on St. Felix behind BAM and I can tell you that this would be a great thing. To visit a friend on Vanderbilt, I'd walk along that long desolate stretch of Atlantic and wish someone would build something nice there to fill in the hole in the neighborhood. One afternoon, I was confronted by a wild dog while walking by, which scared the bejeezus
out of me. Not a soul in sight except me and him.

Brooklyn is humongous and vibrant and not in danger of destruction by this development.

ZippyTheChimp

February 16th, 2006, 01:47 PM

Why are they comic-relief.

Stop it, man. You're killin' me.

By the way, I'm a little dense, so I missed Lofter's meaning, but you immediately agreed with it.

Are you saying that Brooklyn resembles a carpet-bombed city?

And I thought you loved Brooklyn.

Jack Krohn

February 16th, 2006, 02:00 PM

Midtown Guy nails it on the head when he says that Brooklyn is huge and not in danger by this development. People forget that there is life outside of the so-called "Brownstone belt". In fact, that section actually comprises a small part of Brooklyn.

JCMAN320

February 16th, 2006, 05:27 PM

No I do love Brooklyn, I was referring to the picture that it makes my point of how out of place it looks. I don't agree with the carpet bombed comment at all.

BPC

February 17th, 2006, 12:34 AM

Finally New York City will get a decent third skyline. And Brooklyn will emerge as a Manhattan rival. I think it's great.

This pretty much sums it up. I have many friends and family who live in Brooklyn, and what they love about it is precisely that it is NOT Manhattan. Brooklyn is dense like the City (not suburban like much of Queens), but still charmingly low rise and low scale. In "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," Jane Jacobs devotes a chapter to this trend in city development by which success is self-defeating, as the new uses drawn to the desirable location crowd out the old uses that made that location so desirable in the first place. (She uses the example of the bank branches which keep locating on the corner with all the cool cafes, until finally the corner is just four banks and no cafes.) Brooklyn, sadly, is now about to become a victim of its own success, as it undergoes Manhattanization, albeit with a cartoonish Gehry veneer.

ablarc

February 17th, 2006, 08:27 AM

BPC

February 17th, 2006, 08:43 AM

^ Oh, it'll go on being NOT Manhattan, just like Chicago isn't Manhattan and Paris has survived La Defense. Building this project won't make the rowhouses go away, and gentrification is well along already.

If your family likes Brooklyn it's already not the same Brooklyn they liked forty years ago; how many people still say "youse"? Cities are dynamic; they don't have to be preserved in amber. That you could infer Jane Jacobs thought they should be suggests a weakness in her philosophy or in her presentation.

That argument could be used to just bulldoze the whole borough and put up a Le Courbousier-style city. Of course cities are dynamic. Jacobs wrote that cities which do not develop, die. But there are GOOD developments and BAD developments, and one of the purposes of this forum is try to distinguish between the two. The problem with the Gehry scheme would fundamentally alter the character of a large swath of Brooklyn. Nobody was trying to put up skyscrapers in Brooklyn for the past 50 years, while the borough faltered. But now that people have come to appreciate its low-rise charms, developers are trying to change the very element which people appreciate. As noted above by one of its fans, this is a Manhattan-style development. We already have one Manhattan. We should let Brooklyn be Brooklyn.

(And plenty of people in Brooklyn still say "youse." Go to Bensonhurst some time. As for my in-laws, they have lived for generations in Park Slope, where nobody ever said "youse.")

Jack Krohn

February 17th, 2006, 08:54 AM

"I have many friends and family who live in Brooklyn, and what they love about it is precisely that it is NOT Manhattan. Brooklyn is dense like the City (not suburban like much of Queens), but still charmingly low rise and low scale."

And Brooklyn will easily retain this charm. I live in Brooklyn and know that it is enormous - even if you cycle around for three hours, you will only graze the surface. The vast majority of it is - and will remain - low rise, even if the Atlantic Yards is built. I've noticed that people focus on certain neighborhoods of Brooklyn and seem to forget that there's life east and south of Prospect Park

Ablarc, you make an excellent point about cities being dynamic. Over the past 10-15 years, Bensonhurst has seen an influx of immigrants from China, and the word "youse", while still extant, is becoming less common. It's near impossible to find a Brooklyn neighborhood not touched by immigration or gentrification (or both).

ZippyTheChimp

February 17th, 2006, 09:17 AM

The problem with the Gehry scheme would fundamentally alter the character of a large swath of Brooklyn.

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/3520/atlanticmap075eq.th.jpg (http://img125.imageshack.us/my.php?image=atlanticmap075eq.jpg)

ablarc

February 17th, 2006, 09:22 AM

Lol, Zippy.

ZippyTheChimp

February 17th, 2006, 09:27 AM

So was I, as I was uploading it. :)

Sometimes, you just have to step back, and take a breath.

Jack Krohn

February 17th, 2006, 09:33 AM

Zippy, you crack me up!

But that image illustrates my point perfectly.

JMGarcia

February 17th, 2006, 10:10 AM

I was going to say that this is a miniscule area percentage wise of Brooklyn and that the borough can certainly incorporate this sort of variety of scale easily. But I see I'm a bit late with that thought - lol.

MidtownGuy

February 17th, 2006, 01:15 PM

Thanks Zippy, that's exactly what I was picturing in my head. Large swath of Brooklyn, indeed.

BrooklynRider

February 17th, 2006, 01:24 PM

...The comparison between Starett City and the Arena plan is silly. They are two complety different projects, with two different goals. Ratner wants to design a popular tourist destination, in the new "times plaza" area, not a backwater residential abode...

A "destination site"? He's building an arena on a busy corner, one commercial building and seventeen residential towers. Other than the arena, I can't imagine people seeking out the residential development as a destination. It isn't "backwater" (which is your word not mine) like Starrett, in that it isn't located in some remote ,marshland next to a landfill. But the comparison to Starrett is perfectly apropos given that this is nothing more than the creation of a large, monolithic, self-contained residential development with absolutely no relationship, context or integration with the surrounding communities.

And, while we can say that Brooklyn is not only about the Brownstone Communities and encompasses alot more neighborhoods with different characteristics, it does not negate the fact that this development is being plopped down in the middle of neighborhoods that happen to be Brownstone neighborhoods.

… It's in Downtown Brooklyn, which is full of towers. The Williamsburg tower is right next to his project. Not to mention all the large buildings across Flatbush Ave. that form the already existing cluster of high rises. And a sea of project towers in areas all around…

It is not Downtown Brooklyn. At the same time Atlantic Yards was being introduced, the city unveiled its Downtown Brooklyn rezoning plan. That plan did not encompass one square foot of the Atlantic Yards development site.

With regard to the incorrect statement that new high rise development is "popping up" in surrounding neighborhoods in the coming year, that is incorerct and not supportable by any evidence. New high-rise development is anticipated on lots that are encompassed in the Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning Pland. Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn has also been upzoned, but it is only along that corridor and nothing built or planned nearly matches the height of the buildings expected to be built in this development, except those buildings to the north within the Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning Plan.

People like the that the railyards are being covered - no one will argue against that. But, this development may very well look ridiculous, because it is nothing more than a dividing wall between neighborhoods. It is also interesting that people object so vehemently to superblocks in Manhattan, but somehow these superblocks are condoned and encouraed in Brooklyn. Let's not pretend that these aren't superblocks being constructed.

And, it can be repeated often enough: Frank Gehry is overrated and the latest design for this project is offensive to the senses in everyway.

MidtownGuy

February 17th, 2006, 01:46 PM

It is not Downtown Brooklyn. At the same time Atlantic Yards was being introduced, the city unveiled its Downtown Brooklyn rezoning plan. That plan did not encompass one square foot of the Atlantic Yards development site.

I wasn't talking about rezoning plans. Like I said, I used to live right next to this development. Although in my mind I was part of the Fort Green neighborhood, me and my neighbors considered the whole darn area to generally be "downtown" compared to friends that lived further up Fulton or further down Flatbush. If someone lives out past Prospect Park or something, and they were going to ride their bike to the new Target store (for example) they would say they were riding Downtown, not to the "place technically one block from Downtown".

In other words, this is "adjacent" to your technically defined downtown, but it's a mostly crappy area that might as well be a new part of the downtown.
You were splitting hairs I think with that argument. The point was that there
is already a high-rise cluster in the immediate vicinity, and this just extends the skyline beyond the Williamsburg Bank Building.

JMGarcia

February 17th, 2006, 01:51 PM

IMO the key to a successful residential development is not the height or lack there of of the buildings. Rather, it is how the building interact with the streetscape. Brownstone do this successfully by creating a consistent and attractive street wall. Highrise buildings can attain the same positive attributes, although there are certainly more than enough Moses inspired developments that do not.

So, IMO, this development should not be judged on the very superficial idea of brownstone neighborhood = good so therefore lowrise neighborhood = good. The lowrise nature of brownstones is only one of their attributes and not the one that necessarily makes for a successful residential development.

MidtownGuy

February 17th, 2006, 02:03 PM

I love the brownstones throughout the area. This wouldn't separate those neighborhoods like a barrier. Walking through to the next neighborhood would be easier than it is now, and just because they are tall doesn't mean much at street level to a person's ability to walk through. There will be ways to walk between these buildings, will there not? We're not talking about an expressway carving through.

debris

February 17th, 2006, 02:52 PM

A bit off topic, but that Google photo really illustrates how starved for parkland most of Brooklyn is. Almost everyone in the borough is miles from a large park. Can't think of any other part of the city further from a major park than southern Brooklyn.

Jack Krohn

February 17th, 2006, 03:06 PM

"Other than the arena, I can't imagine people seeking out the residential development as a destination."

Uh, that's a pretty important piece to omit. It's like saying, "Other than the Big Mac and french fries, there's really no point in going to McDonald's".

"And, it can be repeated often enough: Frank Gehry is overrated and the latest design for this project is offensive to the senses in everyway."

Entirely your opinion, and definitely not one shared by many others.

sfenn1117

February 17th, 2006, 03:07 PM

Yeah Bensonhurst and Gravesend don't have a large park for miles...only playgrounds and small, useless parks. It can't be changed though...

Zippy's picture sums it all up. I see it as a continuation of downtown, and there is nothing wrong with that. I am tired of hearing the ridiculous cries over how this will destroy Brooklyn, the fedders houses have made a nastier impact on the borough than will Atlantic Yards.

BigMac

February 17th, 2006, 03:08 PM

antinimby

February 17th, 2006, 04:07 PM

Yeah Bensonhurst and Gravesend don't have a large park for miles...only playgrounds and small, useless parksI don't think they're useless at all. Seth Low park on Bay Parkway is extremely popular and is usually very busy.
I am tired of hearing the ridiculous cries over how this will destroy Brooklyn, the fedders houses have made a nastier impact on the borough than will Atlantic Yards.At this point, I don't even care about their aethestics (although I don't think they're that bad). I'm just glad it's helping to ease (even if it's just a little) the tremendous housing shortage in the city.

Clarknt67

February 17th, 2006, 04:54 PM

While northern Brooklyn is starved for amusement rides.
Yet fat with Cheesecake! (mmmmmmm... Junior's....)

NYguy

February 17th, 2006, 08:11 PM

Yet fat with Cheesecake! (mmmmmmm... Junior's....)

LOL. Just the other day someone asked me how to get to Juniors coming off the Manhattan Bridge. I said you couldn't miss it, it's to the right before you get to Fulton. Oddly, I've never eaten there, nor sampled the Cheesecake.

bkmonkey

February 19th, 2006, 10:58 PM

Maybe you'd better save your money JCEman

WRECKING CREW
Judge OKs Ratner’s demolitions

By Ariella Cohen
The Brooklyn Papers

Bruce Ratner’s wrecking ball could start swinging as early as next week, thanks to a state Supreme Court ruling Tuesday that cleared the way for the developer to demolish five buildings that are part of his Atlantic Yards mega-development.

Justice Carol R. Edmead ruled against a coalition of community groups that argued that Ratner has no legal right to tear down the buildings because his arena, residential and commercial project has not been formally approved by the state.

“Being concerned about the impact of large projects is legitimate, but is not a legitimate reason to stop these demolitions,” Edmead said in a straight-from-the-bench ruling.

In December, the Empire State Development Corporation gave emergency permits to Ratner to demolish the buildings, citing an engineering study that they were about to collapse. Edmead’s ruling upheld those permits.

But in a victory for the community groups, Edmead ordered the lead state agency on the project to dismiss a prominent environmental lawyer it hired last year because he had previously worked on the project for Ratner.

The state must now replace the lawyer, David Paget, within 45 days, Edmead ruled, citing “a crippling appearance of impropriety” and “a taint on the process.”

“On the slim reed of public interest, he should be removed,” she said.

Although flatly defeated on the larger issue of demolition, opponents of the project hailed this part of the judge’s ruling.

“It shows that the court is concerned that the process to date has not been objective and has been far too collaborative” between Ratner and state authorities, said Jeffrey Baker, lawyer for Develop — Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the lead plaintiff in the case.

As Baker mulls whether to appeal the larger part of Edmead’s ruling, Ratner moved briskly to capitalize on his win.

On Wednesday, workers in blue protective gear started clearing asbestos, the first step towards next week’s demolition.

Within minutes of the work beginning, the Department of Buildings received a complaint that Ratner was performing asbestos abatement at one of the buildings without a properly posted permit. The developer does have a permit for the asbestos work, although he still has not received a permit to do any actual demolition.

The day before in court, community activists were watching every move closely. Donning yellow “Develop — Don’t Destroy Brooklyn” pins and cackling in protest at key moments of the hearing, Ratner opponents were upbraided several times by Edmead, who eventually called in a police officer to act as hall monitor.

With a blunt eye to larger ramifications of the case, Edmead alternated between chastising Baker and his Ratner counterpart, Jeffrey Braun, showing little tolerance when either tried to stretch arguments beyond the specifics of the case.

“If you put a spin,” she told Baker, “your credibility evaporates.”

But at one point, she blasted Braun as “bone-headed” for claiming that Ratner did not even have to inform state authorities that he intended to demolish the buildings he owns.

And Baker scored points when he presented evidence showing that Ratner had filed a demolition plan months before his engineer declared the buildings an imminent danger.

But it was too little, too late; Edmead accepted Ratner’s argument that the demolition was legal because the buildings are at risk of immediate collapse.

“There is no requirement for the hard look of environmental impact review with [this] type of demolition,” she said.

The judge, however, was willing to give a hard look at the relationship between the developer, the state agency and the lawyer, David Paget.

Edmead interrogated Braun after he said the relationship between Ratner and ESDC is supposed to be collaborative.

“In the big picture, the issue of independent counsel is really important,” she said.

Experts said Edmead’s ruling would bolster opponents’ contention that state agencies must not collaborate with developers whose projects are under review.

Atlantic Yards is still awaiting final state approval, which is expected later this spring. DDDB’s failed attempt to block demolition was in part motivated by fear that the sight of the wrecking ball would convince less-committed area residents that Atlantic Yards is a done deal.

JCMAN320

February 20th, 2006, 12:38 AM

MidtownGuy

February 20th, 2006, 01:04 AM

Kiss your team goodbye. (evil laughter here)

Say hello to Brooklyn's gorgeous new arena.

NYguy

February 20th, 2006, 03:10 AM

Small beans!!! NJSEA is pushing to extend Nets lease in NJ till 2010 which pushes Ratner's project or hope of occupancy back atleast till 2011. So this means nothing in the scheme of things. There are 1,000,000 one things that have to go in order and they are on number 98. By the way its JCMAN320, no E. ;)

Its already 2006. Unless Ratner can get the Brooklyn arena built overnight, he'd better get a lease extension. I doubt the Garden would welcome the NETS to play there, even if they had room in the schedule.

BrooklynRider

February 20th, 2006, 12:49 PM

Nassau Coliseum would take them.

Jake

February 20th, 2006, 01:18 PM

Actually it wouldn't be a problem at all. The Newark Arena will be finished for the Devils for the end of the next season. They can easily accomodate the Nets. My personal hope is that once the Newark Arena proves to be a failure they'll come to Brooklyn. NY could use a franchise like that with every game to the Garden sold out this season.

JCMAN320

February 20th, 2006, 03:18 PM

When are you New Yorkers gonna get off this self-centered power hunger complex. They are the NEW JERSEY NETS!!!! The Newark Arena will not be a failure and will be finished long before this thing even gets half way or if it even gets started!!!

YOUR KNICKS SUCK!!! Why do we have to move to NY to be succesful when the KNICKS prove that being in NEW YORK and having NEW YORK across your uniform dosen't gurantee a championship considering that they couldn't beat a NCAA Divison 3 team for christ-sake and haven't won a NBA title in over 30 years. The NEW YORK KNICKS own the second worst record in NBA and the Bobcats have only a worst record and they have an excuse, they have only been around for 2 YEARS!!! The GARDEN is the WORLDS MOST DYSFUNCTIONAL ARENA!!! (EVIL LAUGH). The only reason it sells out is because tourists go and just wanna say they went to the GARDEN to see a suck ass team that use to be called the KNICKS. I'm sure the NEW JERSEY NETS would love to play in the GARDEN considering that they beat the KNICKS there every time. They call it their home away from home!!! THE NEW JERSEY NETS OWN THE NEW YORK KNICKS AND THE GARDEN!!!! (BWAHHAHAA) Of course you guys wish you had a franchise like ours, you know the KNICKS are worthless.

BrooklynRider Are you kidding???, play in the Coliseum God I feel bad enough the ISLANDERS have to be play in that piece of s**** facility. The damm thing is getting ready to fall apart. I wouldn't wish a college team to play in that arena, that would be tourture.

The NETS have been more succesful here in NEW JERSEY in the past 6 years than your KNICKS have been in that period. Please the NETS will go to NEWARK with the DEVILS and be fine, while BROOKLYN will never see the NETS play in their boarders!!!

ZippyTheChimp

February 20th, 2006, 03:34 PM

The NETS have been more succesful here in NEW JERSEY in the past 6 yearsThe Nets managed to lose over $42 million while going to the playoffs. The Devils lost over $25 million while winning the Cup.

Even moneybags Steinbrenner couldn't take it anymore, and dissolved YankeeNets. That's why the team is moving. The fans didn't support them.

Instead of wasting your money on DDDB, you should have started a Help the Nets fundraiser.

Talk about losers.

JCMAN320

February 20th, 2006, 04:02 PM

That is not the reason they are moving. It was NJ politics. David Stern practically begged NJ to get started on the new arena, but Mc Greevey was busy ****ing his boyfriend. Also the fact that Ratner outbid Corzine. It has nothing to with fans or money. Learn your facts first!!!!

The NETS are one of the tops teams on online tickets sales. The fans have trouble getting to the games because car is the only way. There are ALOT of NETS fans. You wanna talk bout losers, atleast were winning, NEW YORK teams are a bunch of losers. You guys can't win even if someone gives you the game.

AGAIN GO TO THE SITE AND READ THE FACTS!!!! http://www.dddb.net/

ZippyTheChimp

February 20th, 2006, 04:31 PM

I'm not going to get in a silly pissing match with you over who is better than whom.

You can spin this any way you want, but financial statements are the facts. Both teams lost a lot of money while they were winning games. You have to really suck to make Steinbrenner not want to spend money.

I'm a sports fan, but I have to admit that as a group, we are really stupid as to the extent we support teams, no matter how hard they hit us in the wallet. The bottom line is money. That's why they were sold; that's why they are moving.

I've at least learned to adapt. I went to Giants games in the Bronx, and now I go to games in the Meadowlands. It's no damned difference to me.

There's a Brooklyn Nets in your future. Get used to it. Maybe they'll have a New Jersey night. Free transfer from the PATH to the subway. Besides, you love Brooklyn. Now you'll have an excuse to visit more often.

Jake

February 20th, 2006, 04:50 PM

Actually the Nets were a New York team long before the move to NJ. Are they a good team now? Sure. A few years ago? You gotta be kidding me, they were amongst the league's worst and nobody even went to games.

Continental Airlines Arena is a ghost town, I attend Devils games regularly and the closest person next to me is usually 6 rows away.

The Newark Arena will fail, why? As a looooooong time Devils fan I can tell you this move will not change any of the problems that came with Continental. In fact you eliminated a large portion of fans that actually went to games because they won't drive to crowded Newark where they have to shell out big bucks for parking space.

It;s gonna be nice for 3 years and the Devils will win another cup. That team has a 7 year life span though, as soon as Brodeur retires they will fall apart. So IMO 7 years from now attendance will be downright horrible and they just might want to rejoin their old partner Ratner with whom they've peacefully existed for so many years.

JCMAN320

February 20th, 2006, 05:02 PM

Yea you know why it doesn't bother you going??? Because they kept the New York name. They want to change it from New Jersey to Brooklyn. WE ONLY HAVE TWO TEAMS WITH THE NEW JERSEY NAME. They wont move and im cocky and confident enough and a JERSEY CHAUVINIST AND IMPERIALIST so I know we'll win!!!!

Also lets not miss the fact that people are getting kicked out of there rightful homes and neighborhoods. This is more important than any of this sports bantering. These people should not be robbed of a roof and warm bed that they rightfully deserve and do not deserve to be kicked to the curb because of some self-fish agenda by some rich Ohio boy.

BPC

February 20th, 2006, 05:45 PM

Kiss your team goodbye. (evil laughter here)

Say hello to Brooklyn's gorgeous new arena.

I don't have any special insight into this project, but I've lived here long enough to learn that nothing in NYC real estate development is certain until you actually start to see the building rising in the sky.

MidtownGuy

February 20th, 2006, 05:52 PM

Sorry for the cockiness...in my heart, though, I do believe this arena will be built, and when it is, most Brooklynites will love it and be proud of it.

JCMAN320

February 20th, 2006, 05:56 PM

Well I'm not sorry for my cockiness....and I agree with BPC until there are pile driving and digging I feel in my Jersey heart that it will fail, escpecially if NJSEA extend the Nets lease till 2011!!!

MidtownGuy

February 20th, 2006, 06:08 PM

I feel in my Jersey heart that it will fail

Hah! luckily I'm clutching an evil eye medallion to counteract such blasphemy! :D

londonlawyer

February 20th, 2006, 06:47 PM

Is there an overhead photo or a schematic that shows which properties on the other side of Flatbush Avenue will be developed?

Clarknt67

February 20th, 2006, 08:50 PM

When are you New Yorkers gonna get off this self-centered power hunger complex. They are the NEW JERSEY NETS!!
About the same time you wake up and smell the brewskis; your Nets are as gone to you as the Dodgers are to us.

JCMAN320

February 20th, 2006, 09:15 PM

They aren't gone, aslong as they are playing on a court in New Jersey with the NJ on it, they aren't gone. Don't you guys get it there is nothing you can do to me to shut me up or stop me from fighting this!!!! I'm a tough mouthed Jerseyan with ALOT of heart and pride that isn't gonna back down and will not stop fighting and will go to any meeting or join any organization to stop this team from moving and destorying a neighborhood and displacing families that don't deserve this!!!!. I have written letters to McGayvey when he was in office, Codey, than Corzine and Ratner!!!!

Why do you feel you deserve them huh? You didn't have the team orginate there and they did have not spent 30 years there!!! You think you are justified in getting this team cus you lost the Dodgers 48 years ago? PLEASE tell me how many of you on here were in NYC when the Dodgers played. This is our ****in team so get over it. This will not replace the Dodgers don't you get it. They arent the Dodgers!!!

londonlawyer

February 20th, 2006, 09:39 PM

Is there an overhead photo or a schematic that shows which properties on the other side of Flatbush Avenue will be developed?

Here it is:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/04/nyregion/05brooklyn_map.gif

Clarknt67

February 20th, 2006, 10:35 PM

Here it is:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/04/nyregion/05brooklyn_map.gif
There's an electronics store there now, PC Richards I believe. No great loss.

H-man

February 21st, 2006, 01:32 AM

maybe if the nets drew a crowd they wouldn't leave

JCMAN320

February 21st, 2006, 03:01 PM

Don't even go there they do draw a crowd 6 sell outsthis year. That is not the reason since we already established that.

H-man

February 22nd, 2006, 02:33 PM

they are 20th in the league in attandance, thats not too good

krulltime

February 23rd, 2006, 12:38 AM

First building block to Yards set for raze

The first building at the controversial Atlantic Yards site will likely be knocked down next week after a Manhattan Appellate Division judge refused yesterday to grant a temporary restraining order to save it.

Project opponents tried to stop the demolition of five contested buildings at the proposed arena site by moving yesterday to appeal a lower court's ruling allowing developer Bruce Ratner to tear them down.

The issue will be back in court March 1 - but in the meantime, there is now nothing to stop the planned demolitions.

A Ratner spokesman said they hope to begin tearing down the first building, the so-called Underberg Building at Atlantic and Flatbush Aves., as soon as Monday.

Elizabeth Hays
Originally published on February 22, 2006

All contents © 2006 Daily News, L.P.

MidtownGuy

February 23rd, 2006, 12:42 AM

Yippee!!

JCMAN320

February 23rd, 2006, 01:59 AM

Okay so the Nets don't sell out every game and the Knicks are the most well known and popular with more fans in the area, BUT WE HAVE ALOT OF FANS just a bitch to get to arena and there have been crowds above 17,000 just about every game with the exception of the game play during the blizzard, but atleast we know how to play basketball, very well if I might add!!!! (evil laugh)

NEW JERSEY NETS: 30-23
TEAM SLOGAN FOR 05-06 SEASON: BRING IT!!!!
We are 1st in the Atlantic Division and we are 3rd in the Eastern Confrence only behind Detroit and Miami and are only 3 1/2 games behind Miami and no one will catch the Pistons who are 43-9 umm so we ARE VERY GOOD. Also ranked as the 5th STRONGEST TEAM IN THE NBA OUT OF 30 TEAMS!!!! SO AGAIN WE ARE ONE OF THE BEST TEAMS IN THE NBA AND FROM NEW JERSEY!!!!

NEW YORK KNICKS (what a joke) 15-38
TEAM SLOGAN FOR 05-06 SEASON: KNICKS FANS KNOW....(that they suck)
Well where to begin on where the NEW YORK KNICKS suck!!! Last in the Atlantic Division (aka bottom feeders aka cellar dwellers aka couldn't beat a college team lol got the picture) THE WORST TEAM IN THE NBA. Yes okay the CHAROLETTE BOBCATS have the only worse record in NBA other than the NEW YORK KNICKS by only 2 GAMES, but the BOBCATS have an excuse, THEY HAVE ONLY BEEN AROUND FOR TWO YEARS!!! So KNICKS FANS on this forum here is something to strive for, lose two more while CHARLOTTE wins 2 and you will have soul possesion of LAST PLACE IN THE NBA!!!

THE KNICKS ARE ON PACE TO HAVE THE WORST SEASON IN FRANCHISE HISTORY AND THE KNICKS HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE 1946!!! EVEN IN THEIR WORST SEASON THEY WON 25 GAMES!!! THERE ARE ONLY 30 GAMES LEFT SO THE KNICKS HAVE TO WIN 10 MORE TO TIE AND 11 TO AVOID IT!!!
Not easy considering that in 2 months (January and February) combined so far, THE KNICKS ONLY WON 8 GAMES, 6 GAMES IN THAT BIZZARE 6 GAME WIN STREAK, THAT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN, AND SINCE THAT LAST WIN IN THAT STREAK ON JAN 13 THE KNICKS ARE A HORRIBLE 2-17!! ALL OF THIS WITH A COACH WHO WON A CHAMPIONSHIP WITH DETROIT!!!!
The KNICKS have a longer losing streak of 10 games then they do of win streak of 6 games!!!!

So in all honesty, I can see why NEW YORK would want us, because you barely have a team. Well sorry won't happen!!! :) Have a nice evening...

P.S. NETS-KNICKS FRIDAY NIGHT!!! WE WILL WIN!!!! 16-3 RECORD OVER THE KNICKS OVER THE LAST 5 SEASONS!!!! NOT INCLUDING THE 4 WINS ON WHERE WE SWEPT THEM OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS IN 01-02 SEASON ON OUR WAY TO THE NBA CHAMPIONSHIP FINALS!!!!

H-man

February 23rd, 2006, 02:29 AM

thats not really news everyone knows the kincks are trash but the soon to be brooklyn nets are pretty damn good

pianoman11686

February 23rd, 2006, 04:40 AM

JCMAN:

Please stop with the comparison of the Knicks and Nets. It's pointless. Yes, the Nets are currently a better team. Yes, it sucks to lose a team from your area. But I'm from Jersey too, and I don't seem to mind. The Nets, as an organization, will still exist. I'll still be able to watch Kidd throw alley-oop passes to Carter on TV (when I'm home). I can still go to the games. What's to say a team has to stay in one place for the rest of eternity... especially a team like the Nets, who are not rooted in a city/state's history like the Celtics are to Boston, or the 49ers are to San Francisco? Just give it up. Stop comparing teams based on current records, because that doesn't prove anything. Stop pretending like it's some vile crime to move a team. I guarantee you the Nets will be better off as an organization in Brooklyn, they'll have more revenue from ticket sales, and they'll stay a good team for a longer time. Meanwhile, let businesspeople do their business.

Alonzo-ny

February 23rd, 2006, 08:33 AM

I think every one is getting tired of your imature rant by now

JCMAN320

February 23rd, 2006, 12:23 PM

Alonzo-ny I really don't care what anyobdy thinks of me. I got more important things to worry about. Love me or hate me doesn't matter. :)

I will be pissed if they move so I will be a disgruntuled Nets fan, but if they change the Nets name then thats it I'm jumpin ship, because they won't be the Nets anymore.

No one seems to take into account of all the great times and memorable moments that I and countless others have seen and been a part of at that Arena and all the great games that we have been too. Carter's first game as a Net, two Finals, crazy intense playoff games, Drazen Petrovic, etc... This our team and people should respect that and the history that they have here. That's one thing IF they ever do go to Brooklyn, you will NEVER be able to disassociate them from New Jersey, because being in New Jersey is the largest part of their history because they spent 30 years here so far and originated here in 1967 as the New Jersey Americans. By the way they are rooted in New Jersey's history.

I'll tell you one thing, if they ever do wind up going to Brooklyn, I will NEVER buy one piece of Brooklyn Nets, or whatever they'll be called, memorabila. I will always wear my away Nets jersey with New Jersey across it with Kidd's name and number on the back and my Nets cap with the NJ on it when I go to the games because to me they will always be New Jersey's team!

ZippyTheChimp

February 23rd, 2006, 12:52 PM

That was your last Nets post in this thread.

JCMAN320

February 23rd, 2006, 01:11 PM

Knicks are losing money too. From Daily News:

According to Forbes, the Knicks, despite the highest ticket prices in their sport, still can't make money, because of the payroll, because of the $60 million luxury-tax bill on the way. So they will lose at least $50 million this year, unless the Cablevision accountants are more creative with numbers than the Knicks are with the ball.

NYatKNIGHT

February 23rd, 2006, 01:21 PM

That has nothing to do with this thread either.

JCMAN320

February 23rd, 2006, 01:47 PM

Hey you know what fine, I'll stop with the my posts about the Nets because I respect the forum to much. But you can not stop me from posting my thoughts on this boondoogle of a project. I'm expressing my views and I don't care who likes them or doesn't.

ZippyTheChimp

February 23rd, 2006, 01:55 PM

As I told JCMAN320 in a PM, there is an open thread for the Nets.
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3108&page=19&highlight=nets

Dynamicdezzy

February 23rd, 2006, 02:01 PM

Thats not the point anymore. No one wants to silence your opinions. But this thread has gone off topic and is not constructive anymore. It has become a pissing game. Just as easily as you can keep writing, everyone hear can just as easily ignore. but thats not the point. I rarely post, I like coming on this forum to inform myself of these projects and read constructive criticism and intelligent opinions. but when you read the same thing over and over it gets annoying. I'm not only singling you out, JC, this goes for all of us. I respect ur persistance on this matter, but this topic is hurting the thread overall. It would be great if everyone put their guns away and continue discussing the topic of the "atlantic yards." Thanks.

BrooklynRider

February 24th, 2006, 10:35 AM

Appellate Court Denies Restraining Order to Stop Bklyn Demolitions
by Elizabeth Stull (court@brooklyneagle.net), published online 02-24-2006

Underberg Building May Be the First To Fall

NEW YORK — Community groups trying to stop the planned demolition of several Brooklyn buildings were thwarted again this week, when a state appellate court in Manhattan denied their motion for a temporary restraining order.
Appellate submissions in the case are due next Wednesday.

In the meantime, developer Forest City Ratner is moving forward with its demolition plans — though not as swiftly as was first reported, a spokesperson said yesterday. The Underberg Building at 608-620 Atlantic Ave. will probably be the first to go, and may come down by the middle of next week.

The Underberg Building is a pale green brick structure on the triangular plot between 5th, Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues. Rusted fire escapes outside boarded-up windows seem to provide access for colorful and prolific graffiti artists who make the building their canvas.

A dozen groups, led by Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, sued to stop Forest City Ratner from demolishing several buildings in the footprint of its proposed Atlantic Yards project. The developer has called the suit a delay tactic by opponents of the project, and said its dilapidated buildings are a public danger. The plaintiffs have said Ratner failed to complete state-mandated environmental reviews and is rushing the process to promote its massive development project.

A temporary restraining order would have prevented any demolitions until the court could hold a full hearing on the issues.

Justice Carol Edmead denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, last week. However, she also disqualified a lawyer who had represented Forest City Ratner on its project application — and then represented the state agency when it reviewed the application.

State law requires that such building demolitions be approved by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), but attorneys for Forest City Ratner reportedly argued that it did not need the agency’s permission to demolish the properties. They also reportedly said that the agency’s lawyer, David Paget, had no conflict of interest because the state environmental agency was a collaborator in the developer’s plans.

The judge disagreed. She found that the agency had the authority to approve the demolitions without further investigation, but she disqualified Paget from representing the ESDC and ordered the agency to replace him within 45 days. The ESDC has appealed from the latter part of the court’s ruling. The plaintiffs appealed from the first.

Ratner has completed asbestos abatement and received the necessary city permits. The developer has maintained that the buildings are structurally unsound and a danger to the community.

© Brooklyn Daily Eagle 2006

lofter1

February 24th, 2006, 11:19 AM

In the meantime, developer Forest City Ratner is moving forward with its demolition plans — though not as swiftly as was first reported, a spokesperson said yesterday. The Underberg Building at 608-620 Atlantic Ave. will probably be the first to go, and may come down by the middle of next week.

The Underberg Building is a pale green brick structure on the triangular plot between 5th, Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues. Rusted fire escapes outside boarded-up windows seem to provide access for colorful and prolific graffiti artists who make the building their canvas.

http://www.lightningfield.com/logphotos/0116.jpg

http://www.lightningfield.com/logphotos/0116.jpg

http://saganich.com/images/brooklyn_streets/2003-64-04-57886.jpg

http://saganich.com/images/brooklyn_streets/2003-64-04-57886.jpg

londonlawyer

February 24th, 2006, 11:33 AM

http://www.lightningfield.com/logphotos/0116.jpg

http://www.lightningfield.com/logphotos/0116.jpg

http://saganich.com/images/brooklyn_streets/2003-64-04-57886.jpg

http://saganich.com/images/brooklyn_streets/2003-64-04-57886.jpg

It is absurd for anyone to contend that these buildings are not blighted. Anyone who thinks that this crap is not blighted should be having a nervous breakdown about the demolition of the Drake, the YMCA, Shelly's and the townhouses on 56th. Those buildings are awesome in any context, but compared to this crap on Atlantic Avenue, they should be afforded the same reverence that Jews give to the Wailing Wall (i.e., unmitigated reverence) or that Muslims give to the Dome of the Rock.

MidtownGuy

February 24th, 2006, 12:09 PM

Glad to see this go.

Jack Krohn

February 24th, 2006, 04:23 PM

Why is it taking so long to demolish these buildings? On the day of the court hearing, the papers stated that demolition could begin "as early as next week", meaning the week of February 19-25. Now, word is that it could happen "as early as next week". Is Forest City Ratner just dragging its feet, or are they so confident that they'll prevail in court that they see no need to rush?

BrooklynRider

February 25th, 2006, 11:12 AM

Everyone knows my position on this project and I am anxious for these buildings to go.

BPC

February 25th, 2006, 10:56 PM

NYguy

March 3rd, 2006, 10:09 PM

brooklyn papers

RACE WAR ON YARDS

By Ariella Cohen
The Brooklyn Papers

A public meeting to discuss the Atlantic Yards project degenerated into a shouting match that reopened Brooklyn’s class and race scars.

A mild-mannered update on Bruce Ratner’s proposed $3.5-billion arena and residential project was quickly derailed when a black supporter and a white opponent fought over differing notions of the “community” that will be affected by the mega-development.

The fireworks began when panelist Candace Carponter of the anti-project group Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, told co-panelist Bertha Lewis of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now [ACORN] that DDDB supported development that would benefit the “community.”

“What community are you talking about?” Lewis fired back, telling Carponter that her group’s opposition to the project ignores her “community,” which is desperate for housing and jobs.

Lewis said ACORN cast its lot with Ratner because of the affordable housing promised by the developer, but Carponter said Lewis was ignoring the larger consequences of the project, such as environmental impacts and secondary displacement that the Frank Gehry-designed apartments and arena would create.

“It’s not necessary to build an arena to create affordable housing,” Carponter said.

But Lewis attacked Carponter for waging a theoretical battle with Ratner rather than worrying about poverty that actually exists.

“You talk about the environment,” Lewis said. “I don’t about all that. I know about housing.”

Lewis added ACORN, a housing advocacy group, could find common ground with DDDB if the anti-Ratner group would fight other area developers, too.

“There are 49 developers in central Brooklyn,” Lewis said. “Ninety-one percent of what they are building is luxury. Pick on them, and I’ll be down with you.”

Lewis said that Atlantic Yards accounts for virtually all of the 9 percent that’s not luxury housing.

Lewis is forbidden to speak negatively about the project as part of a deal between Forest City Ratner and ACORN.

That deal also required Ratner to set aside half of the Atlantic Yards’ residential units as affordable housing. But since the contract was signed, Ratner has added 2,800 market-rate condos to the plan, a change that dropped the percentage of affordable housing to 40 percent.

Lewis said she believes Ratner will raise the number of affordable units to keep the percentage at 50.

If he fails to build the required units of affordable housing, Ratner must pay $500,000 in damages to ACORN and other groups, said New York University law professor Virginia Been.

“Of course, that’s nothing for this kind of project,” said Been, who was the third, and less-explosive, member of the panel, which was sponsored by Women in Housing and Finance, a networking group for professionals who work for, and do business with, the city.

czsz

March 3rd, 2006, 10:18 PM

Did anyone see this overblown mockup on curbed?

http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006_03_atlanticyardsrendering.jpg

Eugenious

March 3rd, 2006, 10:25 PM

thats cool.....like a new manhattan

BPC

March 3rd, 2006, 11:29 PM

thats cool.....like a new manhattan

... if every building in Manhattan were designed by the same architect.

MidtownGuy

March 4th, 2006, 01:20 AM

that mock up is ridiculously misleading.

lofter1

March 4th, 2006, 01:21 AM

I like that they're all grey ;)

TLOZ Link5

March 5th, 2006, 04:55 PM

... if every building in Manhattan were designed by the same architect.

That's the one aspect of this project that I really have a problem about.

JCMAN320

March 5th, 2006, 05:10 PM

ZippyTheChimp

March 5th, 2006, 05:18 PM

It won't Manhattanize Brooklyn.

ablarc

March 5th, 2006, 05:48 PM

It won't Manhattanize Brooklyn.
If it did, Shanghai, Chicago, Singapore, Manila, Sydney and Melbourne would all have to regard themselves as Manhattanized.

Oh...and Jersey City.

antinimby

March 5th, 2006, 08:46 PM

Let's see...new buildings going up in Brooklyn and it's "Brooklyn should be Brooklyn and not Manhattan" but new buildings going up in Jersey City and it's "Yippee, JC's coming back!"

hypocrite (hip'a krit') n. a person who pretends to be what he or she is not.

NYguy

March 8th, 2006, 09:19 AM

ny post

RATNER RAZING ARENA BUILDING

http://www.nypost.com/photos/news030806002.jpg
BRUCE RATNER

By PATRICK GALLAHUE
March 8, 2006

Developer Bruce Ratner starts demolition today on the first of the buildings standing in the way of his $3.5 billion NBA arena and skyscraper complex in Brooklyn.

Officials with Ratner's Forest City Ratner Companies said Gateway Demolition would raze the decrepit, four-story Underberg Building on Atlantic Avenue, which earned a prominent spot in Jonathan Lethem's ac- claimed Brooklyn memoir, "Fortress of Solitude."

The building, a former food-supplies store, is one of six that Ratner has targeted for demolition, claiming they are so dilapidated that they're a public hazard.

Opponents of Ratner's Atlantic Yards project sued to block the demolition, but a judge tossed out the suit.

They are appealing the decision, but most agreed the Underberg was in the worst condition of any of the buildings slated for demolition. Still, Candace Carponter, a spokeswoman for the opponents, complained, "We never got inside so we couldn't tell."

Gateway Demolition will start dismantling the Underberg by hand and it should take several weeks to bring the entire structure down.

Ratner paid Gateway $1.3 million to tear down the Underberg and several other buildings in the area.

MidtownGuy

March 8th, 2006, 12:58 PM

This will be great for Brooklyn. Many of us love Brooklyn and become nervous at the thought of change. This won't change Brooklyn for the worse, it's just a few blocks and Brooklyn is so huge. It will make downtown even more dynamic and bring business to all the surrounding area. The arena will be awesome- Brooklyn and basketball is a match made in heaven.

Bring it on!

NYguy

March 9th, 2006, 09:54 AM

ny times

The First Sign of a Brooklyn Development Is a Demolition

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/03/09/nyregion/09demolish.650.jpg

At the intersection of Flatbush, Atlantic and Fifth Avenues in Brooklyn, the Underberg Building begins to be taken down, brick by brick.

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
March 9, 2006

The first visible change to the site of the proposed $3.5 billion Atlantic Yards development near Downtown Brooklyn crept into view yesterday as workers began dismantling, brick by brick, a dilapidated four-story building on Atlantic Avenue.

The property, the Underberg Building, is one of six that the developer, Forest City Ratner Companies, planned to demolish in December, after an engineer hired by the company concluded that the buildings were in imminent danger of collapse.

State law forbids developers to physically alter the site of any proposed project until it has been officially approved, but makes an exception for "emergency actions" to guard public safety.

The Underberg Building, named for the food supply company that occupied it years ago, sits on a roughly triangular plot of land at the intersection with Flatbush Avenue. The developer hopes it will one day become a small public plaza within his 22-acre residential and commercial real estate venture, which includes a basketball arena.

The Empire State Development Corporation, the state agency overseeing the project, approved the demolitions in December, but opponents are hoping to block any future demolitions in court.

Technically, however, the demolitions have no bearing on the development's prospects for state approval, a fact opponents stressed yesterday.

In a statement, one opponent, Daniel Goldstein, a spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, noted that the state review had "barely begun" and that the "community's fight to determine its future landscape and well-being is stronger than ever."

Forest City Ratner officials, meanwhile, reiterated that the demolitions were intended strictly to alleviate a threat to public safety.

"We're trying to do the responsible thing at a cost to us," said Bruce Bender, Forest City Ratner's executive vice president, at the site yesterday.

He said the company was paying about $1.3 million to take down the Underberg Building and several other buildings. Forest City Ratner is the development partner in building a new Midtown headquarters for The New York Times Company.

Behind the scenes, the two sides remain locked in a legal battle over the demolitions, a reflection of opponents' fear that razing the buildings will provide at least the appearance of momentum for the project.

In January, opponents asked a state judge to block the demolitions on the ground that the state agency had never asked for an independent review of the buildings' stability. The judge ruled last month that the developer could proceed.

Opponents have appealed the decision. Last week, an appellate judge declined to issue a stay against the developer in advance of a full hearing scheduled for later this month.

City Councilwoman Letitia James, who last month joined the lawsuit against the developer, yesterday issued a statement saying that the demolition "is meant to create the illusion of progress, but in fact, the project is months if not years behind schedule, incredibly over budget and already tied up in a lengthy, costly court battle."

The demolition itself, however, was an anticlimactic affair. No protesters greeted workers for Gateway Demolition when they arrived at 608-620 Atlantic Avenue, which once housed Samuel Underberg's supply store, memorably captured in the 2003 best seller "The Fortress of Solitude," by the Brooklyn novelist Jonathan Lethem.

The workers themselves spent most of the morning erecting a protective plywood barrier around the building's perimeter. By lunch, they had posted copies of more than a dozen abatement and demolition permits sealed in plastic, and were beginning to take apart the floors inside the building.

The wrecking ball will probably remain a proverbial one.

Joe DePlasco, a spokesman for Forest City Ratner, said workers would dismantle the building by hand, a process that would probably take weeks.

Jack Krohn

March 13th, 2006, 09:16 AM

Well, it’s been nearly a month since the boycott of Brooklyn Brewery began and all signs indicate that it’s been one big flop. The brewery’s products are still being sold at Soda and Beast, as well as in bars and restaurants all over Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Williamsburg, and Manhattan. They’re also available in dozens of neighborhood grocery stores and bodegas. Even Freddy’s, located in the footprint and arguably the staunchest Ratner opponent, still sells them. The front page of this week’s Brooklyn paper carries an article with Steve Hindy, the brewery’s owner, clearly and without apology declaring his support for the Atlantic Yards. It seems the only thing that the boycott has accomplished is to get the brewery's brewmaster, Garrett Oliver, in trouble with his boss.

I’d love to see Fans for Fair Play, the boycott’s initiator, provide us with a list of establishments that have agreed to stop carrying Brooklyn Brewery’s products. I’m sure it’s a short list, if it exists at all.

NYguy

March 13th, 2006, 11:06 AM

ny post

RAPPERS SHOOT FOR 'NET' GAINS

http://www.nypost.com/photos/news03132006015.jpg

JAY-Z
Announces winner today.

By PATRICK GALLAHUE
March 13, 2006

Rapper Jay-Z will pick a winner today in the contest to determine a new hip-hop anthem for his could-be-Brooklyn-bound New Jersey Nets.

And judging by the number of contestants who cast their lot in the challenge, there is no shortage of local talent desperate for a chance at stardom on the basketball court's loudspeakers.

Roughly 600 rapper wannabes submitted their entries for a theme song for the team. Hip-hop/radio station HOT 97 FM and the Nets have screened each song and selected the top three.

So today, Jay-Z, the hip-hop mogul who is part-owner of the Nets, will pick a winner, whose name will be announced on the radio station.

"The Nets are a hot team and we're looking for a song to match the intensity of the players and the game experience," the Brooklyn-born rapper said when announcing the contest.

The investment team that owns the Nets hopes to move the team to Brooklyn by 2010. The principal owner of the team, Bruce Ratner, is still working on obtaining public approval on the arena, which is expected to be surrounded by 17 skyscrapers in a $3.5 billion commercial and residential development.

Kris

April 1st, 2006, 04:54 AM

April 1, 2006
Arena Complex Shrinks by 5% in Latest Plan
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

The developer of Brooklyn's biggest real estate project in recent history announced yesterday that it would reduce its size, granting some concessions to critics who have said that it would overwhelm the surrounding neighborhood.

Also yesterday, the Empire State Development Corporation, the state agency shepherding the project through its legal review, announced which geographic areas it would include in its study of the impact of the project, the Atlantic Yards, and agreed to study the effect that alternate proposals would have on the area.

Both developments are likely to have a substantial impact on what has already been a raucous and lengthy public discussion of the project, in essence defining the terms of future debates over an arena and a residential and office development that will greatly affect traffic, public services, and the demographics of a diverse and rapidly changing area in the heart of Brooklyn.

James P. Stuckey, an executive vice president of Forest City Ratner, the project's developer, said in a statement, "We believe there have been significant improvements in the overall design and feel of the project." The new plan, he said, "allows for more open space, narrows the scale of the buildings and reduces overall bulk and density, but it also gives us the flexibility to maintain our commitment to affordable housing."

The maximum size of the project would be cut by 475,000 square feet, down to about 8.7 million square feet, with most of the reduction coming from the elimination of some 440 market-rate condominium units. The number of floors in the project's 16 buildings would be reduced by about 23, although five of the buildings would be taller than earlier plans called for. The arena would remain the same size, and the development would still include 4,500 rental apartments, half of them going for less than market rates.

In a significant victory for critics of the project, the development corporation agreed to analyze three alternative proposals — including one from a rival developer, Extell Corporation — for developing the area, each of them with significantly lower density than the Forest City Ratner plan. However, the mayor and governor have already committed to the Forest City Ratner plan, and most Brooklyn officials are supporting it.

Forest City Ratner is also the development partner in building a new Midtown headquarters for The New York Times Company.

The development corporation also agreed to expand the main geographic area under study out to half a mile from the proposed project site, from the current quarter-mile, and increased from 65 to 93 the number of intersections where the traffic impact will be examined.

But the changes are unlikely to mollify the project's harshest critics. By any measure, the project remains imposing, featuring tall residential towers that will soar over the surrounding neighborhoods and reshape the Brooklyn skyline. The height of the project's two largest towers, including a 620-foot building that will sit near the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, remain virtually unchanged. Critics also noted that the project is still nearly half a million square feet larger than it was when Forest City Ratner unveiled preliminary plans in 2003.

"The whole thing is still bigger than it was when it was announced," said Daniel Goldstein, the spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, which favors an alternate development plan. "When it comes to the scale and density, all the reasons we oppose it still exist. The eminent domain is wrong, the arena is wrong, the cost is wrong, and the impact on the community is wrong."

But Marty Markowitz, the Brooklyn borough president and the leading booster of the project, pronounced himself "delighted" by the revised plans.

"It's an important step forward, and it's obvious to me that the developer and the state have heard the voices of those in the state who have expressed their concerns," he said.

Mr. Markowitz, who had previously urged Forest City Ratner to reduce the scale of the buildings, would not yet say whether he believed the project had shrunk enough.

In the document released yesterday, known as a final scope of analysis, the development corporation also dismissed suggestions — submitted during a six-week public comment period last fall — that it consider a host of other subsidiary issues, including the project's long-term financial viability. Those issues, it said, were not subject to review under state environmental law.

The scoping document "appears to have some problems remaining in it," said Christopher Jones, vice president for research of the Regional Plan Association. Mr. Jones noted that the development corporation would not consider the project's environmental impact beyond 2016, when it will be completed. Some experts believe that the surrounding neighborhoods, including downtown Brooklyn, are likely to see significant other development in subsequent years, compounding any effect.

"The real test is how these issues are analyzed — what data they use, what methodologies they use, which you can't tell from the scope," Mr. Jones said.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

ablarc

April 1st, 2006, 09:47 AM

Here's a phenomenon every architect knows: when a project gets worked over often enough it loses its edge, like a pencil drawing with too many erasures. Once that happens, nothing will bring it back from brown mediocrity.

NoyokA

April 1st, 2006, 04:37 PM

BRUCE: I WILL BUILD ARENA

By Lucky Ngamwajasat
The Brooklyn Papers

Despite months of delays and false starts in realizing his vision of building a Brooklyn arena for his New Jersey Nets, Bruce Ratner remains convinced that everything is going according to plan.

“These things do get delayed, [but] I have a very a good track record of getting things done,” Ratner told The Brooklyn Papers and other reporters before a Nets game at the Meadowlands last week.

“You look at the kind of development [Forest City Ratner Company] does, almost everything winds up taking longer than we anticipate. This is how it is … Normally, there wouldn’t be a matter of great consequence [but] here everybody [is] watching, asking questions … So it’s not unexpected from my point of view.”

Ratner originally predicted that the Frank Gehry-designed arena — at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic avenues in Downtown Brooklyn — would be finished in time for the 2007 season.

Now he says it will be finished for 2009. As a result, the Nets are negotiating with New Jersey to extend their lease, which runs through next season, at the Meadowlands.

Ratner’s company has said in court papers that it loses $4 million every month his Atlantic Yards mega-development — of which the Nets arena is a small part — is delayed. Opponents have kept Ratner’s lawyers busy, first objecting to plans to begin demolition of some old buildings on the Atlantic Yards project site as well as the state’s use of an environmental lawyer who was on Ratner’s payroll.

The lawyer, David Paget, was ordered off the case (see story on page 6), but the demolition of the buildings is proceeding. Ratner’s Atlantic Yards has not been approved by the state.

“It’s fair to say when we get to Brooklyn, it’s going to be the moment this franchise has been waiting for probably since it got into NBA,” said Nets CEO Brent Yormack. “Everyone that works for this team realizes that, we believe it and we’re betting on it.”

The National Basketball Association takes a very dim view of gambling.

ablarc

April 1st, 2006, 05:20 PM

The National Basketball Association takes a very dim view of gambling.

What a silly closing line. Do we need this kind of journalism?

Author couldn't find any real bad news in events as reported, so there's this witless little fit of schadenfreude over a situation that isn't even real.

alibrot

April 1st, 2006, 05:39 PM

Why can't Brooklyn be Brooklyn, why do you want it to be another Manhattan? Anyone ever head of individuality? I mean Brooklyn is not Manhattan, it never was intended to be like that. I just don't get why Manhattanize Brooklyn when it's clear the people in the area don't want that. For the most part soem of them left Manhattan just to get away from that, no they are going to have thier homes destoryed and have this ugly block of buildings go up and cast a shadow over their neighborhood. It's just unfortunate if this does happen.

intended? you must mean the way god intended brooklyn to be. brooklyn has so many areas, so many cultures, and is so much bigger than the relatively small development area. but i think i may feel sorry for all the people who left manhattan to live on railroad tracks will now lose their homes.

lofter1

April 1st, 2006, 07:33 PM

What a silly closing line. Do we need this kind of journalism?

That's not journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism) ... it's a bold faced lie (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nba+betting). The NBA would crumble (http://www.madduxsports.com/nba-basketball-betting.html) if there was a crack down on betting (http://probasketball.about.com/od/gambling/).

BrooklynRider

April 3rd, 2006, 04:04 PM

“You look at the kind of development [Forest City Ratner Company] does, almost everything winds up taking longer than we anticipate. This is how it is … Normally, there wouldn’t be a matter of great consequence [but] here everybody [is] watching, asking questions …

Hey Bruce,

How's that Atlantic Terminal coming? Under construction for 5-plus years and still NO WHERE NEAR COMPLETION. Chck E. Cheese is up and running, but the LIRR entrance (a.k.a. PUBLIC AMENITIES) seem to be after-thoughts not worthy of any expediting.

bkmonkey

April 4th, 2006, 08:38 PM

Hey Bruce,

How's that Atlantic Terminal coming? Under construction for 5-plus years and still NO WHERE NEAR COMPLETION. Chck E. Cheese is up and running, but the LIRR entrance (a.k.a. PUBLIC AMENITIES) seem to be after-thoughts not worthy of any expediting.

Yes but this is a silly critisism.. The MTA is responsible for the entrance, and the entrance was advertized long before the Atlantic Terminal Mall was. I saw a flyer for it in 2002. The MTA is dragging its feet, as usual.

NoyokA

April 5th, 2006, 02:34 AM

Metropolis Magazine:

Gehryland, USA
APRIL 5, 2006
By Christopher Hawthorne

It is surely a sign of America's current state of philosophical eclecticism — or maybe just our deep confusion — that the architectural news in this country has been dominated in recent months by two contradictory developments: the success of the New Urbanists in helping shape the post-Katrina reconstruction and the stunning revival elsewhere of the megaproject.

Since the floodwaters receded, Andrés Duany, Peter Calthorpe, and others have been charretting much of the Gulf Coast into submission, preaching the gospel of walkable neighborhoods and transit-oriented development (and front porches). The more fascinating story, frankly, is taking shape on the other side of the cultural divide, in the territory where Robert Moses and Le Corbusier once tread. In each of the two biggest cities in the country, Frank Gehry has been handed a commission whose size and scope would lead both of those men to sit up and take notice.

In Los Angeles it is the entire first phase of the $1.8 billion redevelopment along Grand Avenue for the New York-based Related Companies, replacing a bunch of — what else? — parking lots across the street from Gehry's Walt Disney Concert Hall. In Brooklyn it is a $3.5 billion Atlantic Yards project for developer Bruce Ratner's Forest City Ratner Companies, which will include not just the 18,000-seat arena for the NBA's Nets but also more than a dozen different buildings, the tallest of which tops out at about 60 stories. Both projects will be helped along by a substantial public subsidy.

More than four decades after the revelatory appearance of Jane Jacobs's The Death and Life of Great American Cities, two of the greatest have charged ahead with a gargantuan building effort, thick with skyscrapers designed by a single architect. You might think of them as outposts of a new theme-park approach to architecture and development: Gehryland Brooklyn and Gehryland L.A.

Each of these jobs is so ambitiously large that it's hard to think of a true precedent. Rockefeller Center was designed by a diverse, competitive, and rotating cast of design talent, led by not only Raymond Hood but also Wallace Harrison, Donald Deskey, and others. Oscar Niemeyer's Brasília was a classic tabula rasa, with neither an existing landmark nor a vocal neighborhood group within 200 miles. The college campuses handed over to single architects — such as Principia College, in Illinois, designed by Bernard Maybeck — tend to be isolated cocoons. The World Trade Center had a single chief architect, yes, and 10.5 million square feet of office space, but it didn't carry with it the expectations of celebrity architecture and cultural revival: it was a big, dumb commercial development, period.

The source of this windfall for Gehry is complex. It is a product of starchitecture celebrity and developer hubris (and anxiety). There is also the peculiar kind of envy unique to the relationship between cities: Does L.A. want to be New York? Does Brooklyn want to be Manhattan? In the latter case the emotional stakes are raised by the fact that the project revolves around the relocation of the Nets from New Jersey to Brooklyn — a small cosmic payback for the loss of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the razing of Ebbets Field almost 50 years ago, but a significant one nonetheless.

Indeed in both cases Gehry's brief is essentially to give a sense of primacy to places that have lacked it. Brooklyn has leaned on Manhattan, architecturally speaking, since the boroughs were brought together into one city. Downtown Los Angeles — we've been told again and again, often by writers from New York — has been a concrete paradox, the center of the world's first centerless metropolis. These projects loom larger, in other words, than even their sheer size would indicate.

There is also the singularity of Gehry himself. He is an architect who a) has Bilbao and now Disney Hall tucked under his belt; b) has transformed his office, with the help of largely faceless partners Edwin Chan and Craig Webb and others, into a streamlined, dependable icon-emitting machine; and c) is not a severe Prada-wearing egotist but rather a kind of rumpled genius with a talent for self-effacement and a knack for speaking the developers' bluntly monosyllabic language. None of his celebrity-architect competitors can match him in all three of those categories.

Gehry's complexity, at least viewed through the prism of his triumph in Bilbao, clearly makes him attractive to people like Ratner and Stephen Ross, who leads Related. He can be a tough negotiator — check out the deals he struck with Related and Forest City Ratner if you have any doubt about that, particularly the lack of a supporting architect of record on either project — but he is also so marked by self-doubt and the residue of therapy that he practically carries a couch around with him. In the new documentary Sketches of Frank Gehry, by the architect's longtime friend Sydney Pollack, the most prominent figure after the director and the subject is Gehry's psychiatrist. "I'm very insecure about it," he told a Columbia University audience last fall, referring to the Atlantic Yards design. "It keeps me awake at night."

Ratner and Ross have both won praise for "daring" to embrace cutting-edge architecture. But their decision was based more on an odd mixture of ambition, desperation, and conservatism. The latter characteristic is especially interesting when you consider that both projects came close to including other architects. The Grand Avenue plans feature a pair of prominent towers in its first phase, and it was long assumed that the shorter of the two would be designed by a young architect with close ties to Gehry — probably Michael Maltzan or the firm Daly, Genik Architects.In Brooklyn, Gehry says Ratner has nixed his pleas to throw a few bones to another smaller firm.

So it has been odd, to say the least, to hear Gehry describe his efforts to lend each project some visual diversity by mixing up the finishes, the scale, and the architectural forms. Wouldn't it have been easier — and more fun, at least for us critics — to achieve that diversity in a less forced manner, allowing Maltzan in L.A. and some other young architect in New York to take part? That cross-generational discussion would have been fascinating. In L.A., given the way Gehry dominates the local architecture scene, it might have been downright Oedipal.

In the end, the most fascinating issue is how you sell a megaproject to the public, the city, and the press in the post-Jane Jacobs era. This has been an especially tricky proposition in Brooklyn, where neighborhood opposition has been fierce and even Gehry has said he has tried to convince Ratner to lop off some of the plan's square footage.

Indeed the preliminary designs for each project suggest not a complete amnesia about the lessons Jacobs taught but an odd urban-planning hybrid for an age philosophically large and forgiving enough to accommodate Rem Koolhaas and Andrés Duany, the Mini Cooper, and the stretch Hummer. In Brooklyn as in L.A., Gehry talks about balancing foreground modesty against background bulk, about making the sidewalk scale feel humane and welcoming while cramming in all those millions of square feet in towers pushed to the far corners of the site. On Grand Avenue the shopping pavilions between the two towers will be the size of McMansions. The goal in both projects is to mimic a kind of organic urban growth.

Gehry, who began his career in the office of planner Victor Gruen, has always felt he is a more subtle and thoughtful urbanist than people give him credit for. But when you harp on the details of the sidewalks in a project of several million square feet, you can never quite convince people that you aren't engaged in a sort of architectural bait and switch, selling modest scale and delivering architectural bulk. A battleship is a battleship, no matter how cozy some of the staterooms happen to be.

This is when Gehry's angst and self-doubt become most valuable, as a public-relations and marketing tool, and also when you begin to realize just how perfect a choice he was for these two developers, if not for the project and the cities themselves. When Gehry shows the models for the Atlantic Yards to a community group or a reporter, there might come a moment when he imperceptibly readies his hand atop one of the residential towers, back by the intersection of Vanderbilt Avenue and Dean Street. Then just as he is saying that what he really wants to do is convince the client to make the design more modest in scale, he pulls that part of the model off with a dramatic flourish, magically providing light and air to the miniature Brooklynites walking on one of the model's interior paths. He holds that chunk of tower in his hand and says he's worried, he's concerned, if you ask him the whole thing ought to be smaller, it would just work better that way. And somewhere, as his handpicked architect gets to the end of this tremendously effective monologue, Ratner smiles.