Proposed: Atlantic Yards Development - Commercial, Residential, Retail, NBA Arena [Archive] - Page 7

lofter1

June 21st, 2006, 01:59 AM

Atlantic Yards can’t ‘work’

Municipal Art Society rejects Ratner’s current design

By Gersh Kuntzman
The Brooklyn Papers
June 16, 2006

http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol29/29_24/29_24nets7.html

One of the city’s most-respected urban planning organizations weighed in on Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards this week, saying the project simply “won’t work” for Brooklyn.

Municipal Art Society President Kent Barwick offered that assessment before a packed house of 500 people at the Hanson Place Central United Methodist Church — a mildly stinging rejection of Ratner’s 17-skyscraper, 8.7-million-square-foot arena and commercial development in low-rise Prospect Heights.

“I know the headline writers want something stronger, but we’ve reached the conclusion that it does not work,” Barwick said. “That doesn’t mean that it could not work, but as currently designed, it does not.”

Barwick said the Society assessed Atlantic Yards using five “design criteria”: does it “respect the existing neighborhoods”; does it “eliminate streets”; does it “create a real public park”; does it “promote lively streets”; and does it “choke” traffic.

By those criteria, Atlantic Yards earned a score of 1 out of 4, according to architect and planner John West, who gave the Society’s PowerPoint presentation at Thursday night’s forum.

Some community members complained that by evaluating Atlantic Yards, the Society was essentially saying that its construction was a done deal.

But West’s presentation began ominously — showing that Atlantic Yards’ 8.7 million square feet is the equivalent of “three Empire State Buildings, 23 Williamsburgh Savings Bank buildings, or 2,200 brownstones — which is roughly the entire population of Prospect Heights.”

There was an audible gasp when he made the comparison.

West said the first step towards “respecting the neighborhoods” would be for Ratner to redesign Atlantic Yards so its skyscrapers do not “block the clock” — the celebrated four-sided timepiece atop the Williamburgh Bank building near the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues.

Currently, Ratner’s plan (http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol29/29_21/slideshow.php) calls for a 62-story building — nicknamed “Miss Brooklyn” by its architect Frank Gehry — at that intersection.

West said the building could exist at the corner — and not “block the clock” — if the Gehry-designed basketball arena was shifted to the east and Miss Brooklyn set back further from the intersection.

Secondly, West called for Ratner to not close off some streets, such as Fifth Avenue between Flatbush and Atlantic avenues (which would be center court) and Pacific Street between Carlton and Vanderbilt Avenues — a demapping that Ratner says is essential for the creation of his project’s seven acres of green space.

Perhaps, but West also assailed that “public” park as not public at all.

“Parks need to be bordered by streets, not surrounded by buildings,” he said, likening the Ratner design to the central green space of Stuyvesant Town, a Manhattan development where large residential buildings inhibit, rather than encourage, public use of the “park.”

West did say that Ratner was making positive strides towards creating a lively streetscape. Near the arena, for example, the Gehry designs show cafes, stores and other businesses that encourage pedestrian traffic.

But West cautioned that designs don’t always equal reality, showing a photo of Ratner’s Atlantic Center Mall, which does not even have windows or doors on the Fort Greene side.

On his last point — traffic — West just sighed and said that the car-clogged intersection may simply not be able to handle any new development.

Forest City Ratner Vice President James Stuckey — who attended West’s press preview, but did not stick around for the community forum — said he appreciated the Municipal Art Society presentation.

“We are in full agreement with three of their five design principals right off the bat,” Stuckey said. “Our open space will be public and the streets will be lively. This is not a project for big box retail.”

Stuckey also promised that there would be some “groundbreaking ideas” for improving traffic through the project zone in the forthcoming Environmental Impact Statement.

“It is absolutely vital for us,” he said. “We agree [with the Municipal Art Society] on the need for a transportation plan that works.”

He also said that demapping Pacific Street between Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues was essential for landscape architect Laurie Olin’s greenspace design.

“If we take out that one street, we can design a park that will save 1.8 million gallons of water a year,” Stuckey said, referring to Olin’s retaining ponds.

“If Pacific Street remains open, that’s 1.8 million gallons a year going into the Gowanus Canal.”

Overall, Stuckey disagreed that the project does not “work” for Brooklyn.

“The Society said there were five design principals and that they can’t simply be reduced to a magic number of density,” he said. “But the Society also has the advantage of not having to look at the economics of the project. We have $1 billion in site costs. And it will take $50 million for environmental remediation of the [open space] site.”

Opponents of the project cheered the Society’s overall conclusion, but were not ready to concede the main point: that Atlantic Yards is “the” plan.

“My problem is with the Society’s world view,” said Daniel Goldstein, a spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn. “We don’t think that because Forest City Ratner has proposed something, it should be the framework for starting a conversation about what’s best for the area. This plan can still be rejected and a better one created.”

Citytect

June 21st, 2006, 03:25 AM

Very thoughtful commentary from the Society.

The "don't block the clock" principle isn't too important to me, but the rest of the criticism should be weighed seriously.

In my opinion the portion of the plan to the west of 6th Avenue is acceptable. Everything east of 6th needs to be rethought, and the parkland should be more public.

TonyO

June 21st, 2006, 08:43 AM

Interesting point on the public park comparison to Stuyvesant Town. I agree that having the park more accessible is key.

Otherwise this resorts to pandering to the nimbys. "Don't block the clock"? That is very weak for one of the most-respected urban planning organizations. The comparisons to 3 ESB's is just disingenuous. The footprint is not even remotely similar, nor the access to transit (AY has much more).

BPC

June 22nd, 2006, 12:57 AM

In your teeny-tiny apartment, are you oppressed by tall, ugly buildings? ;)

No, my own building is 26 stories high. But BPC is a (relatively) high-rise neighborhood adjoining an even higher rise office district. But the so-called "Brooklyn Renaissance" has been driven by persons who appreciate the low-rise atmosphere, NOT by Bruce Ratner. Why try to turn the place into Manhattan?

NoyokA

June 22nd, 2006, 01:40 AM

No, my own building is 26 stories high. But BPC is a (relatively) high-rise neighborhood adjoining an even higher rise office district. But the so-called "Brooklyn Renaissance" has been driven by persons who appreciate the low-rise atmosphere, NOT by Bruce Ratner. Why try to turn the place into Manhattan?

Believe it or not Brooklyn has historically been trying to establish itself by trying to emulate Manhattan or to exceed that by trying to top Manhattan. No point in Brooklyn’s history has it aimed to be second to Manhattan. The argument made by some that Brooklyn should be second to Manhattan is not only selfish and unhealthy but it is historically unfounded and detrimental to any city’s health. Brooklyn has always seen itself as more as a city than as a borough and no city aspires to be second to any other.

Why try to turn the place into Manhattan? The better question is why not to try to turn the place into Manhattan? Is Manhattan, NYC, not the greatest city in the world? We should aspire to greatness; Brooklyn should not be encouraged to stagnate. Will Brooklyn turn into Manhattan, impossible, it is it’s own entity; the factors that created Manhattan cannot be recreated here, evident by the fact that nothing in the world is “like” Manhattan. Brooklyn should aspire to greatness, Manhattan greatness, and everything that goes along with it, skyscrapers, parks, and areas of congregation, stadiums, and density. Manhattan is great. That said Manhattan should not be in the Brooklyn language, as it will never be Manhattan, but greatness should be.

antinimby

June 22nd, 2006, 04:58 AM

Couldn't be more true.
Very well said, Stern. :clap: :clap:

ablarc

June 22nd, 2006, 07:32 AM

well said, Stern.
Finally, a little common sense.

krulltime

June 22nd, 2006, 11:08 AM

It makes total sense! Word up!

BPC

June 22nd, 2006, 12:19 PM

Why try to turn the place into Manhattan? The better question is why not to try to turn the place into Manhattan? Is Manhattan, NYC, not the greatest city in the world? We should aspire to greatness; Brooklyn should not be encouraged to stagnate. Will Brooklyn turn into Manhattan, impossible, it is it’s own entity; the factors that created Manhattan cannot be recreated here, evident by the fact that nothing in the world is “like” Manhattan. Brooklyn should aspire to greatness, Manhattan greatness, and everything that goes along with it, skyscrapers, parks, and areas of congregation, stadiums, and density. Manhattan is great. That said Manhattan should not be in the Brooklyn language, as it will never be Manhattan, but greatness should be.

Interesting logic. You know, Las Vegas is a pretty great place too. Millions of persons visit it from all over the world! So why not recreate the Strip right down Flatbush Avenue? It would be less tacky than those Gehry/Ratner concoctions.

BrooklynRider

June 22nd, 2006, 12:23 PM

Much of the stagnation in Brooklyn can be laid at the footsteps of City Hall. Brooklyn has always desired growth, increased investment and more vibrant and appealing business district. Manhattan-centric City Hall has been dictatorial in its planning. Brooklynites are very, very pro-development. There have never been issues as to whether to develop or not, but rather what should be developed. With the exception of truly anti-development group of elitists in Brooklyn Heights who do not want to see anything exceeding 10-stories in the borough, the majority of Brooklynites supported the downtown rezoning (Atlantic Yards falls outside those zoning boubdaries). That zoning called for very substantial height increases, increased density, improved infrastructure and every manner of development. Brooklynites supported the expansion of the BAM cultural district. They support the Brooklyn Bridge Park, but oppose the construction of luxury condos on parkland.

The difference between Manhattan and Brooklyn is attitude. Brooklyn is about neighborhoods and there is a coalescence around issues that affect neighborhoods. This is not to say that neighborhoods don't exist in Manhattan, but a person living in a high-rise building in Manhattan generally knows fewer neighbors than a person living in a Brownstone neighborhood of Brooklyn. It is not any lack of visions of grandeur on the part of Brooklynites, just a difference of opinion as to what makes Brooklyn great compared to New York. There are distinct differences between Brooklyn and Manhattan. Distinctions that are as clear and different as the way a New Yorker lives versus the people in Alabama.

Broolynites are not adverse to change or compromise. In Park Slope, the neighborhood roundly supported the upzoning on Fourth Avenue. On the other hand, they vigorously opposed the design of a Commerce Bank building during its development stages. Didt hey work to kill the project? No. They appealed to the bank for dialogue and extracted a compromise design that kept the building and the property layout more in tune with the neighborhood.

In Coney Island, Thor Equities is proposing a large-scale luxury hotel with "amusement theming." Brooklynites are pretty much opposed to this development. Are they opposed to the hotel? No. They are opposed to the construction of a hotel in the amusement zone. Would they oppose the hotel a block north or west of the amusement zone? No. They support development and would work hard to help get a project like that to come to fruition. Others wold have Brooklyn accept ANYTHING simply because it is SOMETHING. Brooklynites are a lot more patient that Manhattanites. I think Manhattanites are quick to decribe something as blight and Brooklyn is more willing to live with an empty lot or run down building until the appropriate thing comes along.

There are definitely feelings that Brooklyn should do great things and we already believe it is a great place - certainly a better place to live than Manhattan. The vision for greatness here is just different than Manhattan. Manhattan is its own great thing. Brooklyn isn't Manhattan and I think the people of the borough will dig in to keep it from becoming Manhattan-lite.

Downtown has been rezoned. Let's see what happens with that.

ZippyTheChimp

June 22nd, 2006, 12:57 PM

Interesting logic. You know, Las Vegas is a pretty great place too. Millions of persons visit it from all over the world! So why not recreate the Strip right down Flatbush Avenue? It would be less tacky than those Gehry/Ratner concoctions.
Straw Man.

TREPYE

June 22nd, 2006, 01:13 PM

I think Manhattanites are quick to decribe something as blight and Brooklyn is more willing to live with an empty lot or run down building until the appropriate thing comes along.

So what is "appropriate" for a pit in the ground like the Atlantic rail yards?? How long are you willing to wait? Until the development boom is over and we get stuck with those beautiful rail yards for another 30 years.

Fact of the matter is that Ratner is coming up with something a lot better than most developers would bring to the table. He does have to change some aspects of it -such as that semi-private park on top of the arena and perhaps shortening Miss Brooklyn- but overall I would rather this get developed than end up with nothing at all for 30+ years or end up with somebody like SOM designing glass rectangles.

ablarc

June 22nd, 2006, 02:12 PM

So what is "appropriate" for a pit in the ground like the Atlantic rail yards?? How long are you willing to wait? Until the development boom is over and we get stuck with those beautiful rail yards for another 30 years.

Fact of the matter is that Ratner is coming up with something a lot better than most developers would bring to the table.
If nothing short of perfection is acceptable, the ideal becomes the enemy of the possible.

BPC

June 23rd, 2006, 12:24 AM

Straw Man.

No, an example designed to illustrate a point -- there are different kinds of greatness. Brooklynites are not wrong to oppose someone else's idea of the concept imposed upon them.

BrooklynRider

June 23rd, 2006, 12:46 AM

If nothing short of perfection is acceptable, the ideal becomes the enemy of the possible.

I don't think anyone is looking for "perfect," but neither are they willing to sit back and watch one greedy developer, with a track record for building ugly, low-end buildings, come to the public trough repeatedly for his "private developments and steamroll over a community. Everytime Stuckey from FCRC opens his mouth to react to the criticism, it is almost always prefaced with a statement about the $1.2B investment and the economics of the project. They continually drive this point, while ignoring the fact that the public is investing in the project as well with substantial infrastructure improvements and giving Ratner the tax proceeds for "reinvestment."

You can argue that this is better than "nothing" for the next 30 years. I would argue that if it isn't built "right" we are better with nothing. Ratners Atlantic Center was supposed to be the big revitalized for that intersection as well. It wasn't. Atlantic Terminal is STILL incomplete. Metrotech is sterile and abandoned during off hours. From where does everyone draw their unbounded support and from what do they conclud that this guy is capable of delivering on anything. His projects are value engineered to crap - every last one of them. And that is value engineering on already crappy designs.

Also, no one is addressing his slipshod approach to demo and the contiuous streak of breaking laws in his rush to demolish buildings suddenly deemed "dangerous," when only a year ago they were inhabited - some continually for nearly a century. He's behaving like a thug.

The size of this site is huge and the biggest problem is that this is not a project of ego, like Rockefeller Center. There is no grand, inspiring vision to be built whatever the cost. What we are getting is a project wholly dictated by number crunchers. I know people disagree, but other than "Miss Brooklyn" and the arena, we are getting an updated Starrett City as a welcome mat and centerpiece for Brooklyn. It's abysmal.

ZippyTheChimp

June 23rd, 2006, 01:18 AM

No, an example designed to illustrate a point

You quoted a post, and refuted it by example.

Straw Man ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted

The central point of Stern's post is:
Brooklyn has always seen itself as more as a city than as a borough and no city aspires to be second to any other.
You cited as example, Las Vegas, as alien to New York as it gets. Maybe Brooklyn should aspire to be more like Boston; it's 50 percent larger, and has 4 times the population.

I could understand opposition to this project based on the architecture, but the people of Brooklyn (whoever that encompasses) have been against it from the begiinning based on scale, given the awful (but low rise) project they endorsed.

I guess we should not fully develop the city's fouth largest transport hub, and pretend, as Jonathan Lethem does, that it is W4th St in the Village.

TREPYE

June 23rd, 2006, 03:55 AM

You can argue that this is better than "nothing" for the next 30 years. I would argue that if it isn't built "right" we are better with nothing. Ratners Atlantic Center was supposed to be the big revitalized for that intersection as well. It wasn't. Atlantic Terminal is STILL incomplete. And that is value engineering on already crappy designs.
That is a very selfish way of looking at it. As if it were a: "Its ether my way or nothing else" kinda way to go about things. Fact of the matter is that the area is defunct now and for you to say that you are willing to settle for it to be defunct for another 30 yrs is not very considerate for Brooklyn's best interest.

Yes the Atlantic center suxed big time but I see this as a formidable complement to that mistake. Hire an artist like Gehry (not a mere yes man simpleton architect like David Childs) to design original asymmetrical towers that resemble sculptures to give the area some flair.

we are getting an updated Starrett City as a welcome mat and centerpiece for Brooklyn. It's abysmal.

PLEASE man this plan is nothing like the grotesqueness of Starrett City which has buildings that were built as disgustingly banal as you can possibly build 'em in between 2 bad neighborhoods. That is a horrible comparison.

lofter1

June 23rd, 2006, 11:31 AM

Perhaps 30 years of "nothing" (or something different that better serves Brooklyn in the long run) is preferable to going forward on a mis-guided project that will in essence be "forever".

Of course if Ratner / Gehry succeed in getting this project built then Brooklyn will adapt to it in one way or another -- that is the nature of things. But that doesn't mean that it is the right project.

lofter1

June 23rd, 2006, 11:38 AM

Ratner’s shadow looms

Pratt study: Atlantic Yards would put Fort Greene in darkness

http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol29/29_25/29_25ratnershadow.jpg
A Pratt Institute study produced
this rendering of winter shadows
that would be cast on Fort Greene
if Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards is built.
The existing Williamsburgh Savings Bank
building is the thin tower at the far left.
Prof. Brent Porter, Architect;
The Christina Porter Memorial Lighting Lab, Pratt Institute;
Roman Strazhko

By Gersh Kuntzman
The Brooklyn Papers

http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol29/29_25/29_25nets1.php

Bruce Ratner has been accused of many things, but now he’s being accused of stealing the sun from the sky.

According to a new analysis by a Pratt Institute professor and two students, shadows from the developer’s Atlantic Yards mega-project would darken a wide swath of Brooklyn from Prospect Heights to Downtown — including a strip in Fort Greene that won the “Greenest Block in Brooklyn” contest in 2002.

At its worst — at 9 am on Dec. 21 — the shadow from the 62-story “Miss Brooklyn” building, proposed for the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush avenues, would extend all the way to Fulton and Gold streets.

“Shadows from September to March will be severe,” said Brent Porter, the Pratt professor. “Once those buildings go up, the shadowing will be forever.”

Porter said he and his students — Roman Strazhko and Samantha Sommers — do not have an official position on Ratner’s 17-skyscraper, 8.7-million-square-foot arena, office and hotel development, but were speaking out now because so little has been said about the effect of the shadows.

The issue did come up at last week’s Municipal Art Society forum (see story, above), but not as urgently as Porter hoped.

“I’m speaking out because I won’t take this crap anymore,” he told The Brooklyn Papers. “These shadows are a serious environmental impact.”

Porter said that shadows will be minimal during the summer, when Brooklyn, like the rest of the northern hemisphere, is tilted towards the sun.

“But in the winter, suddenly there’ll be no light across most of Fort Greene most of the day,” said Porter, who added that a forthcoming Environmental Impact Statement for the project “won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on” if only summer shadow impacts are analyzed.

“That’s how you’ll know that the EIS is a sham — if they only give the summer numbers,” he said.

The professor’s findings were hailed by Atlantic Yards opponent Alan Rosner, who mentioned shadowing at last week’s forum.

“Even the president says we’re addicted to oil, so we need to be doing whatever we can to develop solar power,” Rosner said. “But Ratner would deprive us of that.”

Charles Jarden was simply concerned about the garden on the top of his five-story building on Fort Greene Place.

“We use our roof deck all year, so it’s very disturbing,” he said. “The sun is currently unblocked, so this would be a big, unwelcome change.”

A Forest City Ratner spokesman would not respond to questions about the shadows.

TonyO

June 23rd, 2006, 12:48 PM

^ What is it about this project that brings out every chicken-little?

“Even the president says we’re addicted to oil, so we need to be doing whatever we can to develop solar power,” Rosner said. “But Ratner would deprive us of that.”

Now there is a Brooklyn wide solar power movement that Ratner is supposedly stopping. The arguments against this are getting more and more ridiculous by the hour.

ZippyTheChimp

June 23rd, 2006, 01:44 PM

Of course if Ratner / Gehry succeed in getting this project built then Brooklyn will adapt to it in one way or another -- that is the nature of things. Why will Brooklyn have to adapt? The concept of Brooklyn is being tossed around like it is Chelsea or Bensonhurst.

Brooklyn is three times the size of Manhattan. Move two miles away from AY, and it would hardly be noticed. The neighborhoods around it will have to adapt.

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

The pervasive changes that Brooklyn must adapt to have nothing to do with 600 ft buildings, and have been going on for years - the runaway increase in housing costs. A house selling for $1 million in Red Hook is much more significant to the character of the borough than shadows on Ft Greene Park.

Some of the people who are complaining about changes in their neighborhoods caused significant change themselves, when they began moving in, paying outrageous prices and driving up rents.

The Brooklyn Renaissance is nice, but it has a dark side, more subtle than a big project. Neighborhoods gentrify, and people are forced out. At least with a big project, the issue moves into the public eye, and maybe creative ways can be found to prevent it.

TREPYE

June 23rd, 2006, 02:04 PM

This light garbage is bad news. This is like that stupid fish that was used to prevent westway from being built. Unbelievable what these people conjure up.

If shadows are such a problem then they should cut down all the trees in the neighborhood as well as preventing these buildings from being built. If this project is cancelled then perhaps they deserve to get nothing more than the rat infested pit rail yard thats already there.

ablarc

June 23rd, 2006, 02:16 PM

Sunshine causes cancer.

BrooklynRider

June 23rd, 2006, 02:17 PM

I think the criticism of the people who are opposed to this project or trying help shape into something that can be lived with in the future is very misguided. We are not talking about NIMBY's fighting one building. We are talking about a huge - incredibly huge - project that some people here seem to suggest should be rubber stamped without any review or input. I could understand the frustration if we were talking about one building. We are talking about a project that will build an entirely new neighborhood - about a development as big or bigger than the World Trade Center. The impact of this project is going to be tremendous and, unless it is done right and within a context of what already exists around it, the impact will largely be negative.

Ratner is currently claiming that this project will have no impact on transportation and subway lines at Atlantic Ave. None. These are the kind of blanket statements this guy is making. They are ridiculous and they invite angry responses. Ratner doesn't ride the subway and that is why he (1) has no idea what the impact will be and (2) doesn't care. If you've tried to catch any subway line that traverses Atlantic Avenue, you know that the trains are more crowded than ever. Do I think that is reason not to build something? No. Do I think this developer has built a long and consistent portfolio of statements and actions that justify people questioning his credibility? Absolutely.

The city should have created the masterplan for this development area and bid the sites out. Just like BPCA. This scheme has no competition to keep the costs and estimates honest and competitive. We are forced to listen to the developer crying about ROI, when the framework he is working within is all of his own making. This is not a Times Tower or a Beekman Tower. This is a neighborhood being designed by a man that has a track record of destroying neighborhoods. Atlantic Terminal - turns its back on pedestrians - all entrances to retail are in the horrendously designed mall. Atlantic Center - no pedestrian experience whatsoever and it actual forms a wall against the community it is supposed to serve. Metrotech - minimal retail - closed on weekends - abysmal pedestrian experience -like walking thru a suburban office park. Neither Ratner nor Gehry are qualified for a project of this scope in a city of this density.

BrooklynRider

June 23rd, 2006, 02:22 PM

This light garbage is bad news. This is like that stupid fish that was used to prevent westway from being built...

In hindsight, the death of Westway was the best thing that could've happened.

TREPYE

June 23rd, 2006, 02:33 PM

In hindsight, the death of Westway was the best thing that could've happened.

So you're telling me that you like having to spend all the extra time waiting for lights and intersection congestion on the westside highway.

ZippyTheChimp

June 23rd, 2006, 02:51 PM

Not to make this a Westway discussion, but your perception is incorrect. A surface road wouldl still have been needed to service the neighborhood grid. And the highway itself would not have been a straight run from one end to the other - unless you think speeding to a bottleneck at the BBT makes sense. There would have been entry/exit ramps at logical points, like 23rd and 42nd St.

If you replace the roadway with transit (how about a rail line right to the WTC), Westway makes sense.

Clarknt67

June 23rd, 2006, 03:37 PM

I could understand opposition to this project based on the architecture, but the people of Brooklyn (whoever that encompasses) have been against it from the begiinning based on scale, given the awful (but low rise) project they endorsed.
I disagree with that charactorization as though the opposition is monolithic. Many people support the project, including this Brooklynite.

ZippyTheChimp

June 23rd, 2006, 03:59 PM

I think you are misinterpreting my remark. Quotes are entirely italicized, but my original post italicized people of Brooklyn, wondering what the scope of this group is.

lofter1

June 23rd, 2006, 04:00 PM

Why will Brooklyn have to adapt?

I'm not saying that Brooklyn should HAVE to adapt to whatever Ratner attempts to thrust upon them.

I am saying that if the Ratner project gets built then Brooklynites WILL adapt -- they will be forced to.

Whether that adaptation will be be filled with positives, negatives or a combination of the two remains to be seen.

ZippyTheChimp

June 23rd, 2006, 04:06 PM

^
I meant why will BROOKLYN have to adapt, not why will Brooklyn HAVE to adapt.

ablarc

June 24th, 2006, 10:16 AM

Actually, no one will have to adapt. Brooklynites will be tickled to have a shiny new downtown to replace a long-festering eyesore.

Or more accurately: they adapted to the railyard, they shouldn't have any trouble with something so much better.

lofter1

June 24th, 2006, 01:00 PM

Brooklynites will be tickled ...

Hmmmmm. All of them? Perhaps "TICKED" would be a better description ...

ablarc

June 24th, 2006, 02:57 PM

Nothing to be ticked about; it's clearly an improvement.

Only ones who will stay ticked for any length of times are the little minds. You know what they say about consistency and little minds...

After a while, even the consistency will fade.

krulltime

June 24th, 2006, 07:28 PM

TEAM 'NETS' $100M IN AID

By KENNETH LOVETT
June 24, 2006

- ALBANY - The New Jersey Nets got an assist yesterday from the state in their bid to move across the river to Brooklyn.

A budget agreement approved yesterday contains $100 million in capital funds for the controversial $3.5 billion Atlantic Yards project.

Gov. Pataki set aside $34 million of economic-development pork money he controls, while the Assembly and Senate committed $33 million each.

The money, under a memorandum of understanding entered into in February 2005, is to be used to fund site-preparation and public-infrastructure improvements at the arena site, including streets, sidewalks, utility relocations, environmental remediation, open space and parking.

The city has also committed $100 million.

"The governor believes this is an important project that will create jobs, create housing opportunities, help transform Brooklyn and bring the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn," said Pataki spokesman Michael Marr.

The project, which has been strongly opposed by many community residents, calls for the Nets to move back to New York for the 2009-10 NBA season. The plan also calls for Net owner and real-estate developer Bruce Ratner to build mixed-income housing, a hotel, and commercial and retail space.

Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc.

krulltime

June 24th, 2006, 07:28 PM

I guess the opposed community is going to be more pissed.

BrooklynRider

June 24th, 2006, 09:40 PM

Acrually, they won't be pissed. This is just another very clear piece of evidence that Ratner's assertions about this being a private development, bringing investment capital into the borough is laughable. The politicians hand Ratner another pile of taxpayer cash, while Ratner tries to lock the public out of the review process. No big surprise there.

TonyO

June 26th, 2006, 05:01 PM

Crain's poll on Atlantic Yards:

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/poll.cms

ZippyTheChimp

June 26th, 2006, 05:16 PM

This type of poll is worthless.

TonyO

June 26th, 2006, 06:04 PM

^ Why? If you want a Quinnipiac-like, scientific answer on what people think of AY then its not going to satisfy you. However, if you want a general idea of which way people think (who read Crain's or know about the poll) then it is interesting.

People who read Crain's would tend to be pro-development. But the nimbys will absolutely have this posted on their sites as well. Bottom line is that its interesting to get a count beyond the intense noise pro and con.

antinimby

June 26th, 2006, 06:12 PM

They already did a poll/study of Brooklynites a while back. That one was more scientific. The majority were for the project.

ablarc

June 26th, 2006, 07:27 PM

It was a choice between two loaded questions.

ZippyTheChimp

June 26th, 2006, 07:35 PM

^ Why? If you want a Quinnipiac-like, scientific answer on what people think of AY then its not going to satisfy you.
Why would we want anything else?

However, if you want a general idea of which way people thinkYou won't get it with that type of poll. It is entertainment, but as a barometer of opinion, worthless.

TonyO

June 26th, 2006, 08:46 PM

Why would we want anything else? You mean you. I think its interesting. Crain's attracts a lot of people who probably understand the project better than Joe on the street.

You won't get it with that type of poll. It is entertainment, but as a barometer of opinion, worthless. Sure, its entertainment...but also a snapshot of opinions. Take it for what its worth. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others don't.

ZippyTheChimp

June 26th, 2006, 09:08 PM

You mean you. I think its interesting. Crain's attracts a lot of people who probably understand the project better than Joe on the street.

Sure, its entertainment...but also a snapshot of opinions. Take it for what its worth. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others don't.
Don't get your shorts all twisted.

I didn't say people wouldn't like it. I said it was entertainment, but as a poll, has no value. I said nothing about written opinions.

Right now, it is 67 percent against the project. Earlier it was 2 to 1 for the project. What do you suppose that means?

TonyO

June 26th, 2006, 09:15 PM

Don't get your shorts all twisted.

I didn't say people wouldn't like it. I said it was entertainment, but as a poll, has no value. I said nothing about written opinions.

Right now, it is 67 percent against the project. Earlier it was 2 to 1 for the project. What do you suppose that means?

That means it just got linked to on DDDB's website most likely.

ZippyTheChimp

June 26th, 2006, 09:21 PM

Exactly.

Now they're going to trumpet the results as if they are a true indicator.

The only thing this type of poll measures is which side is more passionate about the issue.

ablarc

June 26th, 2006, 09:32 PM

The only thing this type of poll measures is which side is more passionate about the issue.
Not even that --just who is more organized.

pianoman11686

June 26th, 2006, 09:36 PM

^Exactly. Polls are only as good as the method in which they're carried out. Randomize your respondents, and you get as accurate a representation of public opinion as possible. Make it voluntary, and the ones that vote will for the most part be those who want to get their point across. People who are apathetic, and thus more likely to accept the project, are less likely to know about the poll and partake in it. On the other hand, people who want to see it stopped will vote "no".

TonyO

June 27th, 2006, 08:45 AM

Exactly.

Now they're going to trumpet the results as if they are a true indicator.

The only thing this type of poll measures is which side is more passionate about the issue.

Ok, you were correct. The nimby groups have gone and had everyone in their families (including dead relatives) vote in this poll.

ablarc

June 27th, 2006, 08:47 AM

The nimby groups have gone and had everyone in their families (including dead relatives) vote in this poll.
Probably true.

BrooklynRider

June 27th, 2006, 11:40 AM

Crain's poll on Atlantic Yards project misses the point

On the heels of Crain's New York Business editor Greg David's misinformed column supporting the Atlantic Yards project, Crain's now offers a stilted poll canvassing readers' opinions:

Developer Bruce Ratner's plan for the Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn calls for less commercial space than he had originally envisioned, along with 6,800 residential units--nearly a third of which would be affordable housing.

THE POLL QUESTION: Do you agree with the Atlantic Yards plan?

Yes, the housing market is already tight, and the city needs more affordable units

No, the huge development would destroy the borough's character

Given that the developer traded office space for more lucrative luxury condos in May 2005, the question is a little late--and it treats "the Atlantic Yards" as a place rather than a project. More importantly, it ignores the fact that the developer originally promised 50 percent affordable housing, but violated the spirit--if not the letter--of the affordable housing agreement by adding the condos.

It treats the scale and density of the project as a matter of opinion, rather than something that could be assessed by (or at least in relation to) zoning, or evaluated in comparison to other projects.

Alternative questions

What if Crain's had asked:

Developer Bruce Ratner's plan for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn would provide more than twice as many apartments per acre as any other major project in the city.

Developer Bruce Ratner's plan for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn would cost the public at least $1.1 billion in subsidies and public costs over 30 years, by the developer's own estimate.

Developer Bruce Ratner's plan for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn involves a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) in which the CBA signatories accept money from the developer, unlike pioneering CBAs negotiated in Los Angeles, where the signatories consider payments a conflict of interest.

Developer Bruce Ratner's plan for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn would involve the use of eminent domain for economic development, even though, as suggested in the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, eminent domain is most defensible when it proceeds from a publicly-derived plan for redevelopment, which is absent in this case.

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2006/06/crains-poll-on-atlantic-yards-project.html

kliq6

June 27th, 2006, 12:05 PM

Brooklyn -- is the development party over?
June 27, 10:38 am

55 Berry Street Residential development in Brooklyn may be hitting a wall. Units are failing to sell as quickly as they once did and fewer developers are bidding on vacant sites in the borough, even as land prices drop. Condo prices at 55 Berry Street in Williamsburg, for instance, were cut earlier this month by $128 a square foot to $658 a foot. more [Crain's]

krulltime

June 27th, 2006, 12:17 PM

^ Yes it seem like is happening... Maybe developers need to concentrate in rentals as opposed to condos.

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=106260&postcount=222

Kris

July 3rd, 2006, 03:55 AM

July 3, 2006
Atlantic Yards, Still but a Plan, Shapes Politics in Brooklyn
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

It will be months, if not years, before a single brick of the Atlantic Yards project is laid near Downtown Brooklyn. But as the fall election season draws near, the unbuilt, unapproved, multibillion-dollar development is shaping up as a major political issue in this corner of the borough.

"This is a litmus test for brownstone Brooklyn," said City Councilwoman Letitia James, whose district includes most of the Atlantic Yards site and who is perhaps the elected official most outspokenly opposed to the project. "But the issue is nonetheless important for all Brooklynites, whether or not you're a brownstoner, someone who lives in public housing, or you live in a condo."

Over the last two and a half years, the project's gravity has warped the political space nearby, as if a black hole had settled at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues. It has bolstered some candidacies and bedeviled others here, where mostly white, affluent neighborhoods like Park Slope shade into the more diverse yet rapidly gentrifying confines of Fort Greene and Prospect Heights.

It has inspired rhetorical tiptoeing and fence-sitting of exquisite precision. And within the tangled and even incestuous world of Brooklyn politics, the fight over Atlantic Yards has warped old political alliances and drawn onetime rivals into new ones.

Ms. James parts ways on Atlantic Yards, for example, with Assemblyman Roger L. Green, a close ally of the project's developer, Forest City Ratner Companies. Their districts overlap each other as well as the 22-acre site, and Ms. James was once Mr. Green's chief of staff. "Roger and I are very close," she said recently, joking, "I consider him my shorter, older brother."

One candidate for the State Assembly has walked such a fine line on the issue that opponents and supporters alike are unsure of where he stands. At least two insurgent candidates have embraced the opposition wholeheartedly, drawing volunteers and dollars to their campaigns. Some local political clubs have experienced infighting brought on by Atlantic Yards, resulting, say some members, in a few unexpected endorsements for the fall.

Mr. Green's alliance with Forest City — the development partner in building the new Midtown Manhattan headquarters for The New York Times Company — is itself a break from the assemblyman's past. During the 1980's, he helped lead a picket of Forest City when it wanted to build high-rise office buildings on the land now home to the Atlantic Terminal mall, just across Atlantic Avenue from where the company now wants to build a thicket of residential and commercial towers.

Last year, Mr. Green helped shepherd the creation of a "community benefits agreement" between Forest City and eight nonprofit groups to provide job training, housing and other programs. Randall Touré, a former top aide for Mr. Green, now works for the company, doing community outreach.

"The issue is always about the uses of relative power," Mr. Green said of his relationship with Forest City. "There was a sense that the project was going to happen. With that objective reality, I had to position myself to get information about the project, and then use my relative power to engage in some creative problem-solving."

Patti Hagan, a Prospect Heights resident and a veteran of the neighborhood's development battles, campaigned energetically for Mr. Green during his 2002 re-election bid. When the Atlantic Yards project was announced the next year, Ms. Hagan said, she was disappointed to find Mr. Green on the other side of the issue.

"We just assumed he'd be with us," she said. "I'm just totally disappointed in him as an elected official."

Mr. Green decided earlier this year to challenge Representative Edolphus Towns, the Brooklyn congressman for the 10th District, touching off an intense battle for the Assembly seat Mr. Green is vacating. Many opponents of the project had once expected to support Hakeem Jeffries, a corporate lawyer and Prospect Heights resident who ran against Mr. Green in 2002.

But they quickly discovered that Mr. Jeffries was unwilling to take a hard line against the project.

"I spent six hours at two meetings with him," said Daniel Goldstein, the spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, an umbrella organization for community groups opposed to Atlantic Yards. "After six hours, it was unclear to us where he stood on the project."

In late May, Mr. Jeffries took out an advertisement in The Brooklyn Downtown Star, a local newspaper, in order to "make sure there was a clear position on where we stood," he said in an interview.

"Essentially, yes to affordable housing, no to eminent domain abuse, no to commercial skyscrapers, and yes to an open process," Mr. Jeffries said.

His critics found the explanation unilluminating, since the project as currently designed would involve both eminent domain and soaring commercial skyscrapers. Pressed on whether he would support or oppose the project as it stands, Mr. Jeffries first said it was "an interesting question." After some prodding, he said he would "be more inclined to support it than not," in large part because the project includes a large component of below-market housing.

Mr. Jeffries has drawn a challenger in Bill Batson, a member of Community Board 8 who strongly opposes the project. "We don't need another landmark to tell us what Brooklyn is," he said in an interview. He is supported by many neighborhood residents who share those views, and have helped him raise money and gather ballot petitions.

"If the campaign is a referendum on Atlantic Yards, that's not my doing," Mr. Batson said. "But if it is, then let it be so."

The issue may also crop up in the race to succeed Major R. Owens, who is retiring as representative of the 11th Congressional District, although the racial dynamics of the contest have so far consumed much of its political oxygen.

One of the candidates, City Councilman David Yassky, is white; his three rivals, including Chris Owens, the incumbent's son, are black. Both Mr. Owens, who lives in Prospect Heights, and Mr. Yassky, who lives in Brooklyn Heights, are counting on strong support from white voters in the borough's brownstone neighborhoods, where the project's fate — especially its potential impact on traffic and city services — has generated considerable discussion.

The two other candidates in the race both support the project outright. Mr. Owens, like his father, has taken a hard stance against the project. Mr. Yassky has said he could not support the project at its current size, but favors development on the site. His supporters include the leaders of several nonprofit groups that have signed the community benefits agreement with Forest City Ratner, however, and some opponents of the project criticize Mr. Yassky for not taking a harder line against it.

That the Atlantic Yards issue is on so many radar screens is, for the most part, a reflection of its sheer size and scope. One of the largest real estate projects in the city's history, the residential, office and arena development has the potential to affect issues as diverse as traffic, sewage runoff, school class size and housing prices.

But the project's political salience is also part of a concerted effort by opponents to build a political base in the neighborhoods of northwest Brooklyn, an effort that began to intensify last spring, when the Empire State Development Corporation began its formal review of the project's potential environmental impact.

They have traveled to Albany to lobby members of the Legislature, packed community meetings and discussions about the project, and started blogs to publicize their position. Those efforts have borne some fruit: During recent months, two members of the State Assembly, Joan L. Millman and James F. Brennan, who represent neighborhoods close to the project, have taken stronger positions against Atlantic Yards than they have in the past.

Opponents of the project have also made their presence felt among Brooklyn's Democratic political clubs. Last spring, dozens of registration forms began arriving at the Independent Neighborhood Democrats, a Democratic club in northwestern Brooklyn, roughly doubling its membership shortly before the club was to vote on endorsements in several of this year's elections. Accusations of club-packing ensued, and the club's leadership maneuvered to exclude many of the new members from some important endorsement votes.

They were later allowed to vote on the club's endorsement for governor, however, and that is how the club's generally liberal membership came to endorse Nassau County's centrist county executive, Thomas R. Suozzi, over Eliot Spitzer, the state attorney general. Mr. Suozzi opposes the project; Mr. Spitzer appears to favor it.

Politically speaking, however, opponents of the project still face an uphill climb. Bruce C. Ratner, the chief executive of Forest City Ratner, has long been a major political and philanthropic force in Brooklyn. Mr. Ratner and his top executives enjoy strong ties to elected officials and community leaders here.

Those ties are reflected, in part, by the overwhelming support for the project among the city's political establishment, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and key members of Brooklyn's delegations in Congress and the State Legislature.

"There are two ways to work in this town," said Joe DePlasco, a spokesman for Forest City. "You can try to build a consensus by meeting with people and talking to them or you can try to stack political clubs and engage in the end-justifies-the-means single-issue tactics that opponents have been using. Given that the governor, the mayor, the borough president and numerous state and city elected officials support the project, we think the former approach is the one that works."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

krulltime

July 3rd, 2006, 09:47 AM

It will be months, if not years, before a single brick of the Atlantic Yards project is laid near Downtown Brooklyn.

Hmm... I say it will take years.

But I am also afraid that since this is getting too political that this project might not actually happened after all. It will be a big loss of opportunity to built on those tracks in the end.

bkmonkey

July 3rd, 2006, 03:34 PM

Although the process is taking time, there is no doubt that it will happen. Demolitions have started, and plans are moving forward. Keep in mind, that this is one of LARGEST developments in New York City history (as the article said), it will take a bit of time to complete. I feel that we will see a cornerstone of something laid before the start of next year's 2nd quater

Kris

July 12th, 2006, 04:11 AM

July 12, 2006
Promises of Atlantic Yards Draw Thousands to Meeting
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

Before an attentive audience of would-be renters last night, supporters of the $3.5 billion Atlantic Yards project hailed its promise of hundreds of apartments as a small battle won against the city’s housing crunch and a boon to Brooklyn’s plumbers, police officers and secretaries.

“People leave Brooklyn not for the good life, but because they can’t afford the good life that we already have here,” said Marty Markowitz, the Brooklyn borough president and a staunch ally of the project’s developer, Forest City Ratner Companies.

About 2,300 people attended the first of two presentations at a Marriott in Brooklyn last night, roughly one person for each of the 2,250 units of below-market-price, rent-stabilized units the company says it will build if the project is approved. Forest City Ratner officials said they expected up to 1,000 more people at the second session, which like the first was organized to provide details about the project’s rental units to those most likely to apply for them.

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

Details of the project’s below-market-price apartments, which would make up half of the total number of rental units in the 8.7 million-square-foot development, were negotiated last year with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, an advocacy group for low-income people known as Acorn. But last night’s presentations served as an early test of local interest in Forest City’s plans, and the audience members, many of them from Brooklyn neighborhoods that have seen promises of housing and jobs go unfulfilled before, listened with high hopes and some wariness.

“The information was interesting,” said Edan Greenidge, 29, a salesman who attended with his mother, Merlyn. But he added: “It’s still not too affordable. I’m still skeptical.”

Joseph Shearin, 48, a transit worker, praised the housing allotment and said he planned to apply for one of the rental apartments if the project, which is being reviewed by a state development agency, is approved and built.

“I think it’s wonderful that they’re doing this,” he said.

Forest City officials said 18,000 people responded to promotional literature that the company mailed to Brooklyn households in mid-May.

Housing is the largest component of the Atlantic Yards project, which also includes a basketball arena, offices and some retail space on a site near Downtown Brooklyn.

As currently constituted, the program would distribute the 2,250 units across five different income tiers tied to the city’s median income. All would be allocated through a lottery system run by Acorn and supervised by the city’s housing agency, with some preference going to residents of the surrounding neighborhoods, police officers and other civil service workers, the elderly, and the disabled, as required by city rules.

In the lowest income tier, a family of four making $21,270 to $28,360 a year would pay $620 a month in rent; in the highest, a family making $99,261 to $113,440 would pay $2,658 a month. About 225 units are set aside for families of all sizes in the lowest income tier, and 450 for families of all sizes in the highest tier.

Vilia Salas, 44, a bookkeeper, said she supported the project. Her only concern, she said, is that not enough units will go to “people who are really entitled to them.”

Some attendees of last night’s event, while expressing enthusiasm for the project’s hope of new housing in a borough that needs it, wondered whether the moderately priced housing was priced quite moderately enough.

“I think that certain things weren’t taken into account when they came up with the income bands,” said Sharon Reid, a college administrator.

But Mr. Markowitz and Bertha Lewis, Acorn’s executive director, said the project would constitute one of the city’s largest increases of rent-stabilized, moderately priced housing in years at a time when the city’s stock of such housing has been disappearing more rapidly than housing agencies and advocacy organizations can replenish it.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

ablarc

July 12th, 2006, 08:46 AM

Vilia Salas, 44, a bookkeeper, said she supported the project. Her only concern, she said, is that not enough units will go to “people who are really entitled to them.”
And who might those be?

BrooklynRider

July 14th, 2006, 10:01 AM

Atlantic Yards: Staving Off a Scar for Decades
By Ron Shiffman

Until this month, I have chosen not to speak out publicly concerning Forest City Ratner’s proposed Atlantic Yards project. After participating in a planning charette sponsored by City Council Member Letitia James in 2004 shortly after the proposal was first announced and after circulating some ideas about the developer’s proposal, I decided not to speak out on the issue in part because I believed that the inclusionary housing component was an important victory and believing that a more rational plan would eventually emerge.

However, that alternative has not emerged. Forest City Ratner (FCR) and, by extension, the City and State of New York, continue to follow a process that is fundamentally flawed in pursuit of a plan that, if implemented, would scar the borough for decades to come.

Like many of my Brooklyn neighbors, I did welcome the idea of Brooklyn once again being the home of a major sports franchise. Some viable sites already existed for an arena, the most obvious being Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Center Mall, a failed design with a limited life expectancy that constitutes a major blighting on the border of Fort Greene, near the proposed Atlantic Yards site.

The mall site would not require the use of eminent domain and would allow for the phased redevelopment of the surrounding area. It would necessitate the reconstruction of the Atlantic Avenue Subway Station, including the development of a concourse to accommodate larger numbers of people, the development of an enhanced transit strategy focused on regulating auto access, maximizing pedestrian access, and emphasizing public mass transit access within Brooklyn, as well as between Brooklyn, Long Island, New Jersey and other parts of the city.

I agree that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Vanderbilt Yard—a portion of the proposed project footprint-- provides the opportunity to weave together the low-rise communities of Fort Greene and Prospect Heights. While this area along the Atlantic Avenue corridor could accommodate higher densities, density is a relative term. The density proposed by Forest City Ratner far exceeds the carrying capacity of the area’s physical, social, cultural, and educational infrastructure. The Atlantic Yards density is extreme and the heights of the proposed buildings totally unacceptable.

If Forest City Ratner’s proposal proceeds at the current scale, it would constitute the densest residential community in the United States and, perhaps, Europe, with the exception of some of the suburbs of Paris. There, the oversized designs gained applause from the architectural elite before residents found them inhumane. I fear Forest City Ratner’s proposal will become the Brooklyn equivalent of Pruitt-Igoe, the notorious St. Louis public housing towers that have since been demolished. Quite frankly I do not believe that any of the decision makers from the Borough President to the Governor have a grasp on how overwhelming and out-of-scale this development is.

When the project was announced in December 2003 with endorsements from the mayor and borough president, that signaled a planning process that is both fundamentally wrong and establishes a dangerous precedent. A private developer shouldn’t be allowed to drive the disposition of publicly owned or controlled land without a participatory planning process setting the conditions for the disposition of that land.

This flawed process is compounded by the proposed misuse of the powers of eminent domain. To use “blight” as the basis for eminent domain is ironic when every indicator is that this area of Brooklyn would have seen a regeneration along the lines of Soho and TriBeCa had the Forest City Ratner plan not stemmed the revitalization process already under way. There have been four recent conversions of manufacturing facilities to housing, and, Forest City Ratner bought one site—mainly a former bakery—for $40 million, from a developer who wanted to turn it into a hotel. Any plan, thanks to a zoning revision, could have accelerated this step-by-step revitalization of the area that was already underway.

Sadly, FCR is responsible for the “developer’s blight” that now plagues the area. The only pre-existing blighting influence was the Atlantic Center mall. Everything else was subject to step-by-step private investment that would have facilitated the revitalization of the area, albeit with some displacement of manufacturing and the absence of affordable housing. While courts usually do uphold the “blight” argument, bad law does not mean good planning.

I applaud ACORN’s effort to make sure the developer includes a large percentage of affordable housing—originally 50 percent but no longer—in this development. Such inclusionary housing should become the standard for all significant housing developments in the city that use public land and public funds, and ACORN now calls for 30 percent in new projects. But I believe that those units should be located in viable, livable, and enriching environments and not crammed into out-of scale developments that do not provide adequate open space, community, and/or educational facilities.

If the basis for eminent domain is economic development, I find it hard to see how it could meet any of the criteria of the Supreme Court’s controversial 2005 Kelo decision. The Supreme Court majority approved the use of eminent domain in New London, Connecticut, in part because the plan had emanated from a defined planning process. In Brooklyn, there’s been no planning, and the sole developer and beneficiary is Forest City Ratner–signs of a sweetheart deal.

I had hoped that, in the past two-and-a-half years, the city, the developer, or the civic community would propose a viable alternative to the "Atlantic Yards" plan. The Municipal Art Society’s plan falls short because it avoids discussing the process issues and attempts to apply a design solution to a fundamentally flawed and ill-conceived plan. In the absence of a democratically accountable process and without any rational and acceptable alternative on the horizon, I believe that the FCR plan must be defeated and the process of revitalizing the rail yards completely rethought. I have chosen to support the efforts of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn’s and have joined the group’s advisory board.

Ron Shiffman is a professor at the Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment at the Pratt Institute, director emeritus of the Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development, and from 1990-96 a commissioner on the New York City Planning Commission.

Transic

July 17th, 2006, 01:11 AM

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Protesters_Arena_on_slippery_slope/3444.html

Protesters: Arena on slippery slope

Fight over future of jobs, affordable housing in heart of Brooklyn

by amy zimmer / metro new york
JUL 17, 2006

PARK SLOPE — Hundreds of angry Brooklynites — with strong representation from Prospect Heights and Park Slope — rallied yesterday to protest the proposed $2.5 billion project to bring the New Jersey Nets and 16 high-rises to the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic avenues.

They packed the entrance of Prospect Park at Grand Army Plaza with their strollers, bikes and dogs to rail against potential traffic jams, overcrowded subways and a radical change to brownstone Brooklyn’s skyline and character. Developer Bruce Ratner’s project, designed by architect Frank Gehry, would include 2,250 affordable units, which is roughly 30 percent of its total apartments.

But, “They’re too darn tall,” according to a sign carried by many of the protesters at the rally sponsored by Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the project’s arch foe.

“This deal is coming undone,” DDDB spokesman Dan Goldstein told the crowd, despite the fact that the state’s Environmental Impact Statement, which reviews the project’s potential neighborhood effects, is expected to be released tomorrow. “It’s suffering from a long-term illness and needs to be put out of its misery. There can be an arena in Brooklyn without eminent domain. There’s a place called Coney Island.”

But Meredith Staton, a Community Board 8 member from Crown Heights, had his own gripes.

“I’m upset that people in the community didn’t show up before Ratner came up with a plan and say what we should do there,” he said. “I want affordable housing and I want jobs. That’s what grabbed the community where I live. Just look around and see how many black people are here. They’re not here. There are many affluent people here who do not represent the whole community.” He pointed out that Ratner bought more than 90 percent of property in the footprint.

“I can understand that people want to scale back the project,” he said. “You can see large-scale housing going up everywhere. In the EIS process, you can submit alternatives, but you’re not going to stop the project. It’s a state project and it will come down to three people.” They are the Public Authorities Control Board members in Albany: Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Gov. George Pataki.

But Bob Law, a former radio host and Black Panther, told the crowd that “Ratner is trying to recreate how our city operates.”

“We’re not opposed to development, but we’re opposed to the process,” Law said. “When people say we are opposed to jobs, I am. I’m opposed to the temporary, dead-end jobs Ratner is offering. My community needs careers.”

Actress Rosie Perez also criticized Ratner for what she called “propaganda” — claims the project would bring jobs and housing to the poor and middle class. And she also shot at rapper Jay-Z, who has a small share in the Nets ownership. “I love you Jay, but where’s the love?” she said. “I think, in a way, he’s being used. There are other places the Nets can go.”

Kris

July 17th, 2006, 04:09 AM

July 17, 2006
Crowd Gathers to Protest Size of Atlantic Yards Plan
By THOMAS J. LUECK

In the largest public demonstration so far by opponents of the Atlantic Yards project planned near Downtown Brooklyn, a crowd that may have exceeded 2,000 gathered at Grand Army Plaza yesterday in a rally condemning the project’s scale and what many called inadequate public comment.

The event was organized by Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, a group whose advisory board includes Brooklyn residents active in film, music and literature. The actors Steve Buscemi and Rosie Perez, both Brooklyn residents and advisers to the group, appeared briefly on a makeshift stage in front of a sign that read “Brooklyn’s Neighborhoods Say No.”

“I’m not a politician or activist,” Mr. Buscemi told the crowd. He read a poem that he said he had written to protest the project, which included the line “I’ve played a lot of crazies, but this seems insane.”

The $3.5 billion project, which would include an arena for the Nets professional basketball team, office space and 6,860 apartments, is being planned by Forest City Ratner Companies at a time of considerable residential development in nearby sections of Brooklyn.

Even aside from the Atlantic Yards project, the nearby development has provoked protests about housing displacement and strains on Brooklyn’s roads, sewers and infrastructure.

The Atlantic Yards complex, planned at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues, has undergone extensive public review, and more is assured once the developer releases an environment impact statement, which is expected this week or next.

“People have legitimate concerns that we have addressed, and will continue to address,” Joe Deplasco, a spokesman for Forest City, said yesterday. Forest City Ratner is a development partner in building a new Midtown headquarters for The New York Times Company.

The developer has promised to dedicate 2,250 apartments in the complex as rental units for low- and moderate-income tenants. About 2,300 people hoping to qualify for those apartments attended what Forest City described as an “informational meeting” in Downtown Brooklyn on Tuesday.

Whether that many showed up yesterday to protest the project was difficult to judge, since people circulated from the sunny site of the rally to the shade nearby in Prospect Park. Daniel Goldstein, a spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, estimated the size of the crowd at closer to 4,000 people.

Some in the crowd had traveled from distant parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan, reflecting what may be a growing public interest in the Atlantic Yards project and the scale of Brooklyn development in general.

“I have seen what happened to Manhattan, and we should learn from our mistakes,” said Marian Goodside, a retired teacher who lives on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and came with friends from Brooklyn Heights.

Dan Zanes, a musician and singer with a national following among children and their parents, said he considered Brooklyn’s diverse neighborhoods to be a “national treasure” that was being threatened by the Atlantic Yards project and other development.

Mr. Zanes, who performed at the rally, lives with his wife and 11-year-old daughter in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. He said the rally demonstrated a growing sense of resistance to large-scale development, even to projects that are not directly across the street.

“To a lot of people, this seemed inevitable,” he said of the project. “The problem was that the public wasn’t engaged, but that is starting to change.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

pianoman11686

July 17th, 2006, 11:21 AM

But, “They’re too darn tall,” according to a sign carried by many of the protesters at the rally sponsored by Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the project’s arch foe.

[...]

“We’re not opposed to development, but we’re opposed to the process,” Law said. “When people say we are opposed to jobs, I am. I’m opposed to the temporary, dead-end jobs Ratner is offering. My community needs careers.”

Actress Rosie Perez also criticized Ratner for what she called “propaganda” — claims the project would bring jobs and housing to the poor and middle class. And she also shot at rapper Jay-Z, who has a small share in the Nets ownership. “I love you Jay, but where’s the love?” she said. “I think, in a way, he’s being used. There are other places the Nets can go.”

These three excerpts summarize how ridiculous this opposition has become. I don't even want to comment on the "They're too darn tall" statement, as I feel this has been adequately addressed on the forum. But what is this about providing careers? Since when is Ratner in the business of giving people careers? And what kind of jobs are they talking about? Is it just something longer-term than construction, or something that requires a graduate degree? I don't understand this. And finally: Can someone put Rosie Perez in her place? I'm surprised she even got a soundbite into this article. That woman lost any influence she had years ago.

SilentPandaesq

July 17th, 2006, 11:57 AM

There was a similar article in the Metro today. Some council man argued that there were no african americans in the crowd protesting the plan, and implied that they could care less about the scale of the project as long as jobs were produced. I don't think everyone is on the same page in the anti-yards camp.

Sorry I threw out the paper, so i don't have the exact quote.

investordude

July 17th, 2006, 04:29 PM

As New York attracts new people and builds places for them to live, I think the careers of New Yorkers will benefit simply because the primary reason companies leave New York is the cost of living keeps rising.

I am suspicous of the "community benefits agreement." I think they will end up going to tenants that are vetted to have a high probability to support incumbent politicians interested in stacking their district, regardless of income. They should just build the apartments and let the market price them - this will create diverse communities just like it does anywhere free markets are allowed to operate without political interference.

pianoman11686

July 18th, 2006, 03:59 PM

ESDC adopts plans for Javits, Atlantic Yards (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=110019&postcount=2437)

ablarc

July 18th, 2006, 05:40 PM

Critics of the Atlantic Yards plan have complained it would ruin the neighborhood.
Nonsense.

Train yards aren't a neighborhood, anyway.

Jaffster

July 18th, 2006, 07:36 PM

Of course it would ruin the neighborhood! How could we think of getting rid of the Underberg Building and the trash on Pacific street?

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/ratnerdevelop/underbergwilliamsburg.jpg

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/ratnerdevelop/pacificgarbage2.jpg

This is what makes the neighborhood so great...right?

Yeah right! Look what the NIMBYs are protecting! This development would make the area better...not worse.

SilentPandaesq

July 18th, 2006, 07:36 PM

Ablarc: sure it is. it is just not a very nice one;) . But that is what the hold-out(s) like about the place, it is edgy. Ratner wants to de-edgy that part of Brooklyn and there are not to many edgy places left in the city that are close to E.vil. or Soho hence fight ensues.

krulltime

July 18th, 2006, 09:38 PM

So how many more votes or hassles before this development becomes a reality. What is next? Anyone knows?

investordude

July 18th, 2006, 11:40 PM

" The Atlantic Yards project still has to be approved by the state's Public Authorities Control Board. A public hearing is scheduled for Aug. 23 and the Empire State Development Corp. will accept public comments until September 23 before making a final decision."

I've heard Silver hasn't objected to this plan. Hopefully he won't set the city back again when time comes for a vote.

Transic

July 19th, 2006, 12:26 AM

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/State_report_fans_flames_in_Atlantic_Yards_controv ersy/3501.html

State report fans flames in Atlantic Yards controversy

by amy zimmer / metro new york
JUL 19, 2006

BROOKLYN — Controversy about a plan to build a basketball arena and 16 high rises at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic avenues has been swirling throughout Brooklyn long before the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released yesterday.

Now the public has more than 1,000 pages of grist and 60 days in which to give their opinion about the plan.

“I think all hell’s going to break loose over the next couple of months because of this document,” said Daniel Goldstein, spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the plan’s arch foe. “The state had two and a half years to study this project. It’s an affront to the public to have 60 days in the dead of summer to review this 15-inch thick document. What’s the rush?”

The buildings’ shadows, for instance, “would result in a significant adverse impact on” the stained-glass windows of the Church of the Redeemer and other sites, the report said. Traffic studies show that with the project’s completion by 2016, “a total of 68 intersections would be significantly impacted.” The document, however, said the plan wouldn’t affect police, fire or emergency services, or strain the subway system, which would have to carry more riders on game days.

“When Brooklyn comes to a standstill, what are they going to do?” asked Goldstein.

For traffic, Forest City Ratner executive vice president Jim Stuckey said his company put together a 15-point plan that would offer MetroCards to people who would drive to games and create a space to park 400 bikes.

“The 22-acre site has many abandoned and vacant buildings,” he said. “There have been years of failed attempts to redevelop this area.”

Study of the study

• The City Council will fund a $130,000 independent review of the Atlantic Yards project’s DEIS.

• It will go to the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, a coalition of community groups that has kept an eye on conflicts of interest in the plan.

lofter1

July 19th, 2006, 12:43 AM

While I think there are many problems with the Ratner scheme that still need to be worked out, statements such as this make the entrenched opposition look pretty darned idiotic:

“When Brooklyn comes to a standstill, what are they going to do?” asked Goldstein.

Dynamicdezzy

July 19th, 2006, 12:55 AM

After reading that last quote, this comes to mind. Thanx Zippy.

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

ablarc

July 19th, 2006, 08:14 AM

While I think there are many problems with the Ratner scheme that still need to be worked out, statements such as this make the entrenched opposition look pretty darned idiotic:
Or how about this one:

The buildings’ shadows, for instance, “would result in a significant adverse impact on” the stained-glass windows of the Church of the Redeemer and other sites...
This fellow Goldstein is the lead idiot.

TonyO

July 19th, 2006, 10:32 AM

In Push for Atlantic Yards Project, State Touts Eminent Domain

BY DAVID LOMBINO - Staff Reporter of the Sun
July 19, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/36276

The state yesterday released thousands of pages of documents in which it outlined its justification for the use of eminent domain and for overriding local zoning laws to clear the way for the 22-acre Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.

A "blight study" released as part of the state's general project plan said "public action"would be required to improve the area around the Vanderbilt rail yards, which is "characterized by blighted conditions including structurally unsound buildings, debris-filled vacant lots, environmental concerns, high crime rates, and underutilization."

The causes of the area's blight include the presence of the rail yards and a "diversity of ownership" that "hindered site assemblage that is necessary for redevelopment," according to the state's study.

Opponents of the project, including neighbors who say the proposed density will destroy the neighborhood, are expected to mount a legal challenge to any condemnation of private property necessary to complete the project.

A lawyer for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, Jeffrey Baker, called state's finding of blight "an artificial construct," and said it is likely to be central to litigation brought by opponents.

"The private redevelopment effort in that area came to a screeching halt after December '03, when they announced this project," Mr. Baker said.

The state's general project plan details the need for eminent domain to clear as many as 22 different tax lots, containing both commercial and residential property — and about 118 people — that remain in the project's footprint but have not sold to the developer. The existence of blight will likely be used as the state's rationale for using eminent domain to condemn the remaining properties, as well as circumventing the city's land use approval process, which would ordinarily prohibit a project of the density proposed for Atlantic Yards.

The plan and a draft environmental impact statement were released by the leading state development agency yesterday for developer Forest City Ratner's proposal to build basketball arena and 16 towers containing more than 2,300 market rate condominiums, 4,500 rental apartments, and office and retail space in Prospect Heights.

The state's plan said the project would cost $4.2 billion, $700 million more than expected. Cost estimates had already risen to $3.5 billion from $2.5 billion. The latest increase is due to rising construction, interest, and fuel costs and more accurate estimates, according to an executive for Forest City Ratner, James Stuckey.

The developer also faced unexpected costs acquiring the private land around the site to "minimize the amount of condemnation involved in the project," Mr. Stuckey said. He would not say how much money the developer would profit from the proposal.

The draft EIS and general project plan will go before a public hearing on August 23 and a "community forum" on September 12. A final plan and EIS will be prepared by the state after consideration of all comments. Before construction can commence, state officials and the Public Authorities Control Board must approve those final documents, and any legal challenges must be cleared. The state's study said the arena would be completed by October 2009. The project would not be fully built out until 2016.

A spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, Daniel Goldstein, who owns a condominium in the project's footprint and has vowed a legal fight, said yesterday that 60 days is not enough time to prepare for the public hearing. He said the documents released today were riddled with inaccuracies, including the estimates for the project's public cost and benefits.

"Any politician or elected official who is going to stand by this document with a straight face is a lunatic," Mr. Goldstein said.

Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg cite job growth and the creation of affordable housing as reasons for their support of the project.

Yesterday, the state said the development would support an annual average of 6,573 new jobs in New York City and generate $1.1 billion in city and state tax revenues. The city and state have agreed to provide $100 million each for the project.

pianoman11686

July 19th, 2006, 10:53 AM

Measuring a Project’s Shadow, and Burden, on Brooklyn

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/19/nyregion/yards.600.1.jpg
A study says the proposed Atlantic Yards project, a residential, commercial and arena development in Brooklyn, would add traffic to intersections that are already busy, including Union Street and Fourth Avenue.

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

Published: July 19, 2006

A new school’s worth of classrooms would be needed to handle all the children. Dozens of crowded intersections would be choked with more traffic. Brownstone neighborhoods would find themselves in shadow. The city’s sewer and water systems would face new challenges. And good luck getting a parking space on game day.

Multimedia

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/19/nyregion/0719-met-YARDSmapWEB.190.gif

Graphic: Congestion Spots (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/07/19/nyregion/20060719_YARDS_GRAPHIC.html)

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/18/nyregion/yards.190.2.jpg
The intersection of Flatbush Avenue and Fulton Street.

These were among the most striking findings of a 1,400-page study released yesterday, for the first time laying out all the potential effects of the proposed Atlantic Yards project, an 8.7-million-square-foot residential, commercial, and arena development that would spread over 22 acres near Downtown Brooklyn.

The study, released by the Empire State Development Corporation, was accompanied by a project plan that estimated the cost of the development at $4.2 billion, much more than the original cost, $2.5 billion.

Residents have known for more than two years that something big may be coming to the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues, something that would affect their lives and neighborhoods in countless ways. But until yesterday, they did not have a picture of the details.

The draft environmental impact study provides the clearest view yet of what the Atlantic Yards would do for Brooklyn, and to it, with a welter of diagrams and cold hard facts.

Some of them are sure to be controversial. According to the study, the project would worsen what is already a tangled web of traffic. When it is fully built a decade from now, 68 of 93 intersections included in the study, all within about a mile of the project, would have significantly more congestion at one or more peak hours, most markedly during the morning rush hours and after Saturday games at the 18,000-seat basketball arena for the Nets.

The tallest of the project’s 16 buildings would block many views of the Williamsburgh Savings Bank. The new buildings would also throw more of the surrounding neighborhoods into shadow during the day, while street-level signs would create a new burst of neon at night, concentrated at the commercial corridors on the project’s western tip.

The project’s thousands of residents would impose new demands on the city’s sewage and storm drain systems, and include enough children to fill a new elementary and intermediate school.

Changes to the project and the city infrastructure supporting it may eliminate or minimize some of the predicted problems, the project’s backers have promised. In exchange, they say, Atlantic Yards would create 6,860 units of housing, thousands of construction jobs, and nearly $1.5 billion in city and state tax revenue beyond the amount needed to recoup the government’s contribution to the project.

“It’s a project of enormous magnitude, something that certainly will be important for the future and the economy of the city and state,” said Charles A. Gargano, the chairman of the development corporation, which is sponsoring the project.

The project’s developer, Forest City Ratner Companies, is the development partner of The New York Times Company in building its new headquarters on Eighth Avenue in Manhattan. The study was commissioned by the development corporation and paid for by Forest City Ratner, as required by law.

The study found that if all the project’s children attended a primary or intermediate school within half a mile of their new home, the existing schools would be “over capacity,” and new satellite classrooms in less crowded schools, new school buildings or other measures would be needed.

In a detailed examination of the shadows cast by the new buildings in each season, the report found that new shadows would fall on many existing parks, as well as on open space incorporated into the new project, “throughout the year,” but with a “significant adverse impact” for only one such area, near the Atlantic Terminal public housing complex.

The study also included extensive mitigation measures that the developer said would alleviate most of the project’s negative impacts. An ecologically friendly storm-water capture system centered on the arena’s roof, for instance, is expected to help prevent sewage overflows.

The report’s release sets into motion a public comment period. The project faces a final vote by the development corporation’s board this fall, and if it is approved, it will face a vote by the state Public Authorities Control Board.

Critics of Atlantic Yards have questioned whether the scope of the impact study was comprehensive enough, and may choose to fight the project in court on those grounds. .

Opponents have already promised a vigorous legal struggle against the development corporation’s efforts to condemn the small amount of property that Forest City Ratner has not been able to acquire privately. Those efforts, in effect, began yesterday with the corporation’s formal declaration that the blocks on which the project would be built meet the state’s definition of “blighted,” and thus qualify for eminent domain.

Critics of the project complained yesterday that the 60-day public-comment period was too short to allow residents enough time to wade through the environmental study. Others questioned why it had been released in the middle of the summer, when the borough’s community boards are in recess.

“The E.S.D.C. is making a mockery of what has already been a completely flawed process,” said Daniel Goldstein, the spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, an umbrella group for opponents of the project.

At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Gargano, the development corporation’s chairman, tried to deflect criticism of the project’s scale, one of the main issues cited by Brooklyn residents. When asked whether he thought the project could be made smaller, he replied, “I don’t think it can be.” Later, however, he gave a slightly different answer, saying that though the developer would prefer to keep the project at 8.7 million square feet, the development corporation would contemplate reductions during the public comment period.

James P. Stuckey, the Forest City executive in charge of Atlantic Yards, said criticism of the project’s scale and other attributes came from “some people, who live close in, not liking tall buildings.”

“And I have to tell you that for most people who need affordable housing, that’s just not an argument that washes,” he said.

Those who oppose the project said that the documents released by the development corporation gave them yet more ammunition. According to the general project plan for Atlantic Yards, the project’s cost, which was originally estimated at $2.5 billion and was reassessed at $3.5 billion last year, is now $4.2 billion, which Mr. Goldstein called “bloated.”

Mr. Stuckey said the increases stemmed from rising construction costs, higher land acquisition costs, and a more detailed accounting of costs than was possible at earlier stages in the project’s development.

The general project plan also projects that Atlantic Yards will generate a total of $1.91 billion in total tax revenue over 30 years, calculated as net present value. The city and state together would contribute about $500 million to the project, a mix of direct payments, tax exemptions and financing costs. Overall, according to those projections, the development as currently proposed would produce about $1.4 billion in net tax revenues to the city and state, slightly less than a previous estimate used by Forest City Ratner, and less than projected when the development was originally announced.

Mr. Stuckey said the Empire State Development Corporation study had used a different methodology. “Their calculation tends to be a more conservative calculation,” he said. “But what their own numbers are saying is, even after you look at the contribution that the government will make, the government will earn $1.4 billion in excess tax revenues as a result of this project.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

pianoman11686

July 19th, 2006, 11:01 AM

Why is there such a large discrepancy in the tax revenue numbers between the Sun's article and the NY Times? The Sun reports that the city and state will contribute $200 million (total), and will receive a net of $1.1 billion in revenue, while the Times says the contribution will be $500 million total, and net revenue will be $1.4 billion. That means the difference in gross tax revenues is an astounding $600 million dollars (!).

NYguy

July 25th, 2006, 04:00 PM

Brooklyn Papers

2,000-page report reveals impact of Atlantic Yards
State big to Brooklyn: You’re Manhattan now
Clock starts on 66-day ‘review’ of massive Yards project

By Ariella Cohen
The Brooklyn Papers

Atlantic Yards will cost more to build and benefit the public less than Bruce Ratner said it would — and carry with it environmental impacts that can not be mitigated, a state analysis disclosed this week.

But the state’s development czar said the publicly subsidized mega-development would be worth the price because it advances the Manhattanization of Brooklyn.

“We are a city of skyscrapers,” said Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, which released the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Tuesday. “We are a city of towers.”

Now, he says, it’s time the towers came to Brooklyn.

Gargano promised that if significant environmental impacts of the 16-skyscraper, 18,000-seat arena, residential, hotel, retail and office complex can’t be mitigated, the state “will respond.”

Coinciding with Tuesday’s release of the 2,000-page analysis, Gargano’s ESDC formally endorsed the project.

The action begins a 66-day period of public “review.”

Beyond the project’s size and scale, the DEIS revealed the fuzzy math behind Atlantic Yards.

Instead of generating $2.1 billion in tax revenue over the next 30 years, as Ratner promised in promotional materials and press releases, the plan certified Tuesday shows that the project would gross just over $1.9 billion — $1.1 billion for the state and $845.5 million for the city — over the next 40 years.

After subtracting $500 million in subsidies already committed by the state and city, the overall benefit to the public drops to $1.4 billion over those 40 years — $35 million a year split between the state and city.

“[The tax revenue shortfall] is big, it’s not a small difference,” said Evan Thies, a spokesman for City Councilman David Yassky (D–Brooklyn Heights).

Forest City Ratner Vice President Jim Stuckey downplayed the discrepancy in projected public benefit, calling the state’s calculations “conservative.”

In addition to the shrinking public benefit, the project’s costs are ballooning. Now Ratner’s project would cost at least $4.2 billion, up from an initial $2.5-billion pricetag, itself inflated to a more-recent $3.5-billion figure.

Stuckey said the cost of the decade-long construction project has jumped due to “a general increase in prices,” and an “incredible amount of design work” by Frank Gehry.

“Now we have a better idea of what the project will cost,” he said, adding that Ratner paid more than anticipated for homes, businesses and shops within the footprint.

Stuckey declined to reveal the company’s projected profits from the project.

Forest City Ratner has maintained that the project’s mammoth size — which the New York Observer reported Wednesday would be the most densely populated area in the United States — was necessary in order for the company to make a reasonable profit, provide affordable housing and build public space.

No members of the ESDC board raised any objections to the project’s vast scale or environmental impact before unanimously certifying the project plan and the DEIS on Tuesday.

But according to the DEIS, the project will bring a school’s worth of new children, thousands of new cars and significant noise to the residential streets closest to the project.

In addition, large segments of Fort Greene and Boerum Hill will be left in shadows, views of the historic Williamsburgh Savings Bank building will be lost, more than 600 residents of the site area will be forced to move, subways will be jam-packed, especially on game days (see sidebars, right).

When a reporter asked Gargano if the project could be scaled down to reduce effects on roads, infrastructure and local quality of life, yet still give Ratner a reasonable profit, he replied, “I don’t think it can be.”

“You aren’t going to get developers to build if they lose money,” said Gargano, a Park Slope native.

Gargano’s off-the-cuff response reflected the state’s comfort with the enormity of the project — which would occupy almost eight city blocks, would add 15,000 new residents to the area, and would include a building, Miss Brooklyn, that is 108-feet higher than the Williamsburgh, currently the borough’s tallest tower.

Opponents, predictably, said the pricetag was just too high.

“This is the most-expensive arena in the history of the country and clearly the negative impacts outweigh the benefits to the city and state,” said City Councilwoman Letitia James (D–Prospect Heights).

But the developer and his state allies still said the project would achieve its goals of both revitalizing an area they say is blighted, adding 2,250 affordable units to Brooklyn’s housing market, building seven acres of open space and returning a nifty profit for the builder.

“It’s an opportunity for people of all income levels” to make a home in an “underutilized” area, Gargano said.

“What is important is the public benefit and the fact that the [city and state] will receive $1.4 billion for its investment,” he said.

The City Council, Borough President Markowitz and state legislators all said they would do a new analysis — after already backing the project.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (R–Brunswick), who has supported the project, admitted this week that his boss hadn’t closely examined the project’s finances, but would do so in the future.

Bruno, along with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D–Manhattan) and Governor Pataki, would be asked to approve the project following the pro forma 66-day public comment period that began on Tuesday.

__________________________________________________ ______

Gargano to B’klyn: Get big

Editorial
The Brooklyn Papers

The Manhattanization of Brooklyn is now official state policy. That’s what Empire State Development Corporation Chairman Charles Gargano said this week, as his agency released a disheartening draft environmental impact statement for Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project.

The 2,000 pages of detailed analysis shows that the development is out of scale with its neighbors, would enshroud large areas in shadows, would tax an already-overburdened traffic and transit system, would create an intimidating superblock, and would require the city to spend untold millions to build schools, provide for more cops and add fire service.

That’s progress, Gargano said.

“We are a city of skyscrapers,” he said, tellingly. “We are a city of towers.”

From his Albany aerie, Charles Gargano has decided that the very thing that makes Brooklyn unique — its neighborhood scale — is the very thing that must change.

Of course, that’s Gargano’s modus operandi. His agency cares little for the concerns of locals in the communities it would plunder, choosing to side with the big-time real-estate developers who give so generously to lawmakers’ political campaigns.

ESDC, after all, is also in charge of the so-called Brooklyn Bridge Park, which is not a park at all, but an 85-acre boondoggle crafted to enrich select developers. A decade ago, the community had a perfectly good plan for a park — but Gargano & Co. tossed it in favor of a scheme that would throw open the prime waterfront land for luxury condos.

Atlantic Yards is following the same narrative arc. The community around the Prospect Heights rail yards where Ratner would build does indeed want the area developed. Area leaders offered a sensible plan to connect Prospect Heights to Fort Greene with medium-scale housing and open space, but Gargano rejected it in favor of Manhattan skyscrapers that would overpower communities on all sides.

With a population of 15,000–18,000 living on 22 acres, Atlantic Yards would be the most-densely populated Census tract in the country.

Yet even in light of his own agency’s analysis, Gargano ignores local concern about the project’s mammoth scale. We live here — and Gargano does not. Is it too much to ask that he listen to the area’s reasonable concerns and downsize Atlantic Yards?

pianoman11686

July 25th, 2006, 04:37 PM

Brooklyn Papers

“This is the most-expensive arena in the history of the country and clearly the negative impacts outweigh the benefits to the city and state,” said City Councilwoman Letitia James (D–Prospect Heights).

First of all, that is completely false. Secondly, since when has this been about the arena? I was under the impression that the arena was what people liked most about the project.

ablarc

July 25th, 2006, 05:20 PM

investordude

July 25th, 2006, 06:47 PM

lofter1

July 25th, 2006, 08:08 PM

Blight, Like Beauty, Can Be in the Eye of the Beholder

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/25/nyregion/25blight.xlarge1.jpg
Ruby Washington/The New York Times
This portion of Dean Street, between Flatbush and Sixth Avenues near the planned
Atlantic Yards, is in a part of Brooklyn that a state agency has defined as blighted.

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/nyregion/25blight.html?ex=1153972800&en=6ce162e4c7217bc3&ei=5087%0A)
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
July 25, 2006

Of all the real estate jargon, bureaucratic buzzwords and plain old insults exchanged over the proposed Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, no term has evoked quite such unruly passion as “blighted.”

During the last two years, the word has hung like a scythe over the 22-acre site, most of it on the northern edge of the Prospect Heights neighborhood, where the developer, Forest City Ratner Companies, hopes to build its $4.2 billion project.

For the developer, it is a fitting description of the abandoned auto-repair shops, collapsing brownstones and gloomy vacant lots that blemish the area, and of the eight-acre railyards that slice through the neighborhood just south of Atlantic Avenue. For many of the several hundred people who still live there, “blighted” is a term of abuse, one that ignores the sleek, recently renovated buildings on Pacific and Dean Streets, the bustling neighborhood bar, and other signs of revival. Even some supporters of the project, like Assemblyman Roger L. Green, disagree with the description.

“That neighborhood is not blighted,” Mr. Green, whose district includes the Atlantic Yards site, said at a hearing last year. “I repeat, for the record, that neighborhood is not blighted.”

The long-running blight debate took a major turn in favor of Forest City Ratner last week, when the Empire State Development Corporation, the state’s lead economic agency, formally declared the project site blighted. It was the first step in a process that could eventually allow Forest City to acquire, through eminent domain, the few remaining parcels that the company has not been able to acquire privately over the last few years.

But for all the freight the word carries around Prospect Heights these days, “blighted” is a word with no fixed definition, legal or colloquial.

It is not unlike Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous remark about pornography — “I know it when I see it” — said Joseph M. Ryan, a land-use lawyer who has consulted for the development corporation before but has no involvement with the Atlantic Yards project. “Usually it’s a high crime rate, debilitated buildings. Often you’ll have pollution, or inadequate usage of land.”

Under past court rulings, for example, an area can be declared blighted even if particular parcels within it are not. Similarly, a given plot of land can be declared “underutilized” if what is built there is smaller or shorter than zoning laws would otherwise allow, even if the building in question is not dilapidated.

Moreover, it is largely up to government officials to decide how prevalent a condition must be — how much crime, for instance — in order to label an area as blighted.

“There are no hard and fast rules regarding blight,” said Jessica Copen, a spokeswoman for the development corporation. “There’s a large area of subjectivity in evaluating the indicia of blight.”

Such rules as there are have been carved out by state and federal courts over the years. But because condemnation itself is essentially a legislative power rather than a judicial one, courts have tended to grant government officials wide latitude to make findings of blight.

“Reasonable people could differ as to whether something is overcrowded or has too much crime or too many sanitary problems or is losing jobs,” Mr. Ryan said. “But the courts will defer to the agency if they have a reasonable and rational basis for condemnation.”

Hence the 381-page blight study issued by the development corporation last week. Conducted by AKRF Inc., a consulting firm with long experience in land use and environmental engineering, the study amounts to a painstakingly detailed walking tour of the Atlantic Yards’ potential home. Hardly a crack in the sidewalk escapes notice in the study, which declared the project site replete with “structurally unsound buildings, debris-filled vacant lots, environmental concerns, high crime rates and underutilization.”

Fifty-one out of 73 parcels on the 22-acre site “exhibit one or more blight characteristics,” the study found, including buildings that are at least 50 percent vacant or are built to 60 percent or less of their allowable density.

The study also noted that, before Forest City came along, 76 parties controlled the land making up the site. Such fragmented ownership, real estate developers say, is what makes large-scale private urban development difficult without government intervention.

The study also dwells in some detail on the eight-acre railyards that make up about one-third of the site, and which also fall within an urban renewal zone the city established along Atlantic Avenue in the late 1960’s. The railyards hindered hoped-for development in the renewal zone for decades, the study notes, and continue to do so on those blocks to the south and west of the yards where the project would be.

Critics have long accused the development corporation of favoring developers. Opponents of Atlantic Yards, say that in that project, the corporation is essentially using the railyards, which constitute blight almost by definition, as a cudgel to obtain additional land through eminent domain or the threat of it.

“No one is arguing that the railyards should not be developed. That’s a pretty commonly agreed-upon point,” said Marshall Brown, an architect who helped draft the beginnings of an alternative plan for the railyards that would not have required eminent domain. “It just doesn’t make sense that the railyards themselves cannot be developed alone.”

The study also included a look at crime in the area. Because the Police Department does not collect crime statistics block by block, the study could measure only indirectly whether the site has more crime than the area surrounding it. AKRF examined three police “sectors” in Brooklyn, each of which overlaps parts of the site but extend well beyond it. The study compared the combined crime rates in those three sectors with the combined crime rates for their respective police precincts. Finding the precinct numbers lower, the study declares that “residents and businesses on the project site are more susceptible to crime” than those in surrounding neighborhoods.
Overall crime in the three precincts, however, decreased slightly between 2004 and 2005.

“They make the footprint sound like it’s a Lower East Side slum,” said Daniel Goldstein, the spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, an umbrella organization for groups opposed to the project.

The building that Mr. Goldstein lives in on Pacific Street is now owned by Forest City and is one of two within the footprint of the project that were redeveloped into luxury condos during the past several years. (Mr. Goldstein moved into his apartment shortly before the project was announced in 2003.)

Another building within the project footprint, an old bakery, was widely considered ripe for conversion by its owner, the real estate developer Shaya Boymelgreen. He has since sold it to Forest City, which now owns almost all the property it needs for the project. Company officials say they have paid high premiums on that land to minimize the need for eminent domain.

The blight study began last summer, after Forest City, the development partner of The New York Times Company in building its new headquarters on Eighth Avenue in Manhattan, had already bought up large parcels of land for the project. Some critics have questioned whether Forest City’s acquisitions — and the implicit threat of eminent domain since the project was announced in late 2003 — deterred development.

“How much of the blighted conditions were the result of the cloud of eminent domain hanging over that property, and of Ratner’s successful efforts to purchase property there?” asked Tom Angotti, a professor of urban affairs and planning at Hunter College, who studied the site with his graduate students this year. “We call it ‘planner’s blight.’ You create the cloud of eminent domain, you force people to sell, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Residents also point to several Dean Street buildings just outside the project site, and Prospect Heights’ generally strong residential real estate market, to argue that much of the site might have developed on its own.

Deborah Wetzel, a spokeswoman for the state development corporation, stood by the study’s findings. “Irrespective of the recent property acquisitions by Forest City,” Ms. Wetzel said, “we believe it highly unlikely that the blighted conditions currently present will be removed without action by the public sector.”

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

lofter1

July 25th, 2006, 08:18 PM

Some facts that cause one to pause ...

2,000-page report reveals impact of Atlantic Yards

... Instead of generating $2.1 billion in tax revenue over the next 30 years, as Ratner promised in promotional materials and press releases, the plan certified Tuesday shows that the project would gross just over $1.9 billion — $1.1 billion for the state and $845.5 million for the city — over the next 40 years.

After subtracting $500 million in subsidies already committed by the state and city, the overall benefit to the public drops to $1.4 billion over those 40 years — $35 million a year split between the state and city

... the project’s costs are ballooning. Now Ratner’s project would cost at least $4.2 billion, up from an initial $2.5-billion pricetag, itself inflated to a more-recent $3.5-billion figure.

... Stuckey declined to reveal the company’s projected profits from the project.

... according to the DEIS, the project will bring a school’s worth of new children, thousands of new cars and significant noise to the residential streets closest to the project.

... more than 600 residents of the site area will be forced to move, subways will be jam-packed, especially on game days ...

... With a population of 15,000–18,000 living on 22 acres, Atlantic Yards would be the most-densely populated Census tract in the country.

NYguy

July 25th, 2006, 09:22 PM

I thought the costs were being borne by Ratner and private money, except for infrastructure from the city which stays the same. Why does anybody besides him care what it costs? Just trying to understand why that upsets them the costs are going up.

Why should Ratner be allowed to spend money on something someone else doesn't like? Surely he should get approval from his critics first.

“This is the most-expensive arena in the history of the country and clearly the negative impacts outweigh the benefits to the city and state,” said City Councilwoman Letitia James (D–Prospect Heights).

Even if that were true, whey wouldn't the most expensive arena "in the history of the country" be built in New York? It's not some backwater town.

As far as the density and traffic issues, I'm not too concerned about it. The location is one of the best served public transit areas in the country also. As far as the new children and schools, that's a city issue. But as we've seen with the Beekman Street tower, Ratner and Gehry already have experience with that.

lofter1

July 25th, 2006, 09:26 PM

As far as the new children and schools, that's a city issue. But as we've seen with the Beekman Street tower, Ratner and Gehry already have experience with that.

But has a school been planned for the project / area?

It's not like you can build one overnight.

pianoman11686

July 25th, 2006, 10:13 PM

^The same applies to this entire project. The city will have more than enough time to plan and build a new school before the first residents even start moving in (assuming that it recognizes the need and acts upon it).

pianoman11686

July 25th, 2006, 10:15 PM

They're all idiots, pianoman; no point in refuting them. They're willing to spout nonsense till kingdom come, but it looks like it's all just impotent nattering; it's now obvious this project will go forward --and at the appropriate size (which is big and plump, not shriveled like a prune).

I know, I know. What can I say? I hate when people say stupid things like that. I hate it even more when they get publicity for it, and thereby cause other people to think in the same, stupid way.

Teno

July 25th, 2006, 11:12 PM

large segments of Fort Greene and Boerum Hill will be left in shadows, views of the historic Williamsburgh Savings Bank building will be lost,

Straw man.

the plan certified Tuesday shows that the project would gross just over $1.9 billion — $1.1 billion for the state and $845.5 million for the city — over the next 40 years. the overall benefit to the public drops to $1.4 billion over those 40 years — $35 million a year split between the state and city

This is a glass half empty/ half full view. Either way it generates profit for the city and state even if its not as much as Ratner projects.

the project will bring a school’s worth of new children, thousands of new cars and significant noise to the residential streets closest to the project.more than 600 residents of the site area will be forced to move, subways will be jam-packed, especially on game days ...

The city and MTA will have plenty of time to plan for increased car traffic, subway passengers, and school kids.

With a population of 15,000–18,000 living on 22 acres, Atlantic Yards would be the most-densely populated Census tract in the country.

Its difficult to see this being larger than Co-Op City or those Co-Op buildings on 1st and 14th (I can't think of the name of it).

Density isn't necessarily a bad thing, 15,000 new people moving to the downtown Brooklyn area city services will be able to serve them more efficiently in high density. Apartment buildings share water, energy, and sewage.

Also more housing helps balance the needs of the market and lower cost.

SilentPandaesq

July 26th, 2006, 12:16 AM

bkmonkey

July 26th, 2006, 12:59 AM

^^ Yea, but you are missing the big picture here. Those people that are going to buy into this project are not trendy or edgy. Dead-eyed rich lawyers and hedgefund guys will move into the lux apartment and middle class types will move into the affordable housing.

The end result is that the well to do Boho's that live in the area now will have to deal with people who will bring down the Q rating of the nabe. They will de-edgy the area. It is already gentrified, but now middle income big box retail will come, as well as...gasp...non-organic supermarkets, and in what is surely the 7th sign of the "end times"... sports fans. No longer will Atlantic yards residents seduce young LES girls back to their rough lofts with talk of gritty Brooklyn..

But we are talking about a very small percentage of Brooklyn overall. While the opposition is giving alot of thought to all the possible negative aspects of the project, they are not willing to consider the positive impact of it. We cannot be afraid of change, especially in a time like this, when other cities are competing. The neighborhood that will result, will be an interesting mix of people from all classes and backgrounds. Isn't that what nyc is all about? Those residents who riddicule this project now, might love it later. Besides... if you own a brownstone in the area, your property values will skyrocket... you would be able to move anywhere you wanted. I have very little sympathy for these people.

SilentPandaesq

July 26th, 2006, 01:55 AM

if you own a brownstone in the area, your property values will skyrocket... you would be able to move anywhere you wanted. I have very little sympathy for these people.
Heck, if you own a Brownstone in P-Slope, you got money to start with.

I agree with you, I was just being a little sarcastic. However, it is not funny, cause i went to law school with people that moved into the area, and to hear them talk about it, it was like Ratner was going to build a prison next door.

NYguy

July 26th, 2006, 03:30 PM

NY Press

RAIL-ROADING RATNER
Brooklynites battle Bruce Ratner’s plans to change their neighborhood

http://www.nypress.com/19/30/news&columns/building_2.jpg

Views of the Williamsburg Savings and Bank Tower will be lost with the Atlantic Yards Development.

By Sushil Cheema

At sunset, at most intersections in this part of Brooklyn, it is actually possible to see the sun set. The only high-rise building is the 34-story Williamsburg Savings and Bank Tower, an unobtrusive part of the view of swirling orange, yellow and blue at the end of the day. The area near the Vanderbilt Yards offers one of the most striking vistas. Many of the area’s residents are hoping to keep it that way.

But last week the state released documents that argue for the use of eminent domain to clear out the 22-acres of blighted land and allow for the implementation of the Atlantic Yards development project by Bruce Ratner of Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC): a basketball arena and 16 luxury high-rise buildings, some over 60 stories high.

“FCRC believes that Atlantic Yards will help bring all of the surrounding communities together by bridging the rail yard, which has served as a scar on this part of Brooklyn for too long,” says Joe DePlasco, a spokesperson for FCRC.

But at a time when the use of eminent domain to seize land for private development projects has roiled communities throughout the country, this Brooklyn project is facing its own set of opponents. A large and loud set at that.

“We don’t like it. It’s a terrible plan, and there are a million things wrong with it,” says Scott Turner of FCRC’s project. A musician and graphic designer, Turner founded Fans for Fair Play, a local group that uses sports interests to oppose the Ratner plan. “Ratner is using sports nostalgia of the Brooklyn Dodgers,” Turner says, referring to FCRC’s 2004 purchase of the New Jersey Nets and goal of moving the team to Brooklyn in time for the 2009-2010 basketball season. “He bought a team to make the luxury condo project more sexy.”

Turner, a Brooklyn resident since 1988, understands what draws people to the borough. “It’s not the idea of living next door to a huge suburban shopping mall,” he says, alluding to a completed Ratner project near the Atlantic Center, a shopping complex with stores like Target, DSW, Old Navy and Circuit City. “People come here because they don’t want to live in Manhattan.”

Rising rent costs have forced Turner to move out of the area to Greenwood Cemetery, but the Atlantic Yards project still draws his attention. “I miss the old neighborhood,” he said, ”but I don’t miss what it’s going to become.”

It is not development itself that Turner and other community leaders are against. Rather, it is the process by which the Ratner plan is being put into affect.

Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn calls the FCRC plan undemocratic. What particularly draws his ire is that FCRC’s bid to the MTA was lower than the MTA’s stated value of the site and lower than the bid placed by a group behind a community-supported plan known as Extell.

“It is the process, scale, density, and public costs, the abuse of eminent domain,” that Goldstein opposes. The mere threat of eminent domain, he adds, has already emptied out many buildings as tenants fear they will not get a good deal on their property should they choose to wait and be forced out. In his own building, Goldstein remains the last tenant. FCRC, he says, bought out the other 37 units and insisted that those people not speak to the press and say only that Ratner has treated them well.

FCRC documents state that most of the project site consists of vacant buildings, empty lots and gas stations. Any displaced residents are offered an off-site residence during construction and a new one in the development at their current rent rates. If he himself had left as his fellow tenants have, Goldstein says, his building would now be sitting empty. “Ratner can’t build this project without my apartment.”

“It’s a greedy development project,” says Sandy Balboza, president of the Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association. Like Turner and Goldstein, he cites traffic as one major area that will be impacted by Ratner’s plans. “The intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic is one of the biggest bottlenecks.” Of an arena over the Atlantic Rail Yards, he says, “It’s already a very difficult spot in terms of traffic, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to put it there.”

A resident of Brooklyn Heights for 36 years, Balboza says he came to the area because he likes the quiet, close-knit neighborhood. “Its’ just a very comfortable neighborhood. I like to see the sky. I don’t like skyscrapers. It’s a brownstone neighborhood.”

Development that benefits the neighborhood and helps it grow and keeps its essence intact is what these community leaders seek. “It should be development that is for the neighborhood,” Balboza says. “It shouldn’t be development that uses eminent domain, with buildings so high they cast shadows.” He adds, “A real city is organic, and to wipe out a good section of the neighborhood isn’t what a city is about.

“One of the things we find unbelievable is the statement that the neighborhood will not be changed by this development,” says Sue Wolfe, President of the Boerum Hill Association and a resident of Boerum Hill since 1975. “It’s an absolutely absurd statement. If you put 16 skyscrapers among three brownstone neighborhoods and an arena, you cannot say the neighborhood will not change.” She adds, “Frank Gehry and Laurie Olin are not urban planners,” referring to the two leading architects on the Ratner plan. “It’s too big a space to not have a professional urban planner on the team.”

What makes all these leaders cringe most, however, is the Environmental Impact Report released last week that states the area on which Ratner wants to build is blighted. “Most of it doesn’t pass the laugh test,” Goldstein says. Overall, he compares the report’s credibility to Colin Powell’s presentation to the U.N. at the start of the war about weapons of mass destruction.

“The blight that they talk about is a phony issue,” Balboza says. “You’re the one creating the blight by forcing people out of their homes and leaving things vacant.” He reflects on how local residents have helped the area grow during recent decades. “People came into the neighborhood and saved the buildings. We came here and renovated. “We were not speculators. We just wanted a home.”

Ratner’s act of buying out the neighborhood to make way for his own development project does not sit will with Balboza. “It’s block busting,” he says.

These community leaders also agree that FCRC has not treated the community well, particularly, they say, since it refuses to communicate and address their concerns. The Ratner camp, however, claims it has involved the community extensively. DePlasco says, “FCRC executives have attended hundreds of community meetings,” citing community board meetings, housing forums and city council hearings as examples. “Some of these meetings were called by community groups and agencies, and some were organized by FCRC to solicit community input directly.”

DePalsco also points out that FCRC has worked with many organizations in the community to develop a Community Benefits Agreement that will provide the community with amenities ranging from job training to affordable housing, but the countering groups do not think that
is enough.

And the opposition is putting up a strong fight. “There are 500 volunteers for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn,” Goldstein says over the phone while on vacation. “I think it’s kind of a grassroots movement, the likes of which the city has not seen in a long time.” And for now, he contends, the sun will set again and again over Ratner’s plan.

bkmonkey

July 26th, 2006, 05:09 PM

"A resident of Brooklyn Heights for 36 years, Balboza says he came to the area because he likes the quiet, close-knit neighborhood. “Its’ just a very comfortable neighborhood. I like to see the sky. I don’t like skyscrapers. It’s a brownstone neighborhood.”

This is exactly what the opposition boils down to in my opinion. There are people who want Brooklyn to evolve and change, and there are people who want Brooklyn to stay the same as it is.
Personally, I think that the only way the metro area can survive and remain competitive is by evolving and changing. We must however, find the balence between preservance and over development (like the type we saw in the 60's). To counter the effect of the 60's, the city has been very conservative in the past few years. We have not been able to make bold moves and take risks. We have been to afraid of the future and of change.
This plan for Downtown Brooklyn might increase traffic, and might lead to infastructure problems. However, it will tremendously benifit the city in the short and long terms. Consider this: why was the subway born? It was born out of a serious traffic problem. If the Atlantic Yards puts pressure on existing infastucture... then the city should build new infastructure. And im sure we all agree that new infastructure i.e. (new subway lines, improved roads) could not hurt anyone. We cannot remain as we were indefinatly and hope to remain prosperous.... It is by consistantly changing and evolving that we can keep our edge. Meanwhile we still can preserve our identity and our character.

Dynamicdezzy

July 26th, 2006, 05:17 PM

^Very true. I seriously doubt this development will be stopped, but lets just say it does. In 100 years, when all of the current residents are no longer with us, NYC will continue to exist with yesterday and todays progress. I would hate to see a project of this magnitude stopped because selfish ME doesn't want it to be built.

NYguy

July 26th, 2006, 07:13 PM

" This plan for Downtown Brooklyn might increase traffic, and might lead to infastructure problems. However, it will tremendously benifit the city in the short and long terms. Consider this: why was the subway born? It was born out of a serious traffic problem. If the Atlantic Yards puts pressure on existing infastucture... then the city should build new infastructure. And im sure we all agree that new infastructure i.e. (new subway lines, improved roads) could not hurt anyone. We cannot remain as we were indefinatly and hope to remain prosperous.... It is by consistantly changing and evolving that we can keep our edge.

So true. It will be a dense development for sure, but if this area - with its multiple subway and commuter lines - can't support it, then nowhere can. New York is a great city. There was a time when great projects were built and no one doubted a project of this scope could be built. But ask yourself, when was the last time anything of significance was built in the city? Certainly not in my lifetime. We can't continue to "freeze dry" the city as it was in the first half of the last century. Its time for the New York of this century to build itself. And that's exactly what's happening. There are various developments that will change the face of the city as we know it, and that's not bad. I don't know why people so often fear change. But I think life is change, and we adapt. Otherwise, what is the point of living if we are not to see or experience new things?

Alonzo-ny

July 26th, 2006, 07:48 PM

if you want to see the sunset and have empty sky outside your window dont live in one of the biggest cities in the world

pianoman11686

July 26th, 2006, 08:18 PM

NY Press

[b]RAIL-ROADING RATNER
Brooklynites battle Bruce Ratner’s plans to change their neighborhood

“We don’t like it. It’s a terrible plan, and there are a million things wrong with it,” says Scott Turner of FCRC’s project. A musician and graphic designer, Turner founded Fans for Fair Play, a local group that uses sports interests to oppose the Ratner plan. “Ratner is using sports nostalgia of the Brooklyn Dodgers,” Turner says, referring to FCRC’s 2004 purchase of the New Jersey Nets and goal of moving the team to Brooklyn in time for the 2009-2010 basketball season. “He bought a team to make the luxury condo project more sexy.”

More hogwash. Sports nostalgia? Yes, the arena is a big part, but it's not going to be even 1/5 the total cost of the development. This is about real estate. Speaking of which, since when is it a "luxury condo project"? What about all the low and moderate-income units? This guy is either an ignoramus, or an exaggerator (most likely both).

Rising rent costs have forced Turner to move out of the area to Greenwood Cemetery, but the Atlantic Yards project still draws his attention. “I miss the old neighborhood,” he said, ”but I don’t miss what it’s going to become.”

He's not even a resident! Need I say more? Why the hell is he being interviewed?

It is not development itself that Turner and other community leaders are against. Rather, it is the process by which the Ratner plan is being put into affect.

That is a blatant lie. It wouldn't matter how Ratner went about doing this. The fact that he had "the audacity," as people like Turner might put it, to propose something like this, is reason enough for opposition.

“It is the process, scale, density, and public costs, the abuse of eminent domain,” that Goldstein opposes. The mere threat of eminent domain, he adds, has already emptied out many buildings as tenants fear they will not get a good deal on their property should they choose to wait and be forced out. In his own building, Goldstein remains the last tenant. FCRC, he says, bought out the other 37 units and insisted that those people not speak to the press and say only that Ratner has treated them well.

But they have been getting bought out at fair prices, often more than market value, just so things move more quickly for Ratner. Why don't we hear from these people in the press? Because they got a good deal and upgraded their apartment to something nicer.

FCRC documents state that most of the project site consists of vacant buildings, empty lots and gas stations. Any displaced residents are offered an off-site residence during construction and a new one in the development at their current rent rates. If he himself had left as his fellow tenants have, Goldstein says, his building would now be sitting empty. “Ratner can’t build this project without my apartment.”

I hope his home is demolished and he's left with nothing. He's putting his own interests in front of those of thousands of people. Sound familiar?

“It’s a greedy development project,” says Sandy Balboza, president of the Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association. Like Turner and Goldstein, he cites traffic as one major area that will be impacted by Ratner’s plans. “The intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic is one of the biggest bottlenecks.” Of an arena over the Atlantic Rail Yards, he says, “It’s already a very difficult spot in terms of traffic, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to put it there.”

More hogwash. As people have already mentioned, why would Ratner build this in an area that has only one subway line running through it? The existing density and the infrastructure make the area appropriate for this type of development.

A resident of Brooklyn Heights for 36 years, Balboza says he came to the area because he likes the quiet, close-knit neighborhood. “Its’ just a very comfortable neighborhood. I like to see the sky. I don’t like skyscrapers. It’s a brownstone neighborhood.”

Development that benefits the neighborhood and helps it grow and keeps its essence intact is what these community leaders seek. “It should be development that is for the neighborhood,” Balboza says. “It shouldn’t be development that uses eminent domain, with buildings so high they cast shadows.” He adds, “A real city is organic, and to wipe out a good section of the neighborhood isn’t what a city is about.

I guess it makes sense to think that the benefits of this development will be confined by imaginary property lines, and none of the surrounding areas will see improvement. Oh, those new buildings proposed for downtown? The revitalization projects? The increased levels of investment? Yeah, they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Ratner's project.

“One of the things we find unbelievable is the statement that the neighborhood will not be changed by this development,” says Sue Wolfe, President of the Boerum Hill Association and a resident of Boerum Hill since 1975. “It’s an absolutely absurd statement. If you put 16 skyscrapers among three brownstone neighborhoods and an arena, you cannot say the neighborhood will not change.” She adds, “Frank Gehry and Laurie Olin are not urban planners,” referring to the two leading architects on the Ratner plan. “It’s too big a space to not have a professional urban planner on the team.”

Uh, for your information, Ms. Wolfe, you're not an urban planner either. It's your word against theirs, and since they've been doing this kind of work for their entire professional careers, I'll stick with them. Oh, and also, since when is the Williamsburg Savings Bank a "brownstone"?

What makes all these leaders cringe most, however, is the Environmental Impact Report released last week that states the area on which Ratner wants to build is blighted. “Most of it doesn’t pass the laugh test,” Goldstein says. Overall, he compares the report’s credibility to Colin Powell’s presentation to the U.N. at the start of the war about weapons of mass destruction.

Your arguments don't pass the laugh test. Thanks for the inappropriate analogy.

And the opposition is putting up a strong fight. “There are 500 volunteers for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn,” Goldstein says over the phone while on vacation. “I think it’s kind of a grassroots movement, the likes of which the city has not seen in a long time.” And for now, he contends, the sun will set again and again over Ratner’s plan.

Since when has NIMBYism not been seen in a long time? He's right though, it is being taken to a whole new level with mindless opposition such as we're seeing. I woudln't be surprised if he lays down in front of the bulldozer when it's ready to run over him. That raises another question: If he's so against a project that's so close to moving forward, why would he be on vacation? Hint to Ratner: I think now's a good time to demolish Goldstein's building.

Horribly subjective article, with even more horribly mindless comments coming from the same group of people. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing about it, and I can't wait until construction gets underway.

NYguy

July 27th, 2006, 09:19 AM

Its just the last gasp of the NIMBY's who are soundly being defeated on this one.

NY Post

ARENA FUROR ABOUT 'TIME'

By PATRICK GALLAHUE
July 27, 2006

Brooklyn activists are calling a technical foul over the timing of public hearings on the Atlantic Yards plan - saying the scheduling was done to "disenfranchise" the public and limit discussion of the colossal project's impact.

The first public hearing on the $4.2 billion NBA arena, office and housing complex planned for Prospect Heights is scheduled for Aug. 23, when many New Yorkers are on vacation and when the local community boards are in recess, said Councilwoman Letitia James, who opposes the plan.

The Empire State Development Corp. argued that it took the "very unusual" step of adding a second day for public comment - Sept. 12. But that also happens to be primary day.

__________________________________________________ ______________

The first public hearing on the $4.2 billion NBA arena, office and housing complex planned for Prospect Heights is scheduled for Aug. 23, when many New Yorkers are on vacation and when the local community boards are in recess, said Councilwoman Letitia James

Well Letitia, that give you about 3 weeks to get the word out to these folks so they can cancel their vacations to attend these all important hearings.

The Empire State Development Corp. argued that it took the "very unusual" step of adding a second day for public comment - Sept. 12. But that also happens to be primary day.

What, these people can't vote and attend a hearing on the same day?

NYguy

July 27th, 2006, 04:29 PM

Despite all the barking coming from these NIMBYs, this juggernaut can't be stopped. And so, as my favorite development in all of New York, I turn my attention to the actual construction, which will be built in phases.

The first phase will include the arena and 5 towers.

http://therealestate.observer.com/Gehry%20at%20Night.jpg

http://www.gothamist.com/attachments/garth/2006_05_13_gehry.jpg

http://www.atlanticyards.com/graphics/may06/gehry14.jpg

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Schedule and Phasing

Phase I

Phase I would begin with the reconstruction of the Vanderbilt Yard. Environmental remediation and demolition of all existing buildings would be the first tasks. Demolition on all blocks would occur in Phase I. The arena for the Nets basketball team is expected to be open in October 2009, and the rest of the Phase I development would be completed by the 4th quarter of 2010. In general, the construction of the buildings would move from west to east (arena, Urban Room, and Buildings 1 through 4). During Phase I, the period with the greatest number of buildings simultaneously under construction would be in late 2008 to early 2009 when the arena, the LIRR improvements, and five buildings would be in various stages of construction. The levels of construction activities before and after the Phase I peak would be of lesser intensity.

In total, the following activities would take place:

*Environmental remediation and demolition of existing buildings;

*Installation of infrastructure (water, sewer, telecommunications and energy) improvements for Phase I development;

*Replacement of the 6th and Carlton Avenues Bridges;

* Construction of temporary and permanent parking;

*Reconstruction of the Vanderbilt Yard including a temporary yard, mat foundations to support the future platform and buildings and the West Portal, which would connect the new Vanderbilt Yard with the LIRR Atlantic Avenue Terminal;

*Construction of the Urban Room, a publicly accessible atrium;

*Construction of a new entrance to the subway through the Urban Room;

*Construction of the arena

*Construction of five residential/commercial buildings; and

*Restoration or construction of new streets and sidewalks along the western blocks.

In 2007/8, construction would begin on the four buildings to be located on the arena block (Buildings 1-4) as well as the building on Site 5. The level of construction activity on these five buildings, the arena, and the transit improvements would remain high through early 2009. This intense level of activity would be a result of multiple trades working on different construction tasks at the same time in each building. By mid-2009, the activity would lessen, and almost all of the construction work on these buildings would be indoors to finish the interiors of the buildings. The below-grade work within the Vanderbilt Yard would continue into 2010.

NYguy

July 27th, 2006, 04:52 PM

More on Phase I

Arena Construction

The building and erection of the arena for the National Basketball Association (NBA) Nets basketball team would be the most complex of the individual construction tasks in the proposed project. The clear span over the seating and playing areas would require very complex trusses to suport the roof. Essentially, building the span is akin to building a long span bridge in place. In addition, many specialty contractors would be involved in the finishing of the building, including specialists in audio visual equipment, public safety security, and telecommunications.

Excavation and Foundations

This phase is expected to last about five months. The ground would be excavated to about 20 feet below grade, except along 6th Avenue and Dean Street where the excavation would extend to about 35 to 40 ft below the curent street levels. This depth would allow for the construction of the foundations and accommodate two levels of parking.

The event level would be about 13 feet below the main concourse level, which would meet the current grade of 6th Avenue. Excavation would start with the installation of augured steel piles, with heavy timbers to support the sides, then excavation and loading of the soil onto trucks and carting of the soil from the site. If any unreported underground tanks were to be uncovered, they would be removed in accordance with applicable New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations. As the excavation becomes deeper, a temporary ramp would be built to provide access for the dump trucks to work the site.

The excavation would involve excavators, bulldozers, and backhoes. Blating is not anticipated for the removal of soils. The concrete forms would be installed using cranes, which would also be used for reinforcing bars. Compressors and hand tools would be used for the forms. Concrete mixer trucks would bring the concrete to the site for the mass concrete pours. Concete pumps would be also used for placing the concrete.

Lower Concrete Superstructure

This phase is the erection of the lower concrete superstructure, which would overlap with the foundation work. The concrete superstructure would extend to the main concourse, above which would be the steel superstructure and roof trusses. Much of the concrete superstructure would be precast at locations offiste and trucked to the site. The precast elements would be placed by cranes. However, some of the superstructure would be cast in place concrete, which requires forms. The lower superstrucutre forms the perimeter basement wall, which holds the outside clading. The lower superstructure also supports the upper superstructure and roof.

Superstructure and Roof

Construction of the upper steel superstructure and roof would take about 10 months and would commence when the foundations and lower concrete superstructure have been completed. Parts of the superstructure and roof trusses would be fabricated offsite and transported to the arena site for installation. The superstructure and the trusses would be too large to transport over the road when fully assembled. As the superstructure is assembled, it would be lifted into place by cranes. The roof trusses, because of the long clear span over the event floor, would be extremely large. These trusses would be erected by one or more cranes in sections and connected together when lifted into place.

Exteriors

Exterior work would involve the placement of curtain wall panels on the concrete-and-steel superstructure, and completion of the roof enclosure. The exterior walls of the arena would be placed by cranes and local hoists on the superstructure frame. On the roof, metal decking would span between the trusses, and reinforcing mats would be placed upon the metal decking. Concrete would be pumped to the roof level to complete the roof structure. Waterproofing would be laid over the concrete, and a green roof system would be placed above the waterproofing. Other amenities would then be installed. The construction of the exteriors would take about 15 to 18 months. It would begin about three to four months after the start of the construction of the steel superstructure. The exteriors would be coordinated to be installed concurrently with erection of the steel superstructure and with elements of the interior finishing.

NYguy

July 27th, 2006, 10:13 PM

This week's edition of Time Out New York has a section devoted to the battles of Brooklyn, or all of the current developments.

sfenn1117

July 27th, 2006, 11:14 PM

I took this photo a few days ago. It's from Sunset Park. I can't wait to see Miss Brooklyn on the far right side of this photo. Only a landmark tower has the right to block another landmark tower, and this certainly fits the bill.

http://i7.tinypic.com/2199jcx.jpg

krulltime

July 27th, 2006, 11:40 PM

^ Yes I can see Miss Brooklyn there. I can't wait!

Oh and thank you NYguy for posting all that information aswell.

ablarc

July 28th, 2006, 02:35 AM

Ratner needs to add his crummy shopping mall across the street to this project's purview. Tear it down and replace it with a bigger, better denser project by Gehry that harmonizes with the rest.

Jack Krohn

July 28th, 2006, 12:44 PM

Once and for all, the other condo owners in Goldstein's building did not sell out of fear - they sold because they were paid double the market value on apartments that they had owned for a brief period of time .

It's been amusing to see old Dan and his cronies grow more desperate. I guess when your opponent is a superbly-connected billionaire, the only remaining option is to issue baseless declarations of imminent victory.

But along the way, he may as well take what he gets. Maybe that's why DDDB recently hired his girlfriend.

I agree that this project is inevitable. I can't wait, because only then will these whiners finally shut up. Or better yet, move out of the neighborhood.

bkmonkey

July 28th, 2006, 02:01 PM

NYguy

July 28th, 2006, 05:16 PM

Ratner needs to add his crummy shopping mall across the street to this project's purview. Tear it down and replace it with a bigger, better denser project by Gehry that harmonizes with the rest.

I've noticed from some of the models that Ratner and Gehry have plans to alter those shopping centers, but it's not clear exactly on how or with what.

NYguy

July 29th, 2006, 09:16 AM

Brooklyn Papers

Affected community boards to hold public meetings on Atlantic Yards project Aug. 3

By Gersh Kuntzman
The Brooklyn Papers

The three community boards that converge where Bruce Ratner wants to build Atlantic Yards are mad as hell at being cut out of the public review process of the largest development in Brooklyn history — and they’re going to host a public hearing about it.

Because Atlantic Yards is being overseen by the state, rather than the city, local boards have lost their traditional, though only advisory, role in the public review process.

But Community Boards 2, 6 and 8 — which cover Fort Greene, Park Slope, Boerum Hill and Prospect Heights — are fighting back, inviting the public to their own public hearings on Aug. 2.

The boards’ joint announcement couched its anger in bureaucratic language, but the implication is clear: the Empire State Development Corporation, which issued the 2,000-page, Atlantic Yards environmental impact statement last week, is trying to limit the public’s chance to comment.

“Despite repeated requests of all agencies and officials having some jurisdiction over this project, the community boards have been denied resources that would have been used to help enhance the public’s understanding of the document,” the statement said.

“We cannot and will not shirk our public mandate. Regrettably, we are forced to respond reactively to a timetable laid out before us.”

Or, as one community board insider put it, “The public has been crying out to be heard.”

The simultaneous public hearings will take place from 6-8 pm on Thursday, Aug. 3 at Long Island University’s Health Sciences Center, Room 119, at DeKalb and Hudson avenues; at Long Island College Hospital’s conference room F/G, at 339 Hicks St., at Atlantic Avenue; and at the Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation, 520 Prospect Pl., enter on Classon Avenue.

If that’s not enough screaming and yelling for you, the state’s official public hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be on Wed., Aug. 23 at 4:30 at New York City Technical College, 285 Jay St. between Johnson and Tillary streets.

In advance of the sure-to-be-packed meeting, the Empire State Development Corporation is encouraging the public to pick apart the DEIS (which can be viewed, with some difficulty, at http://www.empire.state.ny.us/AtlanticYards/DEIS.asp).

BrooklynRider

July 30th, 2006, 11:27 PM

I agree, I would hardly say Ratner is abusing emminant domain. He paid people far above market value to leave the property. The few remaining people are holding up the progress of an nieghborhood for rather selfish reasons. This is not about the preservation of one rather gritty area of Brooklyn, but the progress of an entire city.

It does seem rather abusive if you look at the outline of the footprint for the development. Why were some buildings included and others drawn around on the site plan. It is rather selective on the developers part as to what building he wanted to take and will take. It seems some deals were cut with other developers in order not to infringe on those investments.

I agree that Ratner paid fair price (well above market) for the properties he bought out. However, you are citicizing people for not selling out their HOMES. It's not like, "I want to buy your car." Home is symbolic and it is a place by design that you set down roots and pla for the long term. Why knock Goldstein for holding firm to his ideals? The more believable argument is that "you would jump at the money." He didn't. That's his prerogative as the OWNER.

pianoman11686

August 3rd, 2006, 11:04 AM

HEARINGS TONIGHT ON RATNER PLAN

By RICH CALDER

August 3, 2006 -- Leaders of the three Brooklyn community boards representing neighborhoods affected by Bruce Ratner's proposed Atlantic Yards project will hold public hearings simultaneously tonight on the $4.2 billion project.

Community Boards 2, 6 and 8, in a joint statement, criticized the timing of the Empire State Development Corp.'s July 18 decision to grant preliminary project approval.

Residents now have until Sept. 22 to respond to the project's 1,400-page draft environmental-impact statement - meaning they must deal with it over the summer months, when people take vacations.

The meetings start at 6 p.m. at CB2 at Long Island University, DeKalb and Hudson avenues; CB6 at Long Island College Hospital, Hicks Street at Atlantic Avenue; and CB8 at 520 Prospect Place.

Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc.

SilentPandaesq

August 3rd, 2006, 11:21 AM

- meaning they must deal with it over the summer months, when people take vacations.

Are they for real? Completly forgetting the merits of their opposition to the project, this is the clincher of the argument against the hearing:

"Boo Hoo. It's summer and I have to come back from my beach house to complain about something."

What?... People don't have E-mail and list-serves.

I am glad that something is so important as to make one have to re-think going to the Hamptons for the rest of the month. I mean it is only your homes....or so you say...

ld876

August 3rd, 2006, 04:11 PM

You know if it was winter it'd just be 'planned to coincide with cold temperatures to make attendance limited'...

Transic

August 4th, 2006, 02:40 AM

Or timed for Election Day to make sure they couldn't vote. ;)

Teno

August 4th, 2006, 01:12 PM

Ratner renter revolt
Holdout tenants prep Yards suit

By Ariella Cohen
The Brooklyn Papers
The Brooklyn Papers / Aaron Greenhood

Atlantic Yards holdout Joseph Pastori wants to stay at 473 Dean St., where he’s lived here since 1967. He’s pictured in the apartment of his neighbor and fellow holdout, Robin Weil.

Rent-stabilized tenants living in buildings owned by Atlantic Yards mega-developer Bruce Ratner say they’ll sue the state to block the condemnation of their homes to make way for the project.

At issue is whether the Empire State Development Corporation — by condemning the buildings — has given Ratner a green light to evict the tenants despite protections guaranteed by their rent-stabilized leases.

“[The ESDC] is depriving a whole group of people of rights they have,” said George Locker, a lawyer representing 15 tenants within the footprint.

The latest legal twist in the Atlantic Yards project was set into motion last week, when the ESDC released a list of exactly which Prospect Heights properties it plans to acquire through eminent domain.

In total, 410 people will be displaced to make way for Ratner’s basketball arena and 6,860 units of housing —[2,250 of them rent-stabilized.

Most of the renters in Ratner-owned buildings have already left the 22-acre Atlantic Yards footprints, taking generous relocation offers from the developer.

Yet about 20 rent-stabilized renters remain — and once the condemnation goes through, their rent-stabilized protection will vanish, experts said.

“Rent-stabilized tenants will get less than what they would get” when eminent domain isn’t used, said attorney Michael Rikon, who once represented tenants who settled with Ratner after the state condemned their homes to make way for his Metrotech development in Downtown Brooklyn.

The legal hoops a building owner must jump through in order to demolish a building that houses protected tenants often add years of delay — and lots of legal fees — to a project.

Ratner made buyout offers before the state moved to condemn the properties.

About a month after Ratner bought the slim, brick tenements, he made an offer that some tenants could not refuse: subsidized rents for three years and then an affordable rental apartment in Atlantic Yards. A few took the package. A few refused.

Melvin Gunther was a renter who took the money and ran. In June, Ratner helped relocate him from a $410-a-month SRO on Dean Street to a $1,000-a-month two-bedroom in Bushwick.

With a $120-a-month check from Ratner and a housing voucher from the city — which ACORN, a Ratner ally, helped Gunther get — the retiree pays only $48 more per month for the far-bigger pad.

He believes that in three years, when his deal with Ratner runs out, the developer will deliver on his promise of an affordable unit in the Atlantic Yards complex.

Ratner says that Gunther’s situation is typical among renters who chose to sign on the dotted line before the condemnation process began.

“[W]e have offered all renters the opportunity to move into the development at comparable rents and into apartments of comparable size,” said Ratner spokesman Joe DePlasco.

Robin Weil, an artist who has lived on disability payments in her rent-stabilized Dean Street studio for 13 years, rejected Ratner’s offer, fearing he wouldn’t be able to build within the three-year deal.

“I couldn’t take an offer [from a] developer who has overtaken the past three years of my life, ” said Weil, sitting in her 200-square-foot studio — a book-filled room that costs her $594.96 a month.

Teno

August 4th, 2006, 01:28 PM

We have 20 people who plan to block the possibility of 2,250 new rent stabilized apartments. And claim they are doing it for the good of Brooklyn.

Ratner has the momentum and clearly the state is going to side with him and condemn any property he cannot secure. At the point the best the community can do to negotiate with Ratner. Allow him to go ahead with the first phase of the building project after that is completed see how well it goes then negotiate on what is best for the rest of the land.

Right now they are trying to delay and halt the entire project which only gives Ratner more fuel to plow ahead with his full plan.

SilentPandaesq

August 4th, 2006, 04:21 PM

Seriously, what do I have to do to get my building in the sights of Ratner?

And the holdouts have a better deal than -
A check every month??? An open slot in affordable housing in a new development in the heart of Brooklyn, over the 3rd largest transport hub in the city? Help relocating for the duration? Man, I just moved from BK to the UES and I would have killed to have someone help me move.

Something tells me that those holdouts have more money than the average rent-stable tennet.

SilentPandaesq

August 4th, 2006, 04:23 PM

A tale of three community boards

Web Exclusive
The Brooklyn Papers
It was neither the best of times, nor the worst of times, but three community boards surrounding Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards mega-development held hastily scheduled, little-publicized and legally irrelevant public hearings last night (Thursday, Aug. 3) to give residents a chance to vent. Little was said that wasn’t said before, but racial and class schisms were reopened. Residents of Boards 2 and 6, which cover tony areas such as Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope and Fort Greene, were almost entirely against the project. Residents of Board 8, which covers a much-less-well-off area extending from Prospect Heights to Brownsville, were far more supportive of the project. Virtually all people who spoke in favor of the project were black. Virtually all who spoke against it were white. In the style of The Brooklyn Papers’ triple-threat Brooklyn Cyclones coverage, we now offer a menage-a-transcript from last night’s event.

lofter1

August 4th, 2006, 05:39 PM

A tale of three community boards (cont'd)

WEB (http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol29/29_31/29_31nets1.html) Exclusive
The Brooklyn Papers

In the style of The Brooklyn Papers’ triple-threat Brooklyn Cyclones coverage, we now offer a menage-a-transcript from last night’s event.

* number in parenthesis is the number of speakers who are Ratner employees/consultants/Community Benefits Agreement signatories

Community Board 2: Long Island University Number in attendance: 125

Number of speakers con vs. pro: 29–5 (3)*

Celebrities: Assembly candidate Hakeem Jeffries and Forest City Ratner Vice President Jim Stuckey

Time: 2:06

Main concerns aired (ranked in order): Traffic; lack of community input; scale/density; Ratner “sweetheart deal” to get the Yards site.

Biggest applause line: “I personally apologize for the process. It is the most corrupt [development process] being done in America,” said state Sen. Velmanette Montgomery (D–Prospect Heights)

Fun fact: Jeffries signed in as “For” the project, but spoke mostly against it!

Community Board 6: Location Long Island College Number in attendance: 60

Number of speakers con vs. pro: 24–5 (3)*

Celebrities: Gloria Mattera (former Green Party candidate for borough president), Forest City Ratner Vice President Jim Stuckey and “Gridlock” Sam Schwartz

Time: 1:25

Main concerns aired (ranked in order): Scale of project/impacts; Ratner’s “sweetheart deal” to get the Yards site; lack of community input; use of eminent domain.

Biggest applause line: “I’m not a rocket scientist, but new buildings aren’t built strong enough,” said Lila Smith. “They’ll implode within 10 years.”

Fun fact: Meeting was held in the same place where our editor’s wife had her birthing classes!

Community Board 8: Hospital Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation Number in attendance: 70

Number of speakers con vs. pro: 30–21 (6)*

Celebrities: Develop Don’t Destroy spokesman Daniel Goldstein and Forest City Ratner Vice President Jim Stuckey

Time: 2:00

Main concerns aired (ranked in order): Jobs; affordable housing; Ratner’s record in the neighborhood; eminent domain/displacement.

Biggest applause line: “If you all aren’t ready for change, then I’m sorry, because we are,” Leola Holmes, speaking in favor of the project.”

Fun fact: The board offered free food — and it went fast!

ablarc

August 4th, 2006, 05:47 PM

Biggest applause line: “I’m not a rocket scientist, but new buildings aren’t built strong enough,” said Lila Smith. “They’ll implode within 10 years.”
That is an amazingly stupid thing to say. Why would anyone applaud such balderdash? Oh, I get it...everyone who applauded was stupid too.

SilentPandaesq

August 4th, 2006, 06:07 PM

^^ Nope, just getting desperate. He could have said "I heard that Ratner is using stolen babies as cement mix, and I am against that" and the claps would have come.

The money quote is:

I personally apologize for the process. It is the most corrupt [development process] being done in America,” said state Sen. Velmanette Montgomery (D–Prospect Heights)

Really? In America. Not the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Not some Big Easy shake down, Not the big dig in Bean Town. Not some pork barrel rest-stop exhibit of corn, but a Nets arena and some apartments.

Lofter: - thanks - I tried to post the chart but I could not get the formating right.

lofter1

August 4th, 2006, 06:07 PM

"Implode" :confused: :o

Ridunkulous!!!

And look at the paltry number of people who showed up ...

~ 250 covering 3 Community Board Districts -- pathetic.

Of those 83 spoke against it, 30 spoke in favor.

The opposition has turned into a farce.

This project will happen -- no doubt about it.

lofter1

August 4th, 2006, 06:09 PM

Lofter: - thanks - I tried to post the chart but I could not get the formating right.

yw.

Believe me -- it wasn't easy

Teno

August 4th, 2006, 06:47 PM

250 covering 3 Community Board Districts -- pathetic.

They will likely blame it on August.

Its interesting the dividing line is between white and black. White being the more affluent and wealthy, black being more working class.

But like I've said before most people I know in my neighborhood of Fort Greene either don't really care or are somewhat supportive.

Most people are against eminent domain. After they find that most of the property has been bought fairly they have little else to object to.

I only see a small number of people who are so emotionally adamantly against the entire project.

I agree that Ratner did not play fairly. He's done everything possible to stack the deck in his favor. Which honestly any business person would do. I think he should built the first phase and do some evaluation before building out the rest of the plan.

kz1000ps

August 4th, 2006, 09:04 PM

“I’m not a rocket scientist, but new buildings aren’t built strong enough. They’ll implode within 10 years.”

Oh my goodness. She did NOT really say that...no freaking way. Absolutely mind blowing....the thoughts running through my head right now..

lesterp4

August 4th, 2006, 10:20 PM

That "lila's statement" is about the most ignorant statement I have heard in quite a while!!!!

pianoman11686

August 4th, 2006, 11:09 PM

This is one of those things that can lead to a kind of urban legend developing. One wonders what could have possibly motivated such a statement. Was it some kind of perverted reaction to the collapse of the World Trade Center? Was it simply a marriage of desperation and ignorance, as some have hypothesized? In any case, it still sounds inexplicably stupid.

No, you're not a rocket scientist, but you're also not part of the construction industry, and you don't know what you're talking about. So just shut up.

Transic

August 5th, 2006, 12:20 AM

The Cindy Sheehan of real estate. :D

Anyway, this controversy has now even affected street fairs. Oh, goody! :rolleyes:

http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/440499p-371091c.html

Ratner's Atlantic Antic cash riles foes

BY ELIZABETH HAYS
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

The controversy surrounding the Atlantic Yards Nets arena complex has spread to this fall's Atlantic Antic street fair.

A group of Atlantic Ave. merchants is angry a local development group accepted $20,000 from Yards developer Bruce Ratner to be a "lead sponsor" of the Sept. 17 fair.

Members of the group are demanding the Atlantic Avenue Local Development Corp. turn down the money.

"It's a bad decision, given the community opposition," said Sandy Balboza of the Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association. "There's a perception that if they're taking money from him, they're supporting him."

At least two merchants have vowed to boycott the event if the money is not returned.

Rachel Leibowicz of Circa Antiques said she will close her store in protest that day, and Frances Caroll of Silk Road Antiques will not open a booth outside her store, as she has for five years.

"We shouldn't be taking money from our mortal enemies who are doing us wrong," said Leibowicz.

Other businesses stopped short of a boycott, but at least four more are against the sponsorship.

"They should give it back, especially this year with the controversy," said Charlie Sahadi of Sahadi's.

Development Corp. officials defended the move and said Ratner has given money for a decade. Ratner also owns the Atlantic mall at Flatbush Ave.

"Their sponsorship of the event does not constitute an endorsement by the LDC of the Atlantic Yards project," said board President Ian Kelley, adding that his group also has given a free booth to project critics for the past three years.

Last year, Ratner gave the fair $5,000, Kelley said. In June, an art show organized by the LDC turned down sponsorship from Ratner after a committee vote. A spokesman said Ratner "has long supported the Atlantic Antic. We look forward to doing it this year and for many years to come."

Originally published on August 4, 2006

TREPYE

August 5th, 2006, 02:50 AM

Biggest applause line: “I’m not a rocket scientist, but new buildings aren’t built strong enough,” said Lila Smith. “They’ll implode within 10 years.”

Man, that is a pretty moronic thing to say and imagine how brainless you have to be to actually commend such absurdity with an applause. Stupids.:rolleyes:

investordude

August 5th, 2006, 04:23 AM

I was noticing how cool the J condo looks from the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge and city hall area. I was trying to figure out if Atlantic Yards and/or the Thor Equities Albee Square Buildings or some of the Gold Street Condos will be high profile visible parts of the Brooklyn skyline as seem from the East River or from Lower Manhattan. Likewise, since it would have such a drastic effect on the value of the condos, what will Manhattan look like from Atlantic Yards.

Is this site too far away to sell Manhattan views?

I think Jersey City benefited when the Goldman Sacks tower went up because the skyline as seen from Manhattan started to show its true potential - it would be great if Brooklyn would achieve the same benefit but I'm afraid I'm not good at visually eyeballing what that view is going to look like.

TREPYE

August 5th, 2006, 12:12 PM

I'm afraid I'm not good at visually eyeballing what that view is going to look like.

I don't blame you. Getting past those disgusting metrotech buildings is very hard to do.

lofter1

August 7th, 2006, 07:01 PM

New York Magazine on the “Atlantic Yards” Project (http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/07/new-york-magazine-on-atlantic-yards/)

http://www.streetsblog.org/ (http://www.streetsblog.org/)
Monday, August 7th, 2006

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/ratner_brooklyn.jpg

For a few years now, the city's media elite has studiously avoided serious, honest coverage of Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project. That is why it is so refreshing to see that this week's New York magazine is running the single best story on the mega-development project (http://www.nymag.com/news/features/18862/) that I have yet seen in any mainstream press. It's by political reporter Chris Smith and it is a must-read.

Or, if you want to skip to Smith's conclusion:

As a political reporter, I know that money and spin usually win. But in looking at Atlantic Yards up close, it’s outrageous to see the absolute absence of democratic process. There’s been no point in the past four years at which the public has been given a meaningful chance to decide whether something this big and transformative should be built on public property.

Instead, race, basketball, and Frank Gehry have been tossed out as distractions to steer attention away from the real issue, money. Ratner’s team has mounted an elaborate road show before community boards and local groups, at which people have been allowed to ask questions and vent, and the developer has made a grand show of listening, then tinkering around the edges.

But the fundamentals of the project — an arena plus massive residential and commercial buildings — has never been up for discussion. Ratner, with Gehry’s aid, has built a titanium-clad, irregularly angled tank and driven it relentlessly through a gauntlet of neighborhood slingshots. And Bloomberg and Pataki — our only elected representatives with the power to force a real debate about Atlantic Yards—instead jumped aboard early and fastened their seat belts. What at first seemed to me impressive on a clinical level — a developer’s savvy use of state-of-the-art political tactics — ends up being, on closer inspection, truly chilling.

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/ratzilla060807_4_560.jpg
Photograph by Vincent Laforet. Illustration by Jason Lee.
An aerial view of the Atlantic Yards project, including projected shadows.

SilentPandaesq

August 7th, 2006, 07:24 PM

^^ it has been awhile since physics class but I remember a thing or two about calculating shadows using triangles and angles. That picture looks a little miss-leading (sorry for the Miss Brooklyn pun). Espically since the WSB does not have a shadow at all.

On further investigation I believe that that area of Brooklyn is somewhere above Hudson Bay, Canada, since the Sun generally sets in the west and not in the south, but correct me if I am wrong.

ablarc

August 7th, 2006, 08:13 PM

On further investigation I believe that that area of Brooklyn is somewhere above Hudson Bay, Canada, since the Sun generally sets in the west and not in the south, but correct me if I am wrong.
You're right, those shadows are completely bogus. Coming from due south, you wouldn't get those shadows even on December 21.

You'd think New York's editor would have caught this. Makes you wonder about the journalist integrity of the rest.

Pulp.

* * *

And anyway: shadows are as often welcome as unwelcome, and they move after a while. These dog days you're grateful for all the shade you can get. The entire issue is hogwash.

TonyO

August 7th, 2006, 08:28 PM

NY Times
The City
Editorial

The Atlantic Yards Project

Published: August 6, 2006

If there was ever a place in New York City to put a development that combines housing, businesses and a sports arena, it ought to be the Atlantic Yards site in Brooklyn, an underdeveloped area near the borough’s downtown that has ready access to nine subway lines and the Long Island Rail Road. Yet the proposal by the developer, Bruce Ratner, has been controversial from the start, mainly because of opposition from area residents who fear it would change the character of their neighborhoods.

After watching the project evolve for the past few years, we feel — with a few caveats — that it deserves to go forward. The opportunities it presents, and the nearly 7,000 apartment units it will provide a housing-starved city, outweigh the problems it would entail. These advantages have been repeated endlessly by Mr. Ratner, who is also The Times’s partner in building its new Manhattan headquarters. More than 2,200 of the apartment units would have rents targeted to low-, moderate- and middle-income families. The Nets basketball team would bring major league sports back to Brooklyn. The buildings designed by Frank Gehry would add a sense of excitement to the entire area. And, when finished in 2016, the project will add substantially to city and state tax revenues.

The developers have addressed some of the community’s early objections, particularly worries about traffic. The most important promise involves improvements to the subway stations that would make it easier for riders to move from one line to another, or to the L.I.R.R. That should be a boon to local residents, who deserve to be rewarded for enduring what will be almost a decade of construction.

The plan also calls for changes in traffic light timing and a reconfiguration of traffic flow around the arena; satellite parking for basketball fans; and a program that would combine game tickets with Metrocards to keep as many fans as possible on the subways. Traffic will still be an issue when the project is finished, but the developers are not obliged to hold the neighborhood harmless. Their job is to demonstrate that their buildings will not make a bad situation intolerable, and the promises made by Mr. Ratner and his associates seem like reasonable responses to that challenge.

Community outreach has been far better in the Atlantic Yards project than it was, say, in the now-defunct plans to build a Jets stadium in Midtown Manhattan. Mr. Ratner has worked hard to deal fairly with the property owners who would be displaced by the project, but he must also take care to accommodate the rent-stabilized tenants who will have to leave.

A project of this size should have a meaningful public hearing process, so it is troubling that this one has not. It would help if the 60-day public review period on the draft environmental impact statement released last month — at the height of summer — were extended another month, to late October.

And while the Ratner company will finance much of the project, taxpayers are still being asked to underwrite $200 million in direct city and state subsidies. Some $40 million, for example, is for land acquisition for the arena, which should be a developer expense. The project may require the city to build more classrooms, expand sewer and water services and provide more police on game days. It is up to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration to demand from the developer every reasonable contribution to defray these extra expenses.

Finally, there is the matter of density — the biggest, and most reasonable concern. At 8.7 million square feet, the project remains enormous, even after coming down 5 percent. The non-profit Municipal Arts Society, a respected voice on urban design, came up with a still smaller version by applying city zoning standards, and parts of it are appealing, particularly in how it envisions more publicly accessible park space.

A more important issue is scale. The project would benefit if the square footage came down at least another 15 percent, which in turn would lighten the load on infrastructure, including the streets. Opponents of the plan have pressed for a more dramatic downscaling, pointing to the contrast with the surrounding, low-rise neighborhoods. But the planners are correct in seeing an opportunity to build something grander and doing it at the one place in the borough that can handle it.

BrooklynRider

August 7th, 2006, 09:14 PM

We have 20 people who plan to block the possibility of 2,250 new rent stabilized apartments. And claim they are doing it for the good of Brooklyn.

You completely mischaracterize what these people are trying to "block." No one opposed to the Atlantic Yards Development is opposed to the construction of new housing. No one is opposed to the development of Atlantic Yards. And, what they are doing is not being done to the detriment of other New Yorkers. This is a group of people fighting to keep their homes. They are a group of people who, it seems, aren't looking for a pay out as much as they are the comfort, stability and reassurance that comes with living in a place for years and contributing to a neighborhood.

I assume that you have a price at which you can be bought off and, somewhere in the course of this drama, that price has been offered to these people. They aren't interested. It seems they are being attacked for not living by another person's standards or for seeing the situation beyond dollars and cents. The buy-outs being offered to them and the ones offfered to and accepted by so many others are a buy out of rights as much as apartment space.

There are some people for whom "principles" still matter. These are a few ofthem.

They aren't trying to block housing and this attempt to draw them as opponents of housing for the masses is repugnant. It is the FACT that the community was excluded from the development process in the earliest stages that brings us to this situation now. Ratner has a 22 acre parcel handed to him on large part due to a non-competitive bid submission - scrutinized and negotiated in private - and now it is being suggested that he be deified for working this backroom deal that excluded other developers from any DIALOGUE with state reps, let alone negotiation.

The "good of Brooklyn" is the strength of its communities. It's great to see everyone focusing on Brooklyn since this project started, but City Hall has treated this Borough as a backwater and left it to its own care or destruction for decades. Some places suffered mightily for it: East New York, Coney Island, Bushwick, Bed-Stuy, Brownsville. Other neighborhoods stuck it out and became stronger. The worst (IMO) that I listed were even fighting their way back before the city came in with these and other plans to "encourage" development.

It is either with incredible ignorance or total lack of respect that anyone would say that these people or any opponents of Ratner are opposed to building affordable housing, opposed to developing Atlantic Yards, or opposed to smart development. These particular people in the article are fighting for their homes. The larger coalition opposed to Ratner is not just fighting this project, but rather the arrogant behavior of government and developer in believing that THEY alone can decide what is best for the community. All these criticisms seem to neglect one key component in their arguments - a community existed, does exist and will continue to exist with or without this project. To continually pretend that this project is being built in some sort of vacuum where there was nothing before is simply that: pretend.

BrooklynRider

August 7th, 2006, 09:45 PM

...Yet the proposal by the developer, Bruce Ratner, has been controversial from the start, mainly because of opposition from area residents who fear it would change the character of their neighborhoods...

The opposition was fermented by the EXCLUSION of residents from the planning process. Brooklynites can handles change as can be seen in the wide acceptance of the Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning, the Park Slope upzoning of 4th Ave, the inclusionary zoning agreement in Greenpoint and Williamsburg.

...The developers have addressed some of the community’s early objections, particularly worries about traffic. The most important promise involves improvements to the subway stations that would make it easier for riders to move from one line to another, or to the L.I.R.R. That should be a boon to local residents, who deserve to be rewarded for enduring what will be almost a decade of construction...

Adderssing "some of the early objections," is not the same as addressing all the objections and addressing the new ones that arise as each new "plan" or impact report is released. This editorial also fails to note that the developer RELUCTANTLY agreed to meet with community groups, circumvented in place protocols for working with Community Boards and forged a CBA with organizations it financially supports.

This editorial is just incredible in its statement that easier transfers between the subway lines (1) are what people are most stridently needing (2) the renovations to these subways stations (just completed) will render them back to a state of construction and the LIRR has yet to see its completion date, and (3) easier transfers does NOTHING to address the building of a small city over a transportationm terminal.

Traffic will still be an issue when the project is finished, but the developers are not obliged to hold the neighborhood harmless. Their job is to demonstrate that their buildings will not make a bad situation intolerable, and the promises made by Mr. Ratner and his associates seem like reasonable responses to that challenge.

Traffic was the issue most people complained about - above and beyond subway access and tranfers. And here, NYT admits it has not been addressed. The responses by Ratner have been evasive at best. They have "demonstrated" that they cannot be held at their word as they have reneged, renegotiated, reduced and enlarged different parts of "the plan."

Community outreach has been far better in the Atlantic Yards project than it was, say, in the now-defunct plans to build a Jets stadium in Midtown Manhattan....

This is more a condemnation of the Mayor than anything else. It was not a "developer" that was proposing the Jets Stadium - it was the Mayor's Office. In this case, the community outreach has been better because in the last instance there was absolutely none. Using that analogy, the bar was not set high for this project.

A project of this size should have a meaningful public hearing process, so it is troubling that this one has not. It would help if the 60-day public review period on the draft environmental impact statement released last month — at the height of summer — were extended another month, to late October.

And while the Ratner company will finance much of the project, taxpayers are still being asked to underwrite $200 million in direct city and state subsidies. Some $40 million, for example, is for land acquisition for the arena, which should be a developer expense. The project may require the city to build more classrooms, expand sewer and water services and provide more police on game days. It is up to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration to demand from the developer every reasonable contribution to defray these extra expenses.

Finally, there is the matter of density — the biggest, and most reasonable concern. At 8.7 million square feet, the project remains enormous, even after coming down 5 percent. The non-profit Municipal Arts Society, a respected voice on urban design, came up with a still smaller version by applying city zoning standards, and parts of it are appealing, particularly in how it envisions more publicly accessible park space.

A more important issue is scale. The project would benefit if the square footage came down at least another 15 percent, which in turn would lighten the load on infrastructure, including the streets....

Uh, let's see. They offer a five paragraphs praising the project, saying "full steam ahead," then the last four paragraphs listing the problems and specifically calling for a scaling back.

John Kerry couldn't have written a more strident argument for/against the proposal. I couldn't imagine that the NYT publisher had any influence over this crap.

So, in its present configuration the project is just too big, residets need to be dealt with fairly, traffic issues have not yet been dealt with adquately, public review and input has been stunted, and infrastructure will be negatively impacted. But, the NYTimes, in its infinite wisdom, advocates building it.

The Old Gray Lady is suffering from dementia.

pianoman11686

August 7th, 2006, 10:57 PM

You completely mischaracterize what these people are trying to "block." No one opposed to the Atlantic Yards Development is opposed to the construction of new housing. No one is opposed to the development of Atlantic Yards. And, what they are doing is not being done to the detriment of other New Yorkers. This is a group of people fighting to keep their homes. They are a group of people who, it seems, aren't looking for a pay out as much as they are the comfort, stability and reassurance that comes with living in a place for years and contributing to a neighborhood.

...

There are some people for whom "principles" still matter. These are a few ofthem.

I'm confused. You defend these people as individuals who aren't trying to block development and new housing, but to simply stay in their homes. But isn't that incredibly selfish in and of its own? We're talking about all of 20 people here, if I remember correctly. Goldstein is the only one left in his building. Tell me why the reluctance of these 20 people should be valued over the support given to this project by all of the other community groups and politicians. What makes them so special? In my opinion, the only thing that makes them special is because they're different, and the media loves charity cases. That's why their voices are heard as loudly as they are; it doesn't matter what they use to support their position.

They aren't trying to block housing and this attempt to draw them as opponents of housing for the masses is repugnant. It is the FACT that the community was excluded from the development process in the earliest stages that brings us to this situation now.

Okay, so how should they be drawn, if not as opponents? As idealists? What exactly are they standing up for, if not their own interests? Do they really have the best interests of the community in mind here, or are they just generally anti-change, anti-development? I don't see it any other way.

It is either with incredible ignorance or total lack of respect that anyone would say that these people or any opponents of Ratner are opposed to building affordable housing, opposed to developing Atlantic Yards, or opposed to smart development. These particular people in the article are fighting for their homes. The larger coalition opposed to Ratner is not just fighting this project, but rather the arrogant behavior of government and developer in believing that THEY alone can decide what is best for the community. All these criticisms seem to neglect one key component in their arguments - a community existed, does exist and will continue to exist with or without this project. To continually pretend that this project is being built in some sort of vacuum where there was nothing before is simply that: pretend.

I don't see how this argument is any more credible than the arguments the supporters make about the racial divide within this debate. You're basically saying that the entire process has been undemocratic, that people haven't been given any choice at all, and that, in fact, the majority has been overruled by a powerful minority (the developers and their supporters). I don't see how that can be justified given the overwhelmingly large percentage of people that were bought out fairly, and had the same option to stay in their homes as these 20 people that remain. The fact is, they were given more than their market value, and the deal was good enough that they made the sacrifice to move, and in many cases, benefitted from it.

What I will agree with you on is the amount of subsidies that Ratner is being given. Having read through some of the estimates recently, I'm surprised that they're that large. But I don't see why that gives people the right to single Ratner out, when developers get unjustifiably large subsidies all over the city. It's part of a larger problem, not completely unrelated to the Bush idea of removing all corporate tax and increasing the burden on consumers. The idea is that government invests in business enrichment, and the benefit to the economy will outweigh the harm to consumers in the loss of money through taxation. But again, that is part of a larger issue, and the fact that Ratner is singled out here is just another example of how the opposition will look for any reason to halt a project.

In this particular case, I don't see Ratner's project not getting underway as planned. If the market changes, perhaps some elements will change or it'll be scaled down, but the simple reality is that the "harm" to the minority is not large enough to outweigh the benefit to the majority. Utilitarianism: n : doctrine that the useful is the good; especially as elaborated by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill; the aim was said to be the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Derek2k3

August 7th, 2006, 11:19 PM

http://static.flickr.com/97/209673844_19aa6705f1_o.jpg

ablarc

August 7th, 2006, 11:40 PM

^ Crap, to be sure.

Ratner may have done plenty of crap, but Gehry doesn't.

TREPYE

August 8th, 2006, 05:15 AM

All these criticisms seem to neglect one key component in their arguments - a community existed, does exist and will continue to exist with or without this project. To continually pretend that this project is being built in some sort of vacuum where there was nothing before is simply that: pretend.

Uhm..... A pit in the ground with parked trains- wouldn't you consider that an urban "void" or "vacuum" as you say? Dude these people need to wake up and realize that this will enhance their community via real estate value, local recreation and aesthetic value.

TREPYE

August 8th, 2006, 05:24 AM

NY Times
The City
Editorial

The Atlantic Yards Project

Published: August 6, 2006

Opponents of the plan have pressed for a more dramatic downscaling, pointing to the contrast with the surrounding, low-rise neighborhoods. But the planners are correct in seeing an opportunity to build something grander and doing it at the one place in the borough that can handle it.

And not for nothing this contextual/contrasting to the surrounding neighboorhoods theme is a bunch of hogwash; specially when you are talking about a defunct area such as railyards. Does this mean that Brooklyn or any other borough for that matter cannot have a neighborhood that represents the architectural era or taste of the early 21st century??

I am all for preserving the past but I am also for creating a contemporary architectural character (specially one by an architect/artist such as Gehry) that may be celebrated in future generations the way we celebrate the brownstones of Brooklyn Heights, or Art Deco and Beaux-Arts styles all over Manhattan.

ablarc

August 8th, 2006, 08:02 AM

^ Way to go, TREPYE!

BrooklynRider

August 8th, 2006, 12:25 PM

Uhm..... A pit in the ground with parked trains- wouldn't you consider that an urban "void" or "vacuum" as you say? Dude these people need to wake up and realize that this will enhance their community via real estate value, local recreation and aesthetic value.

You are either convemiently or ignorantly sidestepping my repeated statements that it is the existing buildings in the footprints of this proposed project that are at issue, not the barren railyards.

The question back to you is whether the home YOU are currently living in, whether as house, an apartment or a dormitory is an "urban void" or a "vacuum." Let me argue that the space in which you live is blighted, does not have a right to exist and stands in the way of thousands of other people - who don't current live here - finding homes.

Is your argument in response going to be worldview or selfish?

It's easy to stand about and cast opinions on how others ought to just uproot their lives to unknown areas so that some unforseen group of people who have no names can come and settle where you you live and enjoy a better life.

If this was simply the "barren railyards," it wouldn't be an issue. Everyone is ignoring that these people have lived here for decades and keep arguing that this area is blighted. Richard Goldstein has every right NOT to sell his property. He was part of a group of people that invested in Prospect Heights and helped turn it around.

No one said, "boo" about this empty, barren and, now, conveniently labeled "blighted" area until now. This site has been sitting here underutilized and endeveloped, but hardly blighted. Where was all the indignation over the city allowing it to go unutilized? Where is all the anger at the MTA?

Instead, you are going to unleash an arsenal of hatred and venom at a group of people who have lived here and are trying to protect their homes? Yeah, one guy got moved to from an SRO to an apartment in Bushwick. BUSHWICK. That is ONE example. How about we move someone living in a loft in SOHO (in a similar development situation) to East Harlem - you think they are going to say "thank you" and rush for the deal?

People ought to find another way to satisfy their appetite for development without calling into question the motivation of people who are DEFENDING their right to live where they have lived. They are on the DEFENSIVE not the offensive. Selfish is the disgusting lack of respect that is shown for these people. Not everyone is looking for money or a pay-off. People posting here may have seen their buy-out price offered, but it is a pretty big leap to question oter's motivations for wanting to stay in a home they have lived in. If these weren't long-term residents or owners, you kow they would be out on their asses. The fact that they are STILL there makes it pretty clear that they are operating within the bounds of the laws that are designed to protect citizens and they are within their rights - rights that are created to protect the individual from the zeal, hysteria and attack of the masses.

Those people are not "getting in the way of this development." This development attempted a land grab of private property that has largely succeeded, but failed where folks weren't and can't be motivated by greed.

BrooklynRider

August 8th, 2006, 12:36 PM

And not for nothing this contextual/contrasting to the surrounding neighboorhoods theme is a bunch of hogwash; specially when you are talking about a defunct area such as railyards. Does this mean that Brooklyn or any other borough for that matter cannot have a neighborhood that represents the architectural era or taste of the early 21st century??

I am all for preserving the past but I am also for creating a contemporary architectural character (specially one by an architect/artist such as Gehry) that may be celebrated in future generations the way we celebrate the brownstones of Brooklyn Heights, or Art Deco and Beaux-Arts styles all over Manhattan.

Excellent, I am too.

Where do you live?

Create an argument for me that you support that justifies kicking you out of your home. Argue that you should be kicked out even if you own and do not want to sell. Argue that your home is blighted even if it is maintained. Argue that it is structurally compromised even though you have lived in it for 30 years with no inspection violations. Argue that you should accept the offer to be moved to a bigger apartment in a less desirable neighborhood, even though you've lived in the same place for 30 years. Argue that everyone has a proce. Argue that everyone is motivated by money - anyone can be bought. Argue any of that, because that is the foundation of your argument.

It is easy to get all theoretical when YOU are not the victim of this "progress." I find your argument cold-hearted and continually ignorant of the facts that the prposed project exceeds the boundaries of the railyards. You are blurring two arguments together because neither works alone. Stay within the railyards footprints and, their might be opposition, but the legal footing that these hold outs stand on is gone. Take away this huge project and look at this story and suddenly you might find find that you actually agree that the buildings that the city needs to condemn as blighted have been owned by Ratner for a year or two now and that the blight is due to his own failure to maintain these buildings.

This isn't Sim City and yo don;t click on a button and watch a city block annihilated because you want to change it from resdential to an arena. Real lives are involved here.

BrooklynRider

August 8th, 2006, 12:50 PM

Does this mean that Brooklyn or any other borough for that matter cannot have a neighborhood that represents the architectural era or taste of the early 21st century??

Look at the Meier Building going up in the same neighborhood, Prospect Heights on the perimeter of Grand Army Plaza and Prospect Park. You can start cutting and pasting all the articles that talk about the opposition to that 21st Century building going up next to a major landmark bordering two historic neighborhoods (you'll find NONE). How about the very modern Townhouses on State Street that were just completed in a historic district (no opposition). What about Renaissance Court currently going up around the block from there - another new (huge footprint) building without opposition. What about all the new towers (40+ stories) going up along the Flatbush Avenue corridor? None of these realities supports your contention.

The only hogwash is the argument where you make statements that are baseless to justify your stance. The arrogance of Ratner in proposing a development on properties where people lived is what is opposed.

Refer to the WTC Masterplan. Anyone recall the outrage when people saw that their homes at the southern edge of the bathtub, which survived the attack, were slated for demolition and redevelopment? People had quite a different take on those people plights. In that scenario it was "those poor people." Here we have people getting that same shaft and they are being called obstructionists.

Someone go into the WTC Thread and tell David Stanke that his building should be torn down as was propoesd in the initial plan. Tell him that wanting to remain in his building was selfish. Tell him how his wish to remain was blocking the greater good of the city.

This is the SAME thing. The exact SAME thing. Only people seem to think that Brooklyn is some sort of dump needing ANYTHING proposed and its people more expendable than Manhattanites like David.

BrooklynRider

August 8th, 2006, 01:04 PM

Okay, so how should they be drawn, if not as opponents? As idealists? What exactly are they standing up for, if not their own interests? Do they really have the best interests of the community in mind here, or are they just generally anti-change, anti-development? I don't see it any other way.

And whose interests are the developer's plans designed to satisfy? Bruce Ratner is not going to live in this development. He and Gargano have made it clear that this is about the developer making a profit. Is this project his gift to us?

If that proposal had been within the boundaries of the Railyards property, the arguments would be less enduring. Ratner had a right to propose for a site that was available. He proposed to take an area that did not belong to him through emminent domain. Don't let that fact be lost - he wanted emminent domain used. What everyone is citing as his "generosity" was the result of the outrage and protests that met the plan. He is no great civilian working side-by-side with the community. The community fought back and his response was to start buying people out. We ALL know that this proposal was initially based on emminent doman condemnation. The fact that it wasn't used to date is a WIN for the protesers. You would think by the posts here that Ratner went in with handfuls of thousand dollar bills and showered people with kisses. That's B.S.

How would you argue if you saw a developer present a plan that obliterated your home without you having any knowledge and the city officials saying, "that looks magnificent?" How about the developer asking to take your building through emminent domain? That is where this started and the history of this project is lost as we are over a hundred pages into posts on the subject.

Dynamicdezzy

August 8th, 2006, 01:42 PM

Has this been posted?????

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/18862/index.html

pianoman11686

August 8th, 2006, 03:23 PM

And whose interests are the developer's plans designed to satisfy? Bruce Ratner is not going to live in this development. He and Gargano have made it clear that this is about the developer making a profit. Is this project his gift to us?

Have I ever mentioned that Ratner is doing this out of the good of his heart? Of course not. He's a businessman, not a philantropist. And I'd never consider comparing him to a Rockefeller or a Carnegie. He's in this purely for the money, but the fact that he didn't choose the cheap route (as Extell did with their proposal) as far as design is concerned (putting aside all the eminent domain issues for the moment), leads me to think that he does want to leave a better legacy in Brooklyn than the likes of Metrotech. That can be construed, in its own way, as a "gift" to Brooklyn.

If that proposal had been within the boundaries of the Railyards property, the arguments would be less enduring. Ratner had a right to propose for a site that was available. He proposed to take an area that did not belong to him through emminent domain. Don't let that fact be lost - he wanted emminent domain used. What everyone is citing as his "generosity" was the result of the outrage and protests that met the plan. He is no great civilian working side-by-side with the community. The community fought back and his response was to start buying people out. We ALL know that this proposal was initially based on emminent doman condemnation. The fact that it wasn't used to date is a WIN for the protesers. You would think by the posts here that Ratner went in with handfuls of thousand dollar bills and showered people with kisses. That's B.S.

Your first point is almost not worth considering as beneficial to your argument. If it had been proposed entirely within the railyards, there better not have been any opposition, because the reason you cite for the injustices is this issue of eminent domain and evicting people from their homes. If all development were confined to the yards, and people in the area still cried out, then what would be the basis of your support for them? And I'm positive it would have played out that way anyway: traffic, shadows, disrespect for scale, all of those concerns would have been raised equally as loudly. The upshot is that there are certain people out there that are just anti-development and anti-change, whether they're being as directly affected as Goldstein et al. or not.

As for the buyouts and the addressing of community concerns, how can you blame someone for being reluctant to do that in the first place? Of course he wouldn't come in showering the residents with thousands of dollars right off the bat. If he did, it would make him appear far more generous, and he'd have to hand out even bigger buyouts thereafter, increasing his costs. That's not "lack of generosity"; that's business. I don't know any developer who'd be willing to do that from the get-go.

Now, on to the threat of eminent domain. So Ratner's got the ear of the guy in charge of ESDC. Lucky him. Is that at all unique to major developments like this that have been politically linked in the past? What about all the small businesses and homes that were displaced in Radio Row when the WTC site was originally assembled? Or all the other "urban renewal" projects in the 60's? Was the government more justified back then? These days, a lot of the urban renewal (read: economic revitalization) occurs through private developers, with government involvement relegated to supervision and subsidization. There's almost always some kind of trail that ties politics together with private enterprise. That's an issue that must be taken up with the government, not with private developers that are acting within the confines of the law. I may agree with you that eminent domain in a lot of cases is unfair, but that's not a reason to blame the developer. Take up the issue with the Supreme Court.

How would you argue if you saw a developer present a plan that obliterated your home without you having any knowledge and the city officials saying, "that looks magnificent?" How about the developer asking to take your building through emminent domain? That is where this started and the history of this project is lost as we are over a hundred pages into posts on the subject.

Honestly, I'd first be a little shocked. But I'm not someone who's anti-development, and I'd do some research to find out how much I could benefit from the situation. I'd bargain, and I'd compromise, and I'd hope for the best. Anything less than fair is unacceptable, and from what I've heard about the buyouts, people got their fair share, and oftentimes, more than that.

So I guess the last thing I have to ask you is this: why did you choose to respond to my original question with more questions? You've given me run-arounds by asking about the developer's interests (moot point), my personal interests if I were one of the people living there (answered), and questioning Ratner's generosity. So I ask you again: if Goldstein and his crew are not opponents, what are they?

Gotham

August 8th, 2006, 04:20 PM

GlobeSt.com Commercial Real Estate News and Property Resource
Last updated: August 4, 2006 10:54am

Forest City in Talks to Restructure Ratner Portfolio
By Tom Sosnowski

NEW YORK CITY-Forest City Enterprises, Inc. is in negotiations with Bruce C. Ratner to restructure their combined interest in a total of 30 properties and service companies currently joint owned. Ownership of joint projects currently in development, such as the Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, will be negotiated when the projects are completed and valued.
All of the properties included in the portfolio except one are located in the New York City metropolitan area. Currently, Cleveland-based Forest City owns a majority interest in its New York portfolio. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, Forest City will be entitled to the remaining economic benefits of the properties. Forest City told GlobeSt.com it would not comment on the deal “while in negotiations.”

According to the proposed transaction, Ratner will contribute his ownership interest and Forest City will contribute a portion of its ownership interest of the portfolio into a newly-formed limited liability company. Ratner will receive approximately $60 million in cash and 3.9 million units in the new limited liability company, although the mix of cash and units is still under consideration. This restructuring excludes the impact of any non-recourse debt related to these assets because it already is included in Forest City's consolidated financial statements.

Ratner will become an executive employee of Forest City and continue to be the president and CEO of Forest City Ratner Companies. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, Ratner will become a member of Forest City's board of directors.
Following a one-year lockup period, each of these units may be exchanged for one share of Forest City's Class A Common Stock or, at Forest City's option, cash equal to the market price of the stock at that time. For the first five years only, units that have not been exchanged will receive their proportionate share of an aggregate annual preferred payment of $2.5 million plus an amount equal to the dividends payable on Forest City stock. After five years, the annual preferred payment on the outstanding units will equal only the dividends payable on Forest City stock.

Forest City's Board of Directors has established a special committee of independent directors to consider and act upon the proposed transaction. The special committee has engaged Greenhill & Co., LLC as its adviser to evaluate the proposed transaction from a financial perspective.

Copyright © 2006 ALM Properties, Inc. All rights reserved.

Teno

August 8th, 2006, 06:28 PM

To simply state it the area of Brooklyn around the East River bridges is experiencing a population increase and needs more housing.

As housing supply is strained prices go up. If housing supply leveled with demand the price would stabilize and possibly go down.

Building housing and labeling it "affordable housing" is an artificial fix for a housing shortage. While I agree affordable housing is needed the real fix is to build more market rate housing. Until you have satisfied the market's demand for housing

People opposed to Ratner label him a selfish money grabber who does not care about Brooklyn. Selfish reasons or not more housing on the market satisfies the need for more housing. If he were truly about making the most money possible he would not flood the market with more housing. He would build fewer units that have a larger square footage. He would be able to sell that for more money than he could sell or rent more housing units with smaller square footage.

Ratner is a businessman he is in this to make money no one is denying that. But at the same time before this proposal no one was proposing anything over the Atlantic Yards. Brooklyn will continue to feel a housing crunch and prices will only grow worse without new development on the market.

And yes 20 people who were offered to be paid to live somewhere else and were guaranteed a rent stabilized residence in the new development are attempting to block new housing which will help relieve Brooklyn of its housing shortage and its extreme housing prices.

TREPYE

August 9th, 2006, 01:38 AM

You are either convemiently or ignorantly sidestepping my repeated statements that it is the existing buildings in the footprints of this proposed project that are at issue, not the barren railyards.

First of all I'm not trying to distort your statements. When I saw the context you used the word "vacuum" I just associated it with the railyards.

Now as far as the perception of these residents. No I don't think that they are evil or nefarious but just very short sighted. Yes its their property to live on and control but they should realize what is there now as a whole and what could become of it. What gets us a little upset is that the project happens to be a good one, a very good one as matter of fact. Something to give Brooklyn some distinction from Manhattan a neighborhood designed by an artist. Especially in these days of cookie-cutter designs Gehry designed towers are always welcomed. But there are just these group of folks that do not want to see beyond their property and want to prevent it from happening because of absurd reasons such as shadows, or contextualism. On top of negative preconceived notions of NIMBY's they are not just preventing a building or 2 but a transformation of Brooklyn that will give it more character in a new way. As long as they are getting a fair value for their homes and a spot in the new complex I don't think that they should hold out. They should recognize the innovative aspects of this project and how much those innovations will improve the are as a whole.

NYguy

August 9th, 2006, 02:13 AM

From a lengthy article in New York magazine...
http://newyorkmagazine.com/news/features/18862/

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/ratzilla060807_4_560.jpg

Teno

August 9th, 2006, 02:24 AM

ablarc

August 9th, 2006, 07:59 AM

Whoever drew those shadows totally defied the laws of physics.

For one the sun needs to be coming from nearly horizontal to cast that type of shadow. The building in the middle has a shadow that goes around the tall building across the street to cast a shadow on the street behind it.

The Clock Tower is not casting a shadow at all.
Whoever drew it had to know.

Yellow journalism.

They fired the guy who doctored the Beirut photos. Will they do the same here, or at least offer a retraction? Fat chance.

New York's editorial board probably made the decision to fake the shadows in order to dramatize the article.

Yellow journalism.

tmg

August 9th, 2006, 12:06 PM

BPC

August 9th, 2006, 12:35 PM

NYguy

August 9th, 2006, 01:02 PM

Whoever drew it had to know.
Yellow journalism.

They fired the guy who doctored the Beirut photos. Will they do the same here, or at least offer a retraction? Fat chance.

New York's editorial board probably made the decision to fake the shadows in order to dramatize the article.Yellow journalism.

How's this one grab ya?

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/ratzilla060807_1_560.jpg

pianoman11686

August 9th, 2006, 01:05 PM

But the sun doesn't set in the south. On the shortest day of the year, which is the winter solstice, the sun would be at its lowest angle above the ground, and therefore would experience its most southern trek across the sky. So, this is how you get sun angle: it's 90 degrees (straight overhead) at the equator. Subtract the latitude that you're at (in this case, 40 degrees), then finally, subtract 23.5 degrees delineation (I won't go into why you have to do this, it's part of the formula). You get a sun angle of 26.5 degrees at noon on the shortest day of the year. This is still significantly higher up in the sky than a sunrise or sunset, and will not give you the kind of long shadows that illustration depicts. Furthermore, consider the fact that shadows are continuously changing, so that even if an area does experience one, it won't be for more than an hour or two, at the most.

NYguy

August 9th, 2006, 01:23 PM

Daily News

Losing Brooklyn's uncivil war

http://www.nydailynews.com/images/columnists/louis_e.gif

Opponents of the planned $4.2 billion Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn are likely to lose, and lose huge, when the Empire State Development Corp. takes up the project for consideration this year. Ironically, the deal is likely to end up bigger than it might otherwise have been, because somewhere along the way, the anti-project groups abandoned important tools - the ability to be reasonable and civil, and the willingness to negotiate - that seasoned New York activists deploy to great advantage.

The secret power of civility is that most people are raised with good manners, and would sooner give ground on one point or another than risk coming off as rude, obnoxious and no longer worth talking to. Back in the 1990s, when I was a full-time community activist, it was standard procedure among serious rabble-rousers to spend long hours figuring out how to mount a "charm offensive" against the politicians, corporate leaders and foundation grant-makers who had control over what we needed, usually money or a new law.

The strategy came from civil rights movement leaders we had all studied and, in some cases, worked with side by side.

Step one was to protest to get the attention of the people in power; step two was to make some level of human contact to turn adversaries into allies; step three was to get what we wanted from our new "friends."

My favorite tactic was to put bankers, politicians and other big shots into a van and drive them on a tour of central Brooklyn - ostensibly to show them wretched neighborhood conditions, but in truth to strike up a long, informal conversation, search for even a tiny slice of common ground and create a relationship.

We would chat for hours about kids, college and Brooklyn nostalgia. For men of a certain age, driving by the site of the old Ebbets Field inevitably generated wistful sighs, long stories about their youth - and new friends in high places.

Even the city activists who run the biggest, baddest protests - people like Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union and Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice - regularly sit down with the top brass of the Police Department to negotiate the details of demonstrations and sit-ins.

While covering one of the city's largest anti-war demonstrations, I once overheard Lieberman greet NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly. It was "Hi, Donna," "Hi, Ray," and a quick peck on the cheek before they squared off.

There are exceptions to the love-thy-opponent rule. In the early days of the AIDS crisis, the group Act Up! honed a deliberately confrontational style and refused to let up until they forced the public to acknowledge the depths of the unfolding health emergency. That is exactly what the situation called for.

More than two years into a struggle they have lost at every key turn, the main project opponents insist on attacking, confronting and insulting every politician, community leader and journalist - including yours truly - who didn't immediately agree to join them in trying to kill the project.

It didn't start out that way. Back in 2004, I often spoke peaceably with neighbors who lived in the path of the planned development. I gave my honest assessment: There is too much money, political power and community support to stop the project altogether, but there might be room for compromise.

Most of those neighbors made smart deals, selling their condos at a handsome profit and moving on. That left the die-hard opponents, who have made a royal mess of things. Instead of meeting with decision-makers, they attacked and insulted them and began filing lawsuits. Positions, hearts and minds soon hardened.

What should have been a dialogue is set to turn into a showdown. When the opponents go down in flames, they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

Originally published on August 4, 2006

Teno

August 9th, 2006, 02:26 PM

I agree with the above article. And reason I could not back the community opponents. The mean spirited name calling of Ratner is unnecessary.

They should have negotiated to let Ratner go forward with phase one see how that goes. Objectively see the good and the bad of its impact on downtown. Then negotiate to scale down the rest of the project.

ZippyTheChimp

August 9th, 2006, 03:16 PM

You can get long shadows at dawn or sunset, but then they'd point east or west. For the shadows to point north, as they appear to in this picture, it would have to be noon, the time of day when shadows are shortest.

The shadows in that photo are crossing perpendicular to Fulton St. That would put the sun at about 190 degrees azimuth (around 1PM).

The distance from the site of Miss Brooklyn to Fulton St is about 1200 ft.

Calculations for the length of shadow cast by a 600 ft building between noon and 1PM (depending on the month):

Dec 21 - 1290 ft
Jan 21 - 1000
Feb 21 - 780
Mar 21 - 520
Apr 21 - 330
May 21 - 230
Jun 21 - 190

The photo was taken in summer, but the shadows cast on the shortest day of the year (which was the date chosen) seem to be reasonably accurate.

The longer the shadow, the faster it moves across the landscape. During summer, the shadows would barely get across Atlantic Ave.

pianoman11686

August 9th, 2006, 03:54 PM

Wow, Zippy, that's surprisingly accurate. The conversion between your distances into angles yields 24.94 degrees, which is almost exactly the angle that the sun would be at noon during the winter solstice (~26.5 degrees).

ld876

August 9th, 2006, 05:06 PM

SilentPandaesq

August 9th, 2006, 05:22 PM

Calculations for the length of shadow cast by a 600 ft building between noon and 1PM (depending on the month):

Dec 21 - 1290 ft
Jan 21 - 1000
Feb 21 - 780
Mar 21 - 520
Apr 21 - 330
May 21 - 230
Jun 21 - 190

Can we use these numbers to get an average shadow length for the year?

We know that the people most affected by shadow would live w/in 190 feet of the building on the NE and NW sides of Miss Brooklyn. People w/in 620 feet on average would have some shadow for part of the year. People living 1291 feet would never have a shadow. Perhaps we could have a ring drawn around the project and place the probability of shadow in the ring. People who live outside 10% get no say with respect to shadow arguments.

ablarc

August 9th, 2006, 05:39 PM

This time of year I find myself always walking on the shady side of the street. And I notice from the relative populations of the two sidewalks that I'm not alone in my preference. So isn't it true that shadows are often a blessing?

Though shadows are real, I don't think discussion of shadows has any real relevance; they're as often good as bad. The whole discussion is really a red herring.

You could say the issue is that people don't like tall buildings, but to that I say: so what? If I don't like flip-flops, should I be allowed to have them banned?

And anyway, a lot of folks who say they don't like tall buildings don't really mind them in reality; they simply feel an obligation to dislike them because of some theory they heard somewhere.

The whole issue is preposterous in most places. In Paris it's not preposterous, in Venice it's not preposterous, nor in Florence, Bologna, you get the idea...

Brooklyn is not Europe.

aural iNK

August 9th, 2006, 05:40 PM

During summer, the shadows would barely get across Atlantic Ave.

These lengths are for 12-1PM, wouldn't the shadows be much longer any other time of day?

ablarc

August 9th, 2006, 05:44 PM

Many of those places would be in shadow anyway from the three-story buildings that border them.

SilentPandaesq

August 9th, 2006, 05:54 PM

Many of those places would be in shadow anyway from the three-story buildings that border them.

Or, you know....from clouds....

ablarc

August 9th, 2006, 06:06 PM

Or, you know....from clouds....
Need to ban those too.

ZippyTheChimp

August 9th, 2006, 06:17 PM

These lengths are for 12-1PM, wouldn't the shadows be much longer any other time of day?Well yes, that's true, but different areas would be in shadow at other times.

A long shadow has to trace the same amount of arc as a short shadow when the sun is high is the sky, but the distance the end of the shadow has to travel is much greater, so it moves through an area quickly.

At 2PM on Dec 21, the sun's altitude drops to 19.5 degrees, and the shadow lengthens to 1690 feet, but it has moved 20 degrees clockwise to another area. Also, at that time a 40 ft building would cast a 113 ft shadow, and the issue is pointless.

It seems to me that what is not understood by many people is that the bulk or width of a building has a far greater impact on the loss of sunlight than the height.

Teno

August 9th, 2006, 06:47 PM

The suns rays are not as direct in the winter as in summer, and atmospheric conditions play a big part. My estimation would be that December sunlight on average is a lot more defused than it is in the summer. Essentially creating a huge soft source that does not often cast hard defined shadows.

It seems to me that what is not understood by many people is that the bulk or width of a building has a far greater impact on the loss of sunlight than the height.

True the sun moves more horizontally against the building width than vertically against its height.

BrooklynRider

August 9th, 2006, 06:53 PM

...So I ask you again: if Goldstein and his crew are not opponents, what are they?

They are all opponents, but I really have to take exception to you referring to them in this way. Goldstein is an opponent, motivated first and foremost, IMO, because his home is in the footprints of the plan. He doesn't want to move and he's fighting. He'll lose.

Other opponents have been much more successful, because they have impacted the project and its evolution. You can argue it is for worse. They are opposed to a variety of things and not all opposition groups share the same mission. They have interests that intersect and that is where they work together.

I'll just use myself as an example, because I can't mistate my own position.

1. Not opposed to development of Atlantic Yards.
2. Not opposed to arena.
3. Not opposed to the original arena proposal of arena built in the midst of three commercial buildings, or two commercial buildings and one hotel, or one hote, one commercial building and one residential.
4. Not opposed to tower along Atlantic Avenue exceeding the height of Williamsburg bank building.
5. Oppopsed to excessively large project that exaceeds boundary of Atlantic Yards and forces residents from homes.
6. Opposed to development that does not include smaller, affordable retail space to ensure we don't see a swath of banks, cell phone stores and real estate offices.
7. Opposed to residential development that doesn't utilize the formulas of the inclusionary rules developed for Greenpoint & Willimsburg (basically affordable housing).
8. Opposed to handing one developer this huge track without bid.
9. Opposed to not dividing this parcel into multiple development lots and bidding them separately.
10. Opposed to Ratner's circumvention of Community inout procedures.
11. Opposed to development of CBA without participation and support of affected community boards.
12. Opposed to emminent domain abuse.
13. Opposed to current park design.
14. Opposed to state's assertion that the project will have minimal impact on public transport.
15. Opposed to hi-rise development to the east of the arena block. Low-rise development is my preference and it will serve to join the neighborhoods of Fort Greene and Prospect Heights as opposed to separating them.
16. Opposed to use of public funding, tax abatements, and and kind of sceme that feeds tax revenue back to the developer for development.
17. Opposed to the non-competitive bidding and closed door negotiations of this project.
18. I think Ratner's track record in Brooklyn justifies every suspicion, criticism, and word of condemnation he has received.

Other people are opposed or support things in conflict with my positions. It's not a movement with a monolithic mission to stop the project. This developer came in unharnessed, uncommunicative, and unreasonable and the "opposition" is winning the argument every step of the way.

JMGarcia

August 9th, 2006, 07:30 PM

I would imagine that most of the streets that these shadow fall on would already be in shadow from other buildings that line that particular street.

Teno

August 9th, 2006, 08:27 PM

Opposed to residential development that doesn't utilize the formulas of the inclusionary rules developed for Greenpoint & Willimsburg (basically affordable housing).

How much affordable housing should it have?

Opposed to handing one developer this huge track without bid.

I know of no one else who has put up a serious plan or bid to build anything over the yards. There was that half hearted proposal by Boymelgreen (spelling) but that was about as serious as Cablebvision's bid for the Hudson Yards.

Opposed to not dividing this parcel into multiple development lots and bidding them separately.

If he buys the air rights and pays for the deck, how can you force him to divide the land?

Opposed to development that does not include smaller, affordable retail space to ensure we don't see a swath of banks, cell phone stores and real estate offices.

This is something the community could negotiate.

Opposed to use of public funding, tax abatements, and and kind of sceme that feeds tax revenue back to the developer for development.

The community would need to point the dirty end of the stick at city and state government.

Opposed to hi-rise development to the east of the arena block. Low-rise development is my preference and it will serve to join the neighborhoods of Fort Greene and Prospect Heights as opposed to separating them.

This is a matter of opinion. There is no rule that says Fort Green and Prospect Heights need to be tied together in this way. Right now they are divided by a giant hole in the ground.

tmg

August 10th, 2006, 07:32 PM

The shadows in that photo are crossing perpendicular to Fulton St. That would put the sun at about 190 degrees azimuth (around 1PM).

...

The photo was taken in summer, but the shadows cast on the shortest day of the year (which was the date chosen) seem to be reasonably accurate.

The longer the shadow, the faster it moves across the landscape. During summer, the shadows would barely get across Atlantic Ave.

Wow. Real analysis. Refreshing and enlightening. Thank you.

krulltime

August 10th, 2006, 07:36 PM

What is wrong with having a few shadows sometimes in the daytime anyway. I never understand why people complain about this too much. It is not like the shadows stay on top of your house the whole day. It will also not have a burden to one's health or state of livelihood. I live with shadows all the time and I am in no way unhealthy or unhappy with my life. People just find reasons to complain. I actually enjoy the shadows when is too hot to be on the sun.

SilentPandaesq

August 10th, 2006, 07:52 PM

What is wrong with having a few shadows sometimes in the daytime anyway. I never understand why people complain about this too much.

I think that there are multiple reasons for complaining about shadows. 2 that come to mind are:

1. People who want to live in the City, but not give up the qualities of suburban living. Therefore, they are unwilling to compromise because they have a suburban mind set when it comes to light and air (houses in Scarsdale do not cast shadows on one another, ergo, you should not cast a shadow on my Brownstone - which cost just as much)

2. People who realize that they live in the city, and that having nothing casting a shadow over you is a "luxury". They are fighting to keep their area as nice as possible (according to their view of "nice" ).

Either way it is all self-interest.

lofter1

August 11th, 2006, 12:08 AM

There's also the little matter of the SKY -- a SKY which you've seen from your windows for years, but now a SKY that is visible only when you stick your head OUT the window and crane your neck and try and look over the tower looming above you in order to find the SKY.

Not that this ^^ is a reason to stop a project (much as I dislike many aspects of the Ratner scheme).

But a 30 story building out your window is very different from seeing open SKY (whether or not that particular partch of SKY is above some putrid rail yards).

Put a tower rising across from your window and see if you wouldn't bitch and moan.

krulltime

August 11th, 2006, 12:13 AM

Put a tower rising across from your window and see if you wouldn't bitch and moan.

One just did. I accepted it. I feel totally fine. No Heart attack or anything like that. ;) I still love my apartment. The love of your home should surpass any direct sunshine IMO. Although it was nice looking without any obstacles. Now I see people doing things in their apartments. Which is kind of interesting really. Wait they are looking at me. I better look away.

SilentPandaesq

August 11th, 2006, 12:53 AM

But a 30 story building out your window is very different from seeing open SKY (whether or not that particular partch of SKY is above some putrid rail yards).

Put a tower rising across from your window and see if you wouldn't bitch and moan.

I see your point, but that is the problem. People see the sky for 30 years in manhattan or in brooklyn and they start thinking that they own that sky, that they own that view. Unless you are on the river front (and I mean RIGHT on the river front, not close, not a block away ) then one has no reasonable expectation that one's view was going to last as long as it did.

sfenn1117

August 11th, 2006, 01:05 AM

Of course everyone wants sunlight in their apartments, and enjoy seeing the sky without cranking their neck next to the window. If you're lucky enough to have that in New York, congrats. Enjoy it while it lasts. If you're looking for permanent sun and light, move to the suburbs, the city would be better off without your selfishness watering down great proposals.

Living near the tallest building in Brooklyn should have tipped you off that tall buildings would eventually come along on the railyards.

BrooklynRider

August 11th, 2006, 01:43 AM

Well, I lived right across the street from the Chrysler Building in the heart of midtown. It was an interesting place to live. Walls of windows all around and never any true privacy. I moved there knowing it would be like that. I liked it, but left after two years and moved to where I live now (and prefer it immensely).

Although the arguments as to why this project ought to go forward seem consistent, they are also devoid for the most part of any compassion whatsoever for residents of the area. The attacks on the opponents of this project are rather hard and simplistic. The criticism and reiteration that these residents have no rights and "these people" are standing in the way of progress for a thousands of other unnamed people who would like to move to this project is just puzzling.

When we talk about people not being able to afford to live in Manhattan, the arguments is "too bad" and "the market dictates cost." When we talk about Brooklyn, the argument revolves around the audacity of a few people to dare and stand in the way of a project largely composed of subsidized "affordable" and "low-income" housing.

Interesting arguments. Manhattan is for people who can afford it. In Brooklyn, shut up so we can build subsidized housing on what everyone agrees is the most valuable piece of real estate in the borough. There's a thread of hypocrisy running through some commentary in this thread.

ablarc

August 11th, 2006, 01:49 AM

^ Grasping at straws.

BrooklynRider

August 11th, 2006, 02:15 AM

^ Any chance you'll ever let me comment on this project which is being built in my own neighborhood without taking a swipe or making a snide comment at every turn?

Considering the many hundreds of miles between where you reside and this project site, be thankful I don't follow your every post with a dismissive retort.

Teno

August 11th, 2006, 02:48 AM

The criticism and reiteration that these residents have no rights and "these people" are standing in the way of progress for a thousands of other unnamed people who would like to move to this project is just puzzling.

I don't want to sound as if citizens don't have rights. They have the right to disagree with the Atlantic Yards project.

But on the other hand I really feel it is needed beyond the needs of the few people who don't want it. Brooklyn's population is projected to grow from 2.4 million into 2.8 - 3 million people over the next 15 or so years. Many if not most of those new people will settle into the East River Bridge neighborhoods.

We need housing.

When we talk about people not being able to afford to live in Manhattan, the arguments is "too bad" and "the market dictates cost." When we talk about Brooklyn, the argument revolves around the audacity of a few people to dare and stand in the way of a project largely composed of subsidized "affordable" and "low-income" housing.

I agree we don't want Brooklyn turning into Manhattan, but it also must be allowed to develop.

I'm not sure who claimed Atlantic Yards was largely composed of affordable or low income housing. I wrote a few pages ago that does not fix a housing shortage. Market rate housing that satisfies the demand fixes a housing shortage.

ablarc

August 11th, 2006, 08:03 AM

^ Any chance you'll ever let me comment on this project which is being built in my own neighborhood without taking a swipe or making a snide comment at every turn?
Yes, if you write comments worth taking seriously. Of the four paragraphs in your post, the latter three were built around straw men. Such statements don't merit lengthier deconstruction.

Considering the many hundreds of miles between where you reside and this project site, be thankful I don't follow your every post with a dismissive retort.
That's an example. What does that mean, exactly? Sequitur?

Is bullying preferable to "snide comments"?

.

ZippyTheChimp

August 11th, 2006, 09:26 AM

When we talk about people not being able to afford to live in Manhattan, the arguments is "too bad" and "the market dictates cost." When we talk about Brooklyn, the argument revolves around the audacity of a few people to dare and stand in the way of a project largely composed of subsidized "affordable" and "low-income" housing.
Gentrification does not only arrive as tall buildings; in fact, it's usually the exception.

Daniel Goldstein seems to have a very nice apartment. I wonder how many people were silently displaced when money moved in. This is happening all over Brooklyn, and not a skyscraper in sight.

BrooklynRider

August 11th, 2006, 10:35 AM

Why single out Goldstein. If it were one man fighting this project, we know this thing would be moving forward. But for the benefit of keeping the argument based in reality, Goldstein moved into an industrial building legally converted to residential lofts. His specific example has no one being displaced. And using him as an example is always going to be a losing argument. He came to the neighborhood when it was a frontier and was part of the organic growth and revitalization for the neighborhood. He owns his home and is not interested in selling and his building was a model of success - not blight. You can like or not like what he says, but the guy has the high ground here. He was here first. His building was new development in the area. All the arguments people want to use about the underitilized area, new development to spur the economy, creating housing and this man's "selfish" stance can be rejected outright based on facts. His building and case in particular among all others stands out as one where nothing Ratner or the ESDC says or throws out there will stick. His building was a successful conversion project that could be categorized as new development. He's not interested in selling the property he owns. Maybe he does have price. The market will dictate it. Ratner, the state and city want that site - pay for it at market rate. I imagine the folks who talk about market rate will label him obstructionist and just out to extort money. Well, that is the market - hold out for the most money you can get. Everyone thinks doubling what he paid is fair, yet it is not market rate because that one unit is SO desirable at this moment to move this project forward. It's got to be worth ten times what they offered by now. Market rate.

ZippyTheChimp

August 11th, 2006, 11:17 AM

Why single out Goldstein.
Because he is at the forefront of the opposition.

Notice, I didn't say that he personally displaced anyone, but "the money that came in" did. Pioneers with money change neighborhoods. Others move in, and upscale services follow. People get priced out of their homes and local retail.

I believe that Goldstein has the right to resist eviction, but I also believe that I have the right to characterize him as selfish and unreasonable. He is a man of means and opportunity. He has no children in local schools. He probably can purchase another home within walking distance of where he now lives.

I can only try to put myself in his shoes. In that case, I would ask myself: If I am fighting for something beyond my own interests, what is the greater good.

BrooklynRider

August 11th, 2006, 11:27 AM

^^ Well, I can't argue with what you write. The last sentence is the clincher. I think he IS fighting for the greater good. Opponents of this plan (or rather different facets of it) are helping to make it more harmonious (probably not the right word) with its surroundings.

We know the project will ultimately go forward, but opposition is bringing change. I think it is a good thing.

JMGarcia

August 11th, 2006, 12:04 PM

I think there is no doubt that the project will go forward in some form. I remain dubious that the local opposition will make improvements to it. Too often ther urbanity of a project is ruined by opposition movements. It seems their ideal is always too much open space, poor street frontages, and not enough density to create a critical mass.

Whether that will happen here is up in the air IMO.

Teno

August 11th, 2006, 03:19 PM

An example of a proposed development I am emphatically against. Is this one from Quadriad Realty Partners so called Williamsburg Square. A luxury high rise development on Bedford Ave between North Third and North Fourth.

In this case this really would be a development that sets precedent to destroying vibrant and thriving Williamsburg neighborhood to literally sit luxury towers right on top of it.

lofter1

August 11th, 2006, 10:13 PM

A Man in_the Rockaways (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=114824&postcount=26) is fighting against big development there. “If money was my motivation, I’d want the project built because it would increase my property value . . . I’m not antidevelopment; only when it discriminates against everyone else living around it.”
Is he the good guy or the bad guy in that story?

BigMac

August 22nd, 2006, 02:22 PM

NY Post
August 22, 2006

ARENA FOES TRY ECO WRECKO

By RICH CALDER

Opponents of megadeveloper Bruce Ratner's bid to build 16 skyscrapers and an NBA arena in Downtown Brooklyn are planning a full-court press tomorrow to bring the $4.2 billion plan back to the drawing board.

Their mission: point out what they say are errors contained in the project's draft environmental-impact statement released last month after the project received preliminary approval from the Empire State Development Corp.

The draft statement will be the subject of a public hearing tomorrow at Klitgord Auditorium on Jay Street, with more than 1,000 residents expected to take sides on what would be the borough's biggest development ever.

"If enough of us point out . . . errors, we will give the [corporation] no choice but to force a new [statement] to be drafted," said Patti Hagan, of the anti-arena Prospect Heights Action Coalition.

The hearing, which starts at 4:30 p.m., will give each speaker three minutes to talk. Since the auditorium's seating capacity is only 800 and the hearing is expected to end at about 8:30 p.m., many people could be turned away.

Copyright 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc.

SilentPandaesq

August 22nd, 2006, 06:40 PM

"If enough of us point out . . . errors, we will give the [corporation] no choice but to force a new [statement] to be drafted," said Patti Hagan, of the anti-arena Prospect Heights Action Coalition.

For some odd reason I hear "crazy" laughter when I read this part. You know...like a supervillian's rant.

The sad part is that this ^^ is the new front. Not protesting, not law suits, but trying to find typos in the EIS??? Sad new lows. There is a level of grace in just accepting defeat. You don't have to go down randomly swinging at shadows.

BrooklynRider

August 22nd, 2006, 07:06 PM

Typos would indeed be laughable and show sloppy work by Ratner, but not cause for further review of the project. I read "errors" as meaning factual errors or erroneous statements or assumptions. However annpying some people might find the opponents of Atlantic Yards, they aren't idiots and they have managed to succeed in some areas.

SilentPandaesq

August 22nd, 2006, 07:57 PM

I read "errors" as meaning factual errors or erroneous statements or assumptions.

How do you tell the difference. "Oh you said 100ppm of radon" response "oh sir, that is a typo, it should read 1000ppm". Either way you get into an argument about he said she said, and the public just looks on...

However annpying some people might find the opponents of Atlantic Yards, they aren't idiots and they have managed to succeed in some areas.

Oh, I am sure that the people opposing the project are majority college educated, and bright to boot. That does not mean that you can bright up an excuse. If there is nothing there, then there is nothing there (I think the quote was "there is no "there", there"). They assume that there are hidden errors because Ratner is evil, and evil people lie, ergo, he has lied in the EIS. Could be that he does not need to lie, that whatever is in there is how it is?

On top of that Ratner and Co are not exactly stupid either. If they are hiding things, it is going to take more than angry artists and hipsters to find it. But again even if they got scientific experts to opine, they would just have to battle Ratner's opposing well funded scientific experts.

The end result is that they get owned by Ratner.

NYguy

August 22nd, 2006, 08:10 PM

Opponents of megadeveloper Bruce Ratner's bid to build 16 skyscrapers and an NBA arena in Downtown Brooklyn are planning a full-court press tomorrow to bring the $4.2 billion plan back to the drawing board.

Yeah, that'll happen. These nitwits don't know when they've been beaten. It would be amusing if it weren't so annoying.

BrooklynRider

August 23rd, 2006, 12:10 PM

..They assume that there are hidden errors because Ratner is evil, and evil people lie, ergo, he has lied in the EIS. Could be that he does not need to lie, that whatever is in there is how it is?

On top of that Ratner and Co are not exactly stupid either. If they are hiding things, it is going to take more than angry artists and hipsters to find it. But again even if they got scientific experts to opine, they would just have to battle Ratner's opposing well funded scientific experts.

The end result is that they get owned by Ratner.

Evil? Are you now trying to paint this a battle between "good and evil"? No one has insinuated any such thing, but it does perfectly illustrate the venomous reaction people have to anyone who gets in the way of THEIR desire to see this huge project rammed through. And, for the record "100ppm of radon" and "1000ppm of radon" is a huge difference and should be highlighted.

If they ARE hiding things, now is the time to find out. It's pretty audacious to be going after people in such a rabid and rather silly manner simply because they want to uncover every stone for this project's ONLY public hearing. Compare this to the project at 200 Chambers or 101 Warren and see how many hearings they had to address the issues important to those communities and community boards. Look at the process up at the Jack Parker project in north Tribeca. These projects are a fraction of the size of this project and they were all hi-rise projects going into lots adjacent to the WTC and BPC - and they all had longer public review periods.

The Jack Parker project is now capped at 140 feet in Manhattan - no one here is going apeshit over that ruling. Oh wait, that's Tribeca. I keep forgetting Tribeca is different. The residents of Tribeca know better what's good for New York - not like all those stupid people in Brooklyn who are just trying to stop development.

The contradictions in these forums - and with this project in particular - are immense.

200 Chambers was chopped down in size and its getting lots of love here as a perfect transitional building. blah, blah, blah

krulltime

August 23rd, 2006, 12:43 PM

Brooklyn Development: Not Just a Copy of Manhattan
Critics Who Charge ‘Manhattanitis’ Are Wrong

by Dennis Holt
08-24-2006

BROOKLYN — For some weeks here in Brooklyn, a new school of thought has been promulgated that has flippancy and flummery as its main courses.
This school contends that most of the changes being advanced in Brooklyn are an outright invasion from Manhattan designed to destroy Brooklyn as we know it.

The weapon being employed, it is argued, is tall buildings, and much will be heard about that this week as the public process on the Atlantic Yards proposal begins: after all, a key element of that plan is to build the tallest building in Brooklyn.

Creeping into public dialogue is the idea that there is something suspicious and probably dangerous about developers building tall buildings for people to live in, especially in areas where people really hadn’t lived before.

Taken to a conclusion, this argument says that if the Williamsburgh Bank Building hadn’t been built, it shouldn’t be, especially now that people are going to live there.

All this misses what has been happening here for almost half a century. The hundreds of houses in brownstone Brooklyn, the largest congregation of such houses in the country, have not been occupied by people from Peoria; they come from Manhattan.

An aversion to “Manhattanitis” would have prevented DUMBO from happening. After all, weren’t old lofts and factory buildings in Tribeca and SoHo converted to homes? Then it shouldn’t have been done in DUMBO.

Build a sports arena in Brooklyn? My God, bring Madison Square Garden here! Never.

And never will that happen. If people had bothered to pay attention to details from Frank Gehry, this won’t be an ordinary sports building. In time, those interested in such things will call it the Brooklyn arena, and the word Manhattan will never be uttered.

When one looks carefully at the new architecture being planned for the new Brooklyn, and there is a great deal of architectural creativity at work, Manhattan doesn’t come to mind at all. Chicago does.

Look at the apartment building at 180 Montague St. You can find lots of such buildings in Manhattan. Now, look at the planned apartment building for 85 Flatbush Avenue Extension designed by Leyva Architects and his other two buildings at 306 and 313 Gold Streets.

It would probably be more productive to look first in Chicago for comparisons than in Manhattan. And where in Manhattan will you find anything similar to Forest City Ratner’s planned “Miss Brooklyn?” Not there, or most anywhere else.

Enrique Norton’s concept of the new arts library on Flatbush Avenue is unique and when that gets built, no one will be mumbling anything about Manhattan.

The new building planned for 189 Schermerhorn St. (the old former Loeser annex) isn’t that extraordinary, but arising where it is, it will appear to be almost breathtaking.

The fact that something is new and different doesn’t mean there’s something innately wrong about it. Taken together, the visions being advanced for our town will get to be known as Brooklyn’s — nowhere else and for nobody else.

The most original new plan in Brooklyn really doesn’t have anything to do with buildings at all. The plans for Brooklyn Bridge Park are not replicas of anything: if all of it can be built as designed, there will simply be nothing quite like it anywhere.

And one can hope that the architectural creativity applied to the design of the new residential buildings is comparable to that for the park proper.

© Brooklyn Daily Eagle 2006

SilentPandaesq

August 23rd, 2006, 01:34 PM

Evil? Are you now trying to paint this a battle between "good and evil"? No one has insinuated any such thing, but it does perfectly illustrate the venomous reaction people have to anyone who gets in the way of THEIR desire to see this huge project rammed through.

BK..Man(or woman) calm down. The "evil thing" was tongue in cheek. Although, I am sure that some opponets of the yards project think that Ratner is evil. I never said that Ratner is good, just that some of his opponets might think him evil. Heck, I don't even think that the opponets are evil.

And, for the record "100ppm of radon" and "1000ppm of radon" is a huge difference and should be highlighted.

Yea, thats the point. when you highlight it, how do you prove that is was intentional or not. It is easy to type 1 too many 0's. If the differrence is "548" and it should be "789" that is an easier case to make.

200 Chambers or 101 Warren

The Jack Parker project is now capped at 140 feet in Manhattan - no one here is going apeshit over that ruling. Oh wait, that's Tribeca. I keep forgetting Tribeca is different. The residents of Tribeca know better what's good for New York - not like all those stupid people in Brooklyn who are just trying to stop development.

That is is neither here nor there. Since I am not up on those projects, I defer to you as to what is happening there.

As to this project. Truth be told, I am not a fan of it. It is ugly, and perhaps too many buildings. Not nerely enough affordable housing. But that is also neither here nor there.

On the flip side, I am not a fan of the way that the opponets have characterized the dispute. Nor how there was no serious alternative plan put forward. All the time spent arguing by the opponets, and they have not achieved much in the way of stopping it.

BK - I see your point,I really do. I think it is crappy the way Ratner has just kind of pushed into the area. But, he owns the place. He is not going to just take a loss on the arena becasuse some locals don't like it, regardless of how valid their point is.

So, it would have been better to demonstrate a plan that could get the ENTIRE community behind it, i.e. those people in Fort Green that seam to think that the project is not such a bad idea.Perhaps if the opponets took more time to find out why those people support the idea, they could have gotten a development plan that Ratner would have had to take becuase of total opposition.

Those projects you listed in tribeca likely had total opposition, that is why they succeded. I could be wrong though.

lofter1

August 23rd, 2006, 02:07 PM

It is easy to type 1 too many 0's. If the differrence is "548" and it should be "789" that is an easier case to make.

You're not serious on this are you?

On this hypothetical: In a document that purports to relay necessary scientific information a "typo" regarding levels of dangerous materials (especially if that number lowers the level) is very suspect.

SilentPandaesq

August 23rd, 2006, 02:14 PM

^ well no. Admittedly, it is a bad example. Anything that is trully dangerous is likely to be double checked by Ratner's team before it went out. The point is, that "finding errors" and then attributing them to malfeasance is difficult. Since you get into a he said she said argument.

NYguy

August 23rd, 2006, 08:18 PM

WNBC

Builder Launches P.R. Blitz For Brooklyn Nets Arena, High-Rises

August 23, 2006

NEW YORK -- The public-relations blitz to win support for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn kicked off Wednesday, with a pop star pitching in to convince New Yorkers the controversial plan will help the borough.

The Empire State Development Corporation planned to hold its first public hearing on the project, which aims to build several high-rise condo and apartment towers as well as a 20,000-seat arena for the New Jersey Nets basketball team. Developer Bruce Ratner bought the Nets in 2004.

But several community organizations are opposed to the $4.2 billion plan. The group Develop Don't Destroy contends the project, planned for the old Vanderbilt rail yards along Atlantic Avenue, is too big and will destroy the character of the old Brooklyn neighborhood.

The group also calls millions of state and city tax dollars promised to help build the project corporate welfare at its worst. Ratner has said the project is about affordable housing.

The Atlantic Yards project has overwhelming support from several politicians.

New York Acorn, which lobbies on behalf of poor to moderate income families, also supports the project. New York Acorn's Bertha Lewis said the Atlantic Yards project is historic and that the devoloper has promised to make 50 percent of the rental units available to low-income tenants.

Pop singer Roberta Flack also spoke in support of the project, telling the media, "This is a good thing."

BrooklynRider

August 23rd, 2006, 11:44 PM

...So, it would have been better to demonstrate a plan that could get the ENTIRE community behind it, i.e. those people in Fort Green that seam to think that the project is not such a bad idea.Perhaps if the opponets took more time to find out why those people support the idea, they could have gotten a development plan that Ratner would have had to take becuase of total opposition...

Most of the outspoken supporters you are talking about are members of ACORN and BUILD, who have received funding, jobs and/or promises of jobs from Ratner in exchange for support.

SilentPandaesq

August 24th, 2006, 12:44 AM

Most of the outspoken supporters you are talking about are members of ACORN and BUILD, who have received funding, jobs and/or promises of jobs from Ratner in exchange for support.

Well...Yea. That is my point. Clearly those people that need/ want jobs at the complex have just as much stake in the project as those that oppose it. I don't think it helps to question the self-interest of those who support it, when those who oppose it are doing so out of self-interest.

My point was/is that if the opponets had put forward a plan that provided jobs for ACORN and BUILD without the massive-ness of the current plan, then they would of had more support from the entire community.

As it stands now, the Yea/Ney breaks down on Class/Racial lines, which is something I don't think anybody (with the possible exception of Ratner) wanted. While that might not be important, it is still a perception issue that the opponets have failed to deal with, and it is costing them support.

Transic

August 24th, 2006, 02:50 AM

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Raucous_hearing_for_arena_project/4128.html

Raucous hearing for arena project

Backers and foes of Brooklyn Nets arena plan turn out in droves

by amy zimmer / metro new york
AUG 24, 2006

DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN — The line snaked around the block to get into the 800-seat auditorium at the New York City Technical College for yesterday’s public hearing on Bruce Ratner’s $4.2 billion plans to build a basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets, plus 16 high-rises in the Atlantic Yards area.

Hundreds of supporters were bused in by organizations that signed a Community Benefits Agreement with Ratner that promises affordable housing and jobs for Brooklynites. Union construction workers also showed up, many arriving earlier than the hundreds of opponents who wanted to voice concerns about the shadows of skyscrapers, the burdens of traffic and the loss of Brooklyn’s character. Both sides were rowdy.

“This could be my big break,” said Keith Brown, 32, an unemployed carpenter and member of Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development, a group that brought him there at 11 a.m. to speak his mind. “I’ve been living here all my life and seen the changes coming. This could be my chance to get into the union. If I can keep employment for five or six years, I’m good for a while.”

The Frank Gehry-designed development over the 22-acre site — a portion of which includes building over the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s rail yards at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush avenues — would include an 18,000-seat arena to house the Nets by the 2009 season and would create between 5,790 and 6,860 apartments — 2,250 of which would be set aside for low- and moderate-income families.

But Mary Wade, a public school teacher who’s lived in Clinton Hill for 25 years, didn’t think the project would help people like her — “the working poor and middle class” — and she didn’t think it would provide quality jobs or housing that she could afford.

“I look at [Ratner’s previous project] Metrotech, which promised jobs to the community and to help fix the area’s poverty,” she said. “Well, there’s still 75 percent poverty here. Ratner’s using jobs to hide behind something bigger — his profit.”

Borough President Marty Markowitz, a major cheerleader for the project, said that “Brooklyn is a world-class city and we deserve the Atlantic Yards [project].”

In his testimony, however, Markowitz said the plan needed to be scaled down.

“The Williamsburgh Savings Tower should remain the tallest building in Brooklyn,” he said. He also wanted the developer to “get real about traffic and parking.”

Carolyn Konheim, from the Community Consulting Services, said Ratner is underplaying the traffic impact. Closing part of Fifth Avenue and Pacific Street will direct more traffic into Fort Greene and Boerum Hill, she said.

“We’re talking 10 to 12 minute delays,” she said. “When you have that, the delays reverberate throughout the whole network.”

And while Ratner has promised MetroCard discounts to arena-goers, she said, “Anyone who can say a $2 discount will make a difference for people buying those tickets will never do my books.”

Team spirit

• Last night was the first of two opportunities for the public to speak out about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement released last month by the Empire State Development Agency, the state agency overseeing the project. The next meeting is Sept. 12, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at New York City Technical College, 285 Jay St., Brooklyn.

• Before last night’s meeting, developer Bruce Ratner brought out current Nets Jason Kidd and Vince Carter to cheerlead for the arena project.

pianoman11686

August 24th, 2006, 02:58 AM

[URL]Borough President Marty Markowitz, a major cheerleader for the project, said that “Brooklyn is a world-class city and we deserve the Atlantic Yards [project].”

In his testimony, however, Markowitz said the plan needed to be scaled down.

“The Williamsburgh Savings Tower should remain the tallest building in Brooklyn,” he said. He also wanted the developer to “get real about traffic and parking.”

Slowly, but surely, the activists are changing other people's minds. But contrary to what has been said in their defense, the concerns raised by them, and echoed by Marty in this soundbite, are relatively unimportant, and reflect a lack of critical analysis, namely: tall + dense = bad, and Metrotech = Atlantic Yards. Both of those "equations," if I can call them that, are false.

NYguy

August 24th, 2006, 08:39 AM

NY Post

HOOP DREAMS DRAW A FOUL

By RICH CALDER
August 24, 2006

Critics of developer Bruce Ratner's plans for an NBA arena in Downtown Brooklyn cried foul during a raucous public hearing last night.

Supporters of the $4.2 billion plan said it would revive the borough.

"I believe Atlantic Yards is the right project for the right place at the right time," Borough President Marty Markowitz told the Empire State Development Corp. hearing.

But angry residents said the hearing's organizers unfairly allowed pro-project politicians and union leaders to speak first.

"I think it's depressing that people are coming here just to stand on a soapbox," said Deborah Goldstein of Sunset Park.

Celebrity supporters of the project include Net stars Jason Kidd and Vince Carter.

"I can't wait to play here," Kidd said.

"I hope I'm not too old" when it's finished."

__________________________________________________

NY Sun

Sides Clash as Atlantic Yards Development Project Edges Closer to Approval

By DAVID LOMBINO - Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 24, 2006

The raucous debate over the Atlantic Yards development spilled out into the streets yesterday as an overcrowded public hearing left hundreds of Brooklynites arguing with each other over the mega-project's merits.

The public hearing was a necessary step toward securing final approval of the $4.2 billion plan to build a basketball arena and 16 towers containing 6,860 apartments on 22 acres near downtown Brooklyn. Some of the development would be built over the Atlantic rail yards, and some on land bought by the developer or to be seized using eminent domain.

Opponents, mainly white, have complained that the project, which will create the densest census tract in the country, will negatively impact the community's infrastructure, ensnarl traffic, and ruin its low-rise character. Supporters, who appear to be predominantly African American, say that it will bring about 2,250 units of "affordable" housing to a borough facing soaring housing costs, and bring much needed jobs.

The 800-seat auditorium of New York City Technical College was at capacity and hundreds of people waited outside on a line that bent around the corner, where many engaged in charged, informal debates over the project.

Inside the auditorium, more than 250 people signed up to speak. With each speaker allotted three minutes, the state's moderator, Ted Kramer, said there could be more than 12 hours of public testimony.

Despite a warning from Mr. Kramer that "cheering, booing, and placard waving" was not allowed during public testimony, a lively, diverse crowd colorfully interrupted speakers at will. One local resident against the project, Connie Leshold, 68, was removed from the auditorium by security after to she stood up, yelling and pointing at state Senator Martin Golden.

Just before the public hearing began, developer Bruce Ratner held a celebrity-filled press conference nearby. "This is about affordable housing, jobs, and bringing a spirit back to Brooklyn," Mr. Ratner said.

The developer owns the New Jersey Nets, and hopes to move them to the Atlantic Yards arena. Nets stars Jason Kidd and Vince Carter were on hand at the press conference yesterday, along with singer Roberta Flack.

Opponents at a recent rally brought out celebrities like Steve Buscemi and Rosie Perez, but a spokesman for the umbrella group against Atlantic Yards, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, Daniel Goldstein, said that no celebrities were on hand yesterday.

Inside the auditorium, debate continued in the aisles and in the foyer. A student from Boston College and Brooklyn native, Benjamin Lee, said he favors the project because it would revitalize the borough. "The rail yards are just a big, unused space," Mr. Lee said.

Yesterday's hearing also represented the only time that property owners in the project's footprint can go on the public record to oppose the state's pending property condemnation.

An attorney who lives in the footprint, who requested anonymity, said he had discussed with the developer the idea of selling his home, which has been in his family for three generations.

"We've talked but I find the idea of selling out offensive," he said. "It will create a lot of affordable housing, but in doing so it will kick out my grandfather, who could afford this housing 30 years ago."

On September 12, the state will hold a community forum about the project. The state's development agency will review the public comments over the next 30 days and incorporate changes into the general project plan and final environmental impact statement, which must be approved by the agency's board and the Public Authorities Control Board. The developer hopes to open the basketball arena for the 2009 season.

ablarc

August 24th, 2006, 08:46 AM

“The Williamsburgh Savings Tower should remain the tallest building in Brooklyn,” he said.
Reminds me of the decades Philadelphia's skyline was kept flat and uninteresting by folks who said this about Philly's City Hall. Now that numerous buildings are taller, no one in Philadelphia says, "We shouldn't have allowed that."

SilentPandaesq

August 24th, 2006, 09:38 AM

NY Post

Opponents at a recent rally brought out celebrities like Steve Buscemi and Rosie Perez, but a spokesman for the umbrella group against Atlantic Yards, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, Daniel Goldstein, said that no celebrities were on hand yesterday.

Not that it matters....But are we sure that Rosie Perez is a celebrity....that seams like a lie to me. :D

kliq6

August 24th, 2006, 09:59 AM

Yeah, that'll happen. These nitwits don't know when they've been beaten. It would be amusing if it weren't so annoying.

There not beaten, the project delays are costing him millions and in the end it will be built, but at half of what was invisioned. plus they are playing stall tactics in hope that by keep delaying and with a housing drop, the projects scale will be tolerable.

I dont think anyone really thinks it wont be built at all, its just the size

ZippyTheChimp

August 24th, 2006, 10:06 AM

Not protesting, not law suits, but trying to find typos in the EIS???
Typos would indeed be laughable and show sloppy work by Ratner, but not cause for further review of the project. I read "errors" as meaning factual errors or erroneous statements or assumptions.
Not offering an opinion on whether it applies here, but over the decades since they were required by law, EIS filings have evolved from the intended transparent documentation of well, enviromnmental impacts, into public relations documents in support of projects.

ablarc

August 24th, 2006, 10:12 AM

Most of the outspoken supporters you are talking about are members of ACORN and BUILD, who have received funding, jobs and/or promises of jobs from Ratner in exchange for support.
I pay my employees and consultants, and they promote my interests.

What hypocrites!

For their ethical health, I should instruct them to say nothing nice about me as long as they're being paid.

BigMac

August 24th, 2006, 10:39 AM

New York Times
August 24, 2006

Raucous Meeting on Atlantic Yards Plan Hints at Hardening Stances

By ANDY NEWMAN

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/24/nyregion/24yards600.1.jpg
Brooklyn residents waited in a long line Wednesday to get into a public hearing on the Atlantic Yards plan, a project that would transform Downtown Brooklyn. The meeting, at New York City College of Technology, lasted more than five hours and sparked vehement speeches on both sides.

An overflow crowd vehemently laid out the pros and cons of the proposed Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn for seven hours last night at a raucous public meeting. Their passions suggested that opinions had only hardened in the three years since development plans were announced.

“This project essentially separates the neighborhoods of Brooklyn rather than uniting them,” said Jonathan Barkey, a photographer, brandishing posters he had generated of proposed skyscrapers towering over existing brownstones and playgrounds. “I would call this development a Great Wall of Brooklyn.”

Bring it on, said Dan Jederlinic, an ironworker. “Bulldozers are coming,” he warned the project’s opponents to whooping applause, “and if you don’t get out of the way they’re going to bulldoze right over you!”

Clamor over the 22-acre project seems to have grown since last month, when a draft environmental impact statement said the project would choke traffic at dozens of already busy intersections and strain the area’s infrastructure. The development would alter the skyline just east of Downtown Brooklyn with a basketball arena and 16 buildings with nearly 7,000 units of housing.

Even Borough President Marty Markowitz, the project’s loudest booster, tempered his praise with pleas that it be scaled back. Current plans call for the tallest building to be 620 feet high. Mr. Markowitz said the 512-foot Williamsburgh Savings Bank building must remain the borough’s tallest building.

“I believe we can reduce the scale of the project while preserving the affordable housing and other benefits for Brooklyn,” Mr. Markowitz said.

Like a similar meeting in October, last night’s forum, at the New York City College of Technology in Brooklyn, mostly boiled down to a face-off. Supporters focused on the jobs and lower-income housing they said the project would bring to a borough badly in need of both; opponents warned that the project would destroy neighborhoods that had recently made tremendous strides.

The Municipal Art Society, a private planning and preservation group, released a statement criticizing the project yesterday.

Not for the first time during the three-year debate, divisions along race and class lines revealed themselves.

Umar Jordan, 51, a black resident of Bedford-Stuyvesant, said he had come to “speak for the underprivileged, the brothers who just got out of prison,” and he drew loud cheers when he mocked opponents who had moved to Brooklyn only recently. Mr. Jordan suggested that they “just go back up to Pleasantville.”

“People complaining about the size of a building, the height of this or that?” Mr. Jordan said. “Welcome to the hood; this is Brooklyn!”

The Atlantic Yards project, proposed by the developer Forest City Ratner with plans drawn up by the architect Frank Gehry, calls for more than eight million square feet of development near the crossing of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues, two of Brooklyn’s biggest thoroughfares.

The plan includes more than 2,200 rental apartments priced below market rates and more than 4,000 other residential units, as well as an arena for the Nets professional basketball team, stores and a hotel. Forest City Ratner is the development partner of The New York Times Company in building its new headquarters on Eighth Avenue in Manhattan.

The $4.2 billion Atlantic Yards project is intended to generate more than 1,500 construction jobs during the 10-year building process, plus hundreds of permanent jobs afterward and $1.4 billion in tax revenue.

But a 1,400-page draft environmental impact statement released last month by the Empire State Development Corporation, the project’s sponsor, found that as currently proposed, it would snarl traffic at 68 intersections during peak travel times and on some game days at the arena.

The study found that the project would also block views of the landmark bank tower, gobble up scarce parking spaces and strain aging sewer and water systems.

With only a month to go before the end of the public comment period on the Atlantic Yards study, yesterday’s forum, which began at 4:30 p.m., drew hundreds more people than the college’s 880-seat auditorium could hold. By 9 p.m., 300 public speakers were still waiting for their turn at the microphone. The scores who did not get a chance to speak by the meeting’s end at 11:30 could come back Sept. 12 at the next, and last, forum, organizers said.

The board of the development corporation will cast a final vote on the project in the fall.

Of the minority of speakers who actually addressed the environmental impact statement itself, some complained that they had been given only a few weeks to digest a foot-high stack of statistics and diagrams. Others said that elements of the statement were based on unrealistically rosy projections.

Outside the auditorium, meanwhile, hundreds from the housing group Acorn, which supports the project, chanted, “This is our neighborhood, and we know what is good.”

The Rev. Herbert Daughtry, a civil rights activist whose church nearly abuts the project site, was talking to reporters about the need for lower-income housing when Mr. Barkey, the photographer, interrupted him.

“Like this?” Mr. Barkey said sarcastically, pointing to his posters of huge, blank building faces towering over a neighborhood. “This is rich folks’ housing. Look at these walls.”

Mr. Daughtry was not impressed. “Don’t you understand that all we’ve been around is walls all our lives?” he said. “You need to take that somewhere else.”

Michael Amon contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

bkmonkey

August 24th, 2006, 11:00 AM

There not beaten, the project delays are costing him millions and in the end it will be built, but at half of what was invisioned. plus they are playing stall tactics in hope that by keep delaying and with a housing drop, the projects scale will be tolerable.

I dont think anyone really thinks it wont be built at all, its just the size

Hmm.. are you sure.. the developer has already stated that the reason for the size of the project is so that the project (the areana) can sustain itself. He has made a brilliant move by planning alot of affordable housing. Where exactly would he scale back? Once the project has been approved by the state.. the money is his. He has already purchased most of the land for the project. Its a slick move on his part.. one he has thought out for years.

Like a chess game. And Bruce says"checkmate"

Its also very disconcerning that Marty is so interested in keeping the 512 limit in Brooklyn. I understand he is a politician, and he strying to be balenced, especially as he contemplates a run for mayor however, even if they are valid concerns about the projects density and porportion.. I don't think they will be solved by reducing the hieght of the tallest building to 511 feet. I thnk the effect will be the same if the building were fatter and shorter. I think we all agree that we would prefer a taller more slender tower than a short stubby one. In the end the opponents might look at the ugly tower they got, and regret it.

ZippyTheChimp

August 24th, 2006, 11:13 AM

SilentPandaesq

August 24th, 2006, 11:38 AM

The comment about the building height by Marty was just thrown out there. Without more of a context it is just an empty statement. So I give it no weight.

You would think that the opponets would push for taller more slender towers placed at an angle that would cast the least amount of shadow. Thereby getting rid of "the wall".

I like Zippy's idea too. Perhaps they are reading these forums and getting ideas.

ablarc

August 24th, 2006, 01:58 PM

Run Pacific St through the site.

Get rid of all the "public green space" that snakes through the project and consolidate the acreage into one park/playground that would be a focal point for the community.

Get rid of the gaps and put up a continuous streetwall that relates in scale to the neighborhood, and set back the residential towers from that streetwall.
All good suggestions, and all obvious. Also, I'd guess that Gehry made them all himself.

Gehry can be trusted to know what's right in an urban setting. He probably got shot down by residual modernist buildings-in-a-park theories; you'll find these are commonplace among the NIMBYs and other segments of the public, and chances are Ratner insisted on kowtowing to these elements.

.

NYguy

August 24th, 2006, 02:57 PM

Its also very disconcerning that Marty is so interested in keeping the 512 limit in Brooklyn. I understand he is a politician, and he strying to be balenced, especially as he contemplates a run for mayor however, even if they are valid concerns about the projects density and porportion.. I don't think they will be solved by reducing the hieght of the tallest building to 511 feet. I thnk the effect will be the same if the building were fatter and shorter. I think we all agree that we would prefer a taller more slender tower than a short stubby one. In the end the opponents might look at the ugly tower they got, and regret it.

That's true. Bruce already has overwhelming support from the state and city, I see no reason for him to change his plans now. Besides, "Miss Brooklyn" is fat enough as it is. These hearings are just a formality by the state. In the end, they will say we "listened" to the complaints. And the bulldozers will move in.

Bring it on, said Dan Jederlinic, an ironworker. “Bulldozers are coming,” he warned the project’s opponents to whooping applause, “and if you don’t get out of the way they’re going to bulldoze right over you!”

Amen.

Transic

August 24th, 2006, 06:32 PM

Another thing I don't get: I thought density was a good thing. Don't environmentalist activists usually encourage greater density to cut down on sprawl and save on energy? If density's such a problem in Brooklyn, why is it the most populous borough in the city?

I just don't get it! :confused:

Citytect

August 24th, 2006, 06:40 PM

There are elements of this project that I would change, involving the area between 6th Ave and Vanderbilt Ave.

Run Pacific St through the site.

Get rid of all the "public green space" that snakes through the project and consolidate the acreage into one park/playground that would be a focal point for the community.

Get rid of the gaps and put up a continuous streetwall that relates in scale to the neighborhood, and set back the residential towers from that streetwall.

Yes, please. With those changes, I'd fully and enthusiastically support the project. The way it is, I'm only a supporter because I don't oppose it. I think the current plan has some serious flaws that need to be fixed. For this reason, I don't mind the persistent protests even though I don't agree with many of the issues cited.

Teno

August 24th, 2006, 06:45 PM

Umar Jordan, 51, a black resident of Bedford-Stuyvesant, said he had come to “speak for the underprivileged, the brothers who just got out of prison,” and he drew loud cheers when he mocked opponents who had moved to Brooklyn only recently. Mr. Jordan suggested that they “just go back up to Pleasantville.”

This is likely not far from the truth. Its likely the majority of wealthier white residence who oppose have moved to Brooklyn from somewhere else.

While the working class minorities who support are likely to be life time residents of Brooklyn.

The Rev. Herbert Daughtry, a civil rights activist whose church nearly abuts the project site, was talking to reporters about the need for lower-income housing when Mr. Barkey, the photographer, interrupted him.

“Like this?” Mr. Barkey said sarcastically, pointing to his posters of huge, blank building faces towering over a neighborhood. “This is rich folks’ housing. Look at these walls.”

Mr. Daughtry was not impressed. “Don’t you understand that all we’ve been around is walls all our lives?” he said. “You need to take that somewhere else.”

The problem with those who oppose is they mostly oppose based on some idea of how they want Brooklyn to be. While not giving enough attention to the practical problems Atlantic Yards addresses, the need for jobs and housing. Even if Atlantic Yards is mostly for rich people it still adds much needed housing that will help balance the current and extremely unequal supply and demand.

Those who support are looking primarily at their own practical need for jobs and housing. Those who oppose ignore this need in favor of their own idea of the way things should be.

NYguy

August 24th, 2006, 08:40 PM

Brooklyn Papers

Atlantic Yards hearing pits pro vs. con in historic battle for Brooklyn
2,000 show up, only 100 get a chance to speak

http://www.brooklynpapers.com/images/splashimage.jpg

Opponents of Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards mega-project (left) made their point clear at Wednesday night’s seven-hour hearing on the development…while supporters, including this woman (right) holding a “Yes in my back yard” sign, cheered the development as a source of jobs and affordable housing.

By Gersh Kuntzman and Ariella Cohen

Supporters and opponents of Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards mega-development clashed loudly and repeatedly during Wednesday’s state hearing on the project — and in doing so put forward two distinct visions of Brooklyn’s future.

Seats were in short supply — and so was civility — at a NYC Technical College auditorium, as opponents of the project were roundly jeered by supporters, who, in turn, were booed by opponents.

Because the hearing’s moderator chose to alternate pro-Atlantic Yards speakers and anti-Yards speakers, the visceral chasm between the two sides was abundantly on display.

For every unemployed speaker begging the state to approve the project — whose backers predict will create “jobs in the community” — there was a seemingly more affluent activist ticking off the traffic, transit, open space, noise and pollution shortcomings of the project.

For every Rev. Herbert Daughtry, who got $50,000 from Ratner after he came out in support of the project, there was a Lee Solomon, a resident of Fort Greene, whose opposition to the project has not earned her a dime.

For every union ironworker making brownie points with his union to testify, there was a community activist hoping to testify quickly so she could save on babysitting.

The see-saw night started before the first speaker even approached the podium in the Klitgord Auditorium on Jay Street, Downtown, with a request from the moderator for civility — which was almost immediately ignored as Borough President Markowitz, who is the public official most identified by his outspoken support of the project, made the first speech.

Markowitz could barely be heard over the boos and cheers.

“Thank you very very much,” he said. “What you just heard was a Brooklyn cheer. It’s OK. I believe Atlantic Yards is the right project, at the right time, at the right place.”

His biggest applause line came when he said that Ratner would build his project with “100 percent union labor!”

But the cheering abruptly stopped when the Beep changed gears.

“This project needs to be reduced,” he said. “The Williamsburgh Savings Bank should remain Brooklyn’s tallest building! The height of [the 62-story] ‘Miss Brooklyn’ must be reduced. Next, build a school! And next, insure public safety. And get real about traffic and parking. Finally, make the open space accessible and integrated seamlessly into the neighborhood.”

After exceeding his allotted three minutes by at least two, he left the podium to a resounding chorus of boos, as project supporters felt betrayed and opponents felt that Markowitz’s concerns about the project came “too little, too late,” as one man yelled out.

As the second speaker of the night — state Sen. Marty Golden (R–Bay Ridge) — approached the podium, former Community Board 8 member Connie Lesold could not hold her tongue.

“It’s not right that he should speak,” she said as she was escorted out. “He’s from the far southern end of Brooklyn. His neighborhood hasn’t lost firehouses. This project is a giveaway to rich corporations!”

A dozen elected officials got to speak at the “public hearing” before the public itself, while hundreds of people waited their turn or, worse, waited outside just to get into the hearing.

Any politician who supported the project was cheered by scores of construction workers. Any who did not, was jeered by them.

Supporters repeatedly derided opponents as white people out of touch with the needs of black Brooklyn. Assemblyman Roger Green (D–Prospect Heights) stuck to that story line with a preacher’s cadence.

“I was born in Brooklyn and I was raised in Brooklyn,” he said. “Some of us were here before other people got here! Some of you have never been in the Fort Greene Houses. Some of you have never dared to go to the Farragut Houses. We will not be lectured to.”

Green spoke of the “conspiracy of silence” that deprives “the black man” of economic empowerment — but also said it was a “moral imperative” to bring the project’s scale down by 30 to 40 percent.

Next, Assemblywoman Joan Millman (D–Park Slope) complained that the Empire State Development Corporation released the project’s draft environmental impact statement and scheduled the public hearing during the summer, “when many people are on their vacation.”

She was hissed.

“Too many politicians in Brooklyn!” one man yelled.

The same man later cheered when another politician — this time, project supporter Assemblyman Karim Camera (D–Crown Heights) — mentioned high black unemployment.

“When people ask me, ‘How can you be for the project?’ I return the question, ‘How could I not be for this project?’ We need jobs. We need affordable housing. Do this for every black man who needs a job.”

Ratner claims there would be 1,500 construction jobs per year over the 10-year buildout of the project.

People speak

When the unelected masses got their turn to speak, the back-and-forth battle — complete with the breakdown in civility — continued.

A man from upstate Pleasantville spoke of traffic, the lack of greenspace and how historic restaurant Gage & Tollner was forced to close a few years back because Ratner “failed to live up to the promises he made at Metrotech.”

He was followed by Umar Jordan, who ridiculed his complaints.

“If you never been in the Marcy projects, you’re not from Brooklyn,” he said. “Go back to Pleasantville.”

Jordan, who lives in Bedford-Stuyvesant, added, “Black men and women are forced to rob because you won’t give them a job! You’re complaining about the height of the buildings and this and that. Well, welcome to the hood!”

Park Slope civics

Several members of the Park Slope Civic Council — speaking in three-minute allotments — read the group’s testimony into the record.

Lumi Rolley began by complaining that the hearing was scheduled “at a time when so many Brooklynites are squeezing in the last of their summer vacations.”

The group’s testimony focused on the DEIS’s failure to mitigate increased subway crowding, the loss of street parking and gridlock conditions.

Daughtry, whose House of the Lord Pentecostal Church is located in nearby Boerum Hill, followed the Civic Council’s by-the-book presentation with an impassioned sermon that argued that the area where Ratner wants to build was “written off” by they city for years.

“Nobody stepped up — but Forest City Ratner had a vision. So why are you holding this [project] against Forest City Ratner when development is going on all over Brooklyn with non-union work? And that bank building that you hold so sacred? That developer said there ain’t going to be affordable housing there! Protest against that!”

He was followed by Community Board 6 Chairman Jerry Armer, who also complained about the lack of time for a full analysis of the 2,000-page DEIS.

“This is a time when most people are away,” Armer said. “Even psychiatrists, which some of us sitting here may need when this is all over, are on vacation in August.”

Few traffic concerns

Before taking public testimony, ESDC officials offered brief presentations about the $4.2-billion project and its impacts.

Just three minutes was spent on traffic.

“The impacted locations are reduced substantially [by various mitigations], but there will still be what we would call non-mitigatable conditions,” said ESDC consultant Philip Habib. “There will be traffic congestion on Flatbush and Atlantic avenues and on Dean Street.”

Another ESDC official spoke of a “shortfall in the number of elementary and intermediate school seats” as a result of the project. “We considered that to be a significant adverse impact,” said the consultant.

By the time the ESDC presentations were done, 250 people had already registered for a three-minute timeslot. If each had been able to speak for the allotted time, the meeting would have taken 12-1/2 hours.

As it is, the scheduled four-hour hearing was extended to 11:30 pm, allowing slightly more than 100 people to speak.

The only moment of comic relief came from a speaker who identified himself only as “Mr. X” and was wearing mirrored sunglasses.

He compared the project to a drug deal and offered to put Ratner in “a tight-ass mini-skirt,” drawing laughter from both sides.

The remaining 200 or so speakers were told to submit their testimony in writing or attend a second hearing on Sept. 12 — but they were not promised a spot at the head of the line.

At the end of the long night, longtime opponent of the project, Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, said he found the whole event a depressing “circus.”

“This hearing was meaningless,” he said.

“It became a shouting match rather than an analysis of the flawed DEIS. Ratner’s supporters don’t want to hear that opponents of Atlantic Yards do want affordable housing and jobs.”

bkmonkey

August 25th, 2006, 12:51 AM

Im shocked...

This is actually seems to be an objective article from the Brooklyn Papers...
I hope they maintain this level of reporting.

BigMac

August 25th, 2006, 09:59 AM

New York Times
August 25, 2006

A Little Change of Tune From Atlantic Yards’ Biggest Fan

By ANDY NEWMAN

In the three years since it was proposed, the city-within-a-city known as the Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn has become the most polarizing development project in New York. During that time, no elected official has proclaimed its benefits more often, or more loudly, than Brooklyn’s borough president, Marty Markowitz.

To hear Mr. Markowitz tell it, the Atlantic Yards, comprising high-rise housing, a sports arena and retail space, is Junior’s Cheesecake, Nathan’s Famous Hot Dogs, a bag of chips and then some. He has always acknowledged that it might need a little fine-tuning, but he has saved his exclamation points for words of praise. At a news conference on Wednesday, for example, he said, “Brooklyn is a world-class city, and we deserve the Atlantic Yards!”

But a few hours later, at a public hearing on the 22-acre project’s environmental impact, Mr. Markowitz shouted a slightly different tune.

For the first time, he urged that the project’s centerpiece, a tower dubbed Miss Brooklyn, rise no higher than the nearby Williamsburgh Savings Bank building, the clock-faced icon that has defined Brooklyn’s skyline since 1929. “The Williamsburgh Savings Bank should remain Brooklyn’s tallest building!” he thundered.

Miss Brooklyn is penciled in at 620 feet high. The bank tower is 512 feet high. Mr. Markowitz was telling the developer, Forest City Ratner, to lop nearly 20 percent off the project’s signature building.

Mr. Markowitz wasn’t finished. The project would still be fantastic, he said, but three other buildings on the site should be shrunk. And Forest City Ratner needed to “get real about traffic and parking!”

Mr. Markowitz said yesterday that he had planned to speak out on these concerns all along.

“I always said, ‘when the time is right,’ and now the time is right,” he said, “now” being the period for public comment on a draft environmental impact statement for the project.

But Mr. Markowitz may also be sensing a shift in the political winds. Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic candidate for governor, recently called for further review on the project. Indeed, critics have grown loud enough that politicians seem to be paying far more heed than they once did.

Assemblyman Roger Green, who has called for the project to be downsized, said of Mr. Markowitz, “In the context of negotiating with Ratner and the state, I think he’s calibrating his remarks to get to a compromise.”

Eric McClure, a co-founder of Park Slope Neighbors, a civic group, said the operative verb to describe Mr. Markowitz’s remarks was “grandstanding” rather than “calibrating.”

Mr. Markowitz, Mr. McClure said, was reaching for some political cover so that he could say he stood up to the developers, an assertion that might be useful if he runs for higher office when his term expires in 2009.

But to win over Mr. McClure, a critic of the project’s scale, he said, “Marty would have to come out and say, ‘As much as I want a pro team in Brooklyn, if this project isn’t made more manageable, even I would say don’t bring it to Brooklyn.’ ”

Mr. Markowitz said that while his years of stumping for the Atlantic Yards had given him leverage with Forest City Ratner, the developer might not follow his every instruction. Still, he said, “the recommendations that are heeded will make a good project even better.”

Several people ascribed Mr. Markowitz’s tough stand to the possession of inside information.

“I can’t see Marty demanding that those buildings be scaled back and going out on a limb unless he’s received some kind of assurance that that will occur,” said Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the project’s most strident critic. Mr. Markowitz said he had no such knowledge.

Forest City Ratner did not comment specifically on Mr. Markowitz’s remarks, but said in a statement: “We understand the borough president’s point of view and have always found his suggestions and input valuable to the project. We will continue to work with him and others to improve on what we all agree is a great project.”

Forest City Ratner is also The New York Times Company’s development partner on its new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan.

The Williamsburgh Savings Bank building is perhaps an odd platform upon which to make a stand against overdevelopment. By saying Miss Brooklyn must be no higher, Mr. Markowitz seemed to be comparing the bank tower to the Washington Monument and the statue of William Penn atop Philadelphia’s City Hall, whose heights have historically been held sacred by residents.

But the bank building in Brooklyn — where no bank exists now — is being converted into condominiums priced at up to $3 million each, a fact that was not lost on some of the speakers at Wednesday’s meeting.

The Rev. Herbert Daughtry, a full-throated supporter of the Atlantic Yards, mocked those who complained that the buildings would block views of the bank’s clock tower. “That bank that you hold sacred?” he said. “That developer said there ain’t going to be no affordable housing there. Protest against that.”

Mr. Markowitz said the bank was a treasure that needed to be protected. “I’ve seen so many buildings come down in my lifetime,” he said. “I just think it’s a good thing to preserve the yesterday as we move ahead tomorrow.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company