I don't like the idea of the entire thing being designed by Gehry... the peek at his 620ft office tower design phase from one of Derek's pictures already gave me a little nausea.
I don't like the idea of the entire thing being designed by Gehry... the peek at his 620ft office tower design phase from one of Derek's pictures already gave me a little nausea.
What gives you nausea, is for others euphoria. The stadium is great, grand, a modern Roman Coliseum and a type of public project that NYC has not yet seen. Whereas I liken the stadiums architecture as a reincarnation of Penn Station, the towers architecture will be ground breaking, from what I’ve seen they are very etheral. The fact that the towers will be raised above the stadium only enhances there gravity defying act.
I like (very much) the arena and the way the towers are positioned and massed, but I don't really know about the true forms and facades of the towers themselves. I just don't want them to be... typical Gehryish. I may learn to love them, so this is just a preliminary opinion (moreso because I haven't seen the finished design of that tower, just the design evolution).
I'm not familiar with any of Gehry's office or residential buildings. It could be something great - the entire development - something additional to define Brooklyn along with Coney Island, Prospect Park, Brooklyn Bridge, etc....I just hope it doesn't look like a cheap housing development...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulcrapek
There's already a lot of momentum behind this project, and things seem to be lining up nicely for Ratner.
After reading all the articles and what not, this project seems unreal. Still can't believe this is going up just a couple blocks away from me...
How could reading anything about this project seem unreal? Ratner seems to be in the lead for the Nets, he's pushing, Bloomberg's pushing, the MTA would give the development rights to him pretty easily, and that would not require community approval, etc.
I think if he gets the Nets, it's got a great chance of happening, for a number of reasons.
i dont understand how eminent domain applies here. In the case of the NYTimes building that block was considered to be "blighted" but this area clearly is not. So what are the legal reasons to be used for basically taking over the properties for this project? Is it basically creation of new jobs and more affortable housing? Is that enough to legally justify forcibly buying someone's house even when they dont want to sell?
It's a railyard, not individual homesteads, they're dealing with here:
http://www.theslatinreport.com/02_existing.jpg
Are those Gehry sketches?
The site being "blighted" is not neccessarily a condition for Eminent Domain. The key requirement is that the land is needed for a public purpose. For example, a swath of homes were cleared through Brooklyn for an expressway to the new Verrazano Narrows bridge. These homes were not blighted, but the action was justified by the need for the bridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by yanni111
Blight is the condition when eminent domain is used for urban renewal. That was the criteria that was used at the NYTimes site (a stretch in my opinion).
I don't know what the legal argument will be in Brooklyn. You could argue that the development is a public work, but it will be privately owned, not as clear-cut an argument as a bridge that is owned by the city.
I didn't mean unreal as in it's a distant pipedream, I meant unreal as in something so amazing that I can't believe it's going to be built.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyblancoNYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulcrapek
They are from landscape architect Laurie Olin....
Oh. I guess and hope the building facades are just placeholders then.