« Monday Links Heath and Michelle in Brooklyn Heights? »
February 26, 2007
Egan: Apathy and Resignation To Blame in AY Fight
In her NY Times op-ed piece this weekend, author, Fort Greene resident and DDDB board member Jennifer Egan contrasts the wily public relations machinations of Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner with the relative apathy and inaction of those who claim to oppose the project that would indelibly change the landscape and character of the borough. The combination of presenting the project as a fait accompli from day one and casting himself as the champion of the working class was, she opines, effective in a race-baiting sort of way. In the end, she laments the passive role it has placed the borough in, to be molded and shaped by profit-seeking developers, not the people who live here.
What was mostly lost in this caustic debate was the biggest question of all: what do we Brooklynites — a diverse and even divided collective — want our borough to be? Do we want it transformed from a sunny, low-lying place into knots of vertical superblocks? Are we content to let our borough’s future be imposed on us by developers and politicians? A strong girding of power and ideas is our best defense against developers who might wish to control the process. And an active and vocal public will send a healthy warning to elected officials who might consider placing these developers’ interests above our own.
What surprised us most was the tone of resignation that underlay the essay, playing right into Ratner "formidable spin machine ".
A Developing Story [NY Times]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/614
Comments
Its interesting it was published on a Saturday, the day with the least amount of readers. I'm guessing that this is a way that the times can be "balanced" in reporting the story, since they totally dropped the ball on the court ruling and the beginning of the demolition.
The editorial was very, very well written and brings up points of pain all of us who live close to this project have been discussing.
Posted by: I hate Ratner Too at February 26, 2007 9:27 AM
It's simple: They're just aren't enough people who think this development portends doom and gloom for the borough of Brooklyn. What's annoying about this essay is that she presumes to speak for everyone in Brooklyn. Or, worse, to presume that everyone in Brooklyn should care about the personal opinions of people who live close to the project. I just lost my views of downtown Manhattan to a new development across the street. Too bad for me; that's life in the big city. And all this talk of 'density' issues? What could be more dense then the upper east side, battery park, or any of a number of neighborhoods in manhattan? Sutton Place was once a skid row. Atlantic Yards is a vast, garbage-filled hole in the ground. Despite what people say, it will be developed following a democratic process. In this country, money and influence are a huge part of that process; always have, always will. Too bad for you...
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 9:39 AM
I'm also concerned about the effect on the zoned public schools, but I note that Egan (an FG, not PS resident, she says) sends her child to a lottery school. (I'm guessing she means the Children's School or maybe New School?) AY will probably mean that it will be much harder to get into the exclusive lottery schools, many of whose slots are filled by legacies or by privileged parents using their connections. But if crowding means that local yuppie parents will actually have to roll up their sleeves, use and support their zoned public schools--rather than fleeing to some lottery or variance school that somebody else has already done the hard work to improve for them -- I'm all for that.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at February 26, 2007 9:43 AM
Anon at 9:39 -- why do you perpetuate lies? Atlantic Yards is not a vast, garbage-filled hole in the ground. It is a WORKING rail yard and the foot print for the project includes viable businesses and homes, as well as empty lots. But don't you think those empty lots would already be under construction, given the current building boom in Brooklyn, if Ratner weren't holding them vacant? What could be more dense than the UES, Battery Park, or any of a number of neighborhoods in Manhattan? Why, that would be Atlantic Yards, slated to be TWICE AS DENSE as the densest housing tract in the entire United States, with an open space per person ratio that's a tiny fraction of what Battery Park City has.
This is the problem with the AY debate -- people like Anon at 9:39 who are simply not in possession of the facts.
Posted by: SPer at February 26, 2007 9:44 AM
I agree with #2. I just don't feel the pain of these people. Do I like Ratner - No. He is scum who is ripping the public off. But to think that the project should be squashed is rubbish. The place is a dump right now. If these trampled upon people cared to venture from their precious brownstones to take a look at Atlantic Ave. they would see the same thing.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 9:46 AM
I am in agreement with Anon 9:46 - I'm always astounded that people see Brooklyn as something other than a city and see Atlantic Ave. as some bucolic paradise needing to be saved. I moved to NYC from a rural area in order to BE in a city. I think a mix of building styles and usage is dynamic and exciting and adds to my experience of the city. Someone once remarked that "New York City would be a great place to live, if they ever finished it". That's the deal - New York ISN'T ever finished. Brooklyn isn't some remote bedroom community, it's a vibrant living changing landscape.
I say bring on AY.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 9:55 AM
Just give it 5 years, 9:46. By then we'll all be waxing nostalgic about that dump hole in the ground. Holes will look mighty good compared to what Bruce is gonna build.
Thank God my property isn't in Brooklyn.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 9:56 AM
Someone please explain how AY could possibly be MORE dense than the densest housing tract in America. What is the densest housing tract in America? I may not have a good hold of the facts, but at least I'm not creating 'facts' out of whole cloth...
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 9:57 AM
9:39, you are ignorant on the facts and wrong about the op-ed; i thought it was pretty balanced.
consciously changing the subject, has anyone read egan's new novel, "the keep?"
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 9:58 AM
I know two people now who've sold their relatively large, relatively well-to-do homes in order to escape AY. Both were in Ft. Greene, but I know this is happening in a lot of the surrounding nabes. They didn't hold out for a big price, either. They just wanted to escape with their shirts.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 10:03 AM
The (so-far) inability of DDDB and others do stop or even impact design and scale of AY project could be for many reasons.
Certainly the political support in ALbany and City Hall is big part of it.
And I think opposition may have made tactical errors of their of own.
They overstated drama of what the project will mean to 'Brooklyn' . Vast majority of 'Brooklyn' is too far from the area (and probably not even quite sure where it is ) .... to be making the gradiose claim of negative effects on the borough, defining Brooklyn yadda yadda yadda.
Sounds hysterical. So I don't believe they ever genereated groundswell of community opposition no matter how passionate the anti-AY group is.
But instead of talking about 'Brooklyn' should have concentrated on neighborhoods nearby.
And more importantly all NYC - more time exposing cost to taxpayers, subsidies and potential financial boondoggle if project is not successful. What if city or state end up funneling even more funds to private corp.
Because AY is both arena and vast housing complex, arguments for and againt get muddled. Perhaps if concentrated only on the total concentration of housing units instead of arena may have had better success.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 10:06 AM
10:03 - there are no fire sales going on for FG brownstones, so I'm not worrying about your two friends, and the good news is that the new buyers know exactly what they are in for, and are ok with it presumably.
Posted by: OE at February 26, 2007 10:25 AM
hey everyone its a WORKING railyard!!!
I'm with 9:39.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 10:48 AM
9:39 - Great job summing it up. I agree. I am worried that the infrastructure won't be taken care of properly but I think this will end up being great for the borough whether we like it or not.
Posted by: greenwood slope at February 26, 2007 10:52 AM
i have several neighbors in fg who have sold and moved further up the hill to bed stuy. we're doing the same. that area is equally as beautiful, if not more, and won't be consumed by trucks, jackhammers, etc for years to come. anyone who thinks that ay will be good for this borough is sadly misinformed.
Posted by: byebyefg at February 26, 2007 11:00 AM
Why are people paying more and more to live in the areas adjacent to AY (e.g., PH), then? At this point, everyone knows exactly what's going on with the AY project, yet people still continue to pay higher and higher prices to get into the area. It's an efficient and informed market. I don't get these arguments that people are selling their FG and PH properties in order to "escape with their shirts." Please. They may leave the area because they like less congestion, lower rises, etc. But that's not the same as leaving because they're scrared of property values decreasing. Is the thought that, once people realize that AY is really going to suck, property values will plummet? That seems very unlikely. Everyone knows what the project is already.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 11:14 AM
Regardless of whether you are pro/against, if you look at past big projects in NYC, you'll see many get delayed for years and years and don't end up in the form they were originally concieved. Just look what happened to Ebbotts Field.. If the Dogers hadn't left for LA you would all be living next door to a major baseball stadium!
Posted by: OE at February 26, 2007 11:19 AM
"anyone who thinks that ay will be good for this borough is sadly misinformed."
This is a common response from the anti-AY crowd. Why is it so hard to believe that others can analyze the same facts and come up with different opinions? We're moving to PH this year. We're pretty smart and well-informed and did our homework on AY before making this move. We still think the development will be positive overall. Why can't you accept that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the facts, even if you disagree with it?
Posted by: z at February 26, 2007 11:20 AM
Anon at 9:57 asks:
"Someone please explain how AY could possibly be MORE dense than the densest housing tract in America. What is the densest housing tract in America? I may not have a good hold of the facts, but at least I'm not creating 'facts' out of whole cloth..."
You can read about the density issue below.
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2006/05/extreme-density-atlantic-yards-plan.html
or here:
http://therealestate.observer.com/2006/07/prisoner-of-atlantic-avenue.html
"The densest census tract in the country is located in West Harlem, where a 1,190-unit former Mitchell-Lama building stands surrounded by numerous tenements (below). The two-block area has, according to the 2000 Census, a density equivalent to 229,713 inhabitants per square mile.
Sounds positively suburban next to the density envisioned by Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn (below): between 436,363 and 523,636 inhabitants per square mile (based on estimated population of between 15,000 and 18,000 residents over 22 acres). That is the density for the whole footprint, including the open space, the arena, and the office towers."
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 11:29 AM
Why are people upset? This developer has such an excellent reputation for building character laden, neighborhood enhancing developments. I wish my office was in Metro Tech and that all the retail in Brooklyn looked like Atlantic Terminal. Thank goodness someone is bringing in all these chain restaurants that we all like so much.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 12:02 PM
oh yes and the Atlantic Center is such a lovely, well-designed retail complex. What a boon for the surrounding community...
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at February 26, 2007 1:02 PM
11:29
You don't get it. The density issue per square mile doesn't mean shit, unless you are analyzing them on a per square mile basis!
The census tract that includes AY is currently very large, because it consists of the actual train yard!
When you analyze population denisty by zip code, you will find that the surrounding area will still in no way approach many parts of Manhattan.
Posted by: Eryximachus at February 26, 2007 1:04 PM
the first thing i'm gonna do is go get a big hamburger at Chuck-E-Cheese, then i'm gonna get a bacon salad at the new AY TIGF and after that i'll get desert at the AY Dunkin' Doughnuts. boy do i love New York!
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 1:31 PM
Kudos to Egan for expressing so eloquently the democratic deficit in this whole mess. Even if you can somehow bring yourself to love and desire this taxpayer handout to Ratner's ego-dream, you must be able to question the way in which this was railroaded through with no meaningful transparent oversite. If the project goes forward, it will be a tremendous missed opportunity for appropriate development that organically supports and emerges from the needs of a growing diverse community, rather than siphoning off public resources to enrich a large developer.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 1:32 PM
pretty silly 11:31. some new yorkers do love that stuff which is why those chain can stay in business in brooklyn and all over manhattan for that matter. businesses close when there is no demand for their products. apparently its there.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 2:01 PM
uh 1:31 actually.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 2:02 PM
One of the points she made in the article was the lack of a single powerful corporate opponent to the project in contrast to other mega projects which got voted down. Another issue is that this was a very powerful, well connected entity which skillfully wended its way through the politics of approval. Imagine Joe Q. Citizen ripping through the Environmental Impact study (a monster document about 10 inches deep) in the 30 day time frame allotted for public review.
Posted by: donatella at February 26, 2007 3:30 PM
Chuck E Cheese? You wont need to go that far. We'll have street meat vendors on every corner from the bridge to to prospect park.
mmm mmm good
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 3:32 PM
Is anyone else sick of these so called "neighborhood saviors" (including mister brownstone) that do not send their kids to the local public school? PS 11 is decent school - Ms. Egan could do far worse. Another question: Do public lottery school solely exist to give these "Bo-Bos" a way out?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 3:48 PM
"businesses close when there is no demand for their products. apparently its there."
exactly.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 3:57 PM
The chief reason why the opposition has been so lame is its leadership. When you approach a political topic by declaring any who disagrees with you as an idiot, you're not going to make many allies. Errol Louis's columns have been spot on.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 4:31 PM
The only allies Ratner has are ones that have been bought and paid for.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 4:36 PM
you really think ratner bought and paid for the times/post/news? this is the type of hyperbole that destroys any credibility that the majority of the AY opposition might otherwise have.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 4:59 PM
9:58 here. if you are just learning about AY from this blog, you missed the train. everybody else, are opinions actually changed by threads like this? i'll ask again, who has read egan's new novel?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 5:08 PM
Ratner definitely bought the Times as they were involved in a real estate deal with FNC. There coverage has been either nonexistent, inaccurate, or biased and this is widely acknowledged (burying articles on Saturday is typical). At the News, an anti Ratner reporter was fired. The Post provided modest coverage, often taking swipes at the Times through its articles.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 6:02 PM
ratner couldn't have dreamed up better enemies as Pucca and Goldstein....
If DDDB would have talented people at the helm there would have been a chance, but with these PR clowns, what do you expect?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 6:27 PM
I'm into it. Brooklyn is what, the 4th largest city in the country? It needs a better downtown area. I also think that we basically need to rezone and build as fast as possible to minimize the inevitable housing shortage and keep real estate prices as reasonable as possible.
Yes, AY would be more dense than any census track. However, it's not a census track. You're comparing apples and oranges there. No doubt congestion will be a problem but, with I'd hope that downtown Brooklyn becomes like downtown Manhattan in that people just know better than to drive into it and I'd also hope that Brooklyn becomes even less of a car culture.
The land, in the middle of Brooklyn, near it's largest transit hub, is simple too valuable for massive storage facilities and train yards.
Posted by: mr brooklyn at February 26, 2007 6:28 PM
I agree with some of the posters on this thread - the problem with AY and all the NYC development going on including the rezonings of Williamsburg/Greenpoint, LES is that the process has been so much less than democratic. I thought city planners etc had learned something since the era of R.Moses but obviously they haven't or just pay lip service to what they have learned...do just enough. No wonder people are whining - it's the cry of the powerless. Now like the woman said - if there were real political protest....It's not fair to criticize the AY opponents for apathy - it just a brand new learning curve. NYC in the age of Bush. What do you expect.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 7:31 PM
What do you mean by more democratic? Should the approval of new developments be on the ballot? I don't think that allowing the project to be blocked by a relatively small group of vociferous, well-to-do locals would be more democratic.
While, Ratner's spin about how this is for the working people of brooklyn and just opposed by the wealthy newcomers is propaganda, I do think that there's some underlying truth to it. I guess I do resent how a newcomer like Egan claims to speak for Brooklyn
Posted by: mr brooklyn at February 26, 2007 8:16 PM
7:31PM - City planners did learn something since R.Moses - they learned that it is difficult enough to get something built in this city and if you start giving every Tom Dick and Dan a voice nothing gets built.
Posted by: David at February 26, 2007 9:06 PM
Or maybe, sadly, the vast majority of Brooklynites are just too stupid to understand what developing responsibly entails and think that this is the only plan that could work.
Posted by: lifer at February 26, 2007 9:34 PM
hey anon 9:08 PM, you tell em chief, pass the cheese fries! maybe they should put the stadium in bensonhurst?
or maybe there's a reason that you don't live anywhere near a sports stadium, i.e. msg, yankee or shea stadium?
Posted by: no sleep till at February 26, 2007 10:03 PM
The "majority of Brooklynites" line is a total BS. The AY supporters on here are the unreasonable ones and cannot deal with the realities of the project, they just say the same things over and over and rip on the opposition. Criticise DDDB all you want, that doesn't make what Ratner and Frank Ghery are doing to downtown brooklyn right. The tactics are dirty and the product will be complete crap. You had better be ready to censor more and more art shows as this million dollar rip-off reveals itself.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 12:19 AM
lifer = born, raised and living in Brooklyn my whole life (sans Birkenstocks etc)
Stupid = Hmmm
Posted by: lifer at February 27, 2007 7:24 AM
I would have no problem with this if it wasn't subsidized by my tax money and the controversial emminent domain use (and yes, snatching private land for another private user is still controversial - see reactions to Kelo v. City of New London).
In other words, it's the fact that they're spending my money and liberties that piss me off
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 7:33 AM
Anon 6:56 dire prediction about falling property values is a typical example of the dramatic approach used by AY opponents. They are always trying to instill fear in people. Of course, it hasn't worked, but that doesn't seem to stop them from continuing to use it.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 8:21 AM
As an AY opponent I agree that the falling property values is false. Falling property values as far as I know as never been part of the arguments against this deal. Quite the contrary, rapid gentrification with rapid rising prices is likely to be the result of the AY project - which pretty much sucks for everyone living or running a small business within a mile of the project. Not a small matter.
But I would like to get onto the really amusing hyperbole:
"AY presents a unique opportunity to do something truly special and creative downtown"
Do you actually talk like this all day about other subjects too?
PS - its not downtown Bklyn, I know you hate that reality, but it's not. Note, the city put in a massive program for building in downtown Bklyn but its been a complete failure - have you questioned your local politicians about that?
Posted by: onNYTurf at February 27, 2007 8:37 AM
I'm not sure why people get so up in arms about the Prospect Heights vs. Downtown Brooklyn thing. Pick any neighborhood in NYC and you'll find people who disagree on where its borders are. Again, this is an example of how AY opponents continue to fight a losing battle. For several years they've been trying to get the press to consider the site in Prospect Heights and it has, by and large, failed. At this stage, why not drop this campaign and focus on the legal battle?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 8:56 AM
I hate how people disparage the Atlantic Center... the fact is the community HAS spoken: do you see how packed that place is? Maybe all the black faces scare some of you, but the fact is, that complex is hugely successful and many in the surrounding communities love it. My girlfriend has dragged me there on three straight weekends...
Posted by: Brooklyn Zoo at February 27, 2007 10:48 AM
Various points:
Mr. Brooklyn, and a lot of others, dismiss the density issue -- "it's not a census tract" "it's not a square mile".
Maybe it would help to look at it this way: Atlantic Yards is slated to have 311 apartments per acre. In constrast, Stuyvesant Town has 140 apartments per acres, Battery Park (when complete) will have 152 apartments per acre, Lefrak City has 125 apartments per acre. Co-op City has 51 apartments per acre, and Starrett City has 38!
Think about it. Atlantic Yards is slated to have more than twice as many apartments per acre as any other large scale residential development in New York City.
It's simply untrue to say that only wealthy newcomers to Brooklyn oppose AY. Ratner successfully mobilized race tensions and class tensions by promising to give certain groups a say in construction hiring, etc. You're really buying into the spin when you say that.
Anon at 9:08, the great Brooklyn booster -- I really wonder why you are such a supporter of this project if you are as concerned about downtown Brooklyn as you claim. Ratner's projects are so ugly and contribute so little to the borough. Yeah, people like to shop at Target, but those malls are so unpleasant to be in. Metrotech -- do you really like that structure? Do you think it enhances downtown Brooklyn? And now Ratner is being given 22 acres to turn into something that will probably look airlifted in from Dallas. And I'm puzzled by your excitement and insistence over having the arena at Atlantic and Flatbush. What's wrong with Coney Island? Coney is an existing entertainment area, already has another sports arena, would draw in fans from Long Island, is accessible from the highway, could accommodate water transport from Manhattan, and so on. I'm really puzzled as to why one would want to put an arena at a traffic chokepoint.
The problem I have with the public subsidies going to this project are that there is a complete lack of transparency as to what we are getting for our money. Yes, of course that is a complaint that could be made about a lot of things in government, but that doesn't make it an illegitimate complaint about this project. What exactly are the subsidies per "affordable" apartment? FCRC and its political supporters won't say -- I wonder why.
Mr. Brooklyn above says: "I'd hope that downtown Brooklyn becomes like downtown Manhattan in that people just know better than to drive into it and I'd also hope that Brooklyn becomes even less of a car culture."
Umm, Mr. Brooklyn, have you ever been to downtown Manhattan? Have you noticed the horrible traffic that people have to live with there? As for Brooklynites giving up their cars, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but public transportation for moving about WITHIN Brooklyn (as opposed to commuting to Manhattan) just isn't that great. Look at a subway map.
Regarding whether property values will rise or fall -- it's sad to me that this is so often the only consideration. It seems entirely likely to me that property values in the vicinity will rise even as quality of life -- in terms of schools, traffic congestion, and pollution -- declines.
Finally, to argue that because FCRC and its political backers won on AY means that they made the better case as to costs and benefits is really pretty silly. As we all know, Bush was put in office twice by about half the population. Would you like to argue that because he won in 2004, Bush is a good president?
Worth a read:
http://brooklynviews.blogspot.com/2006/05/its-scale-stupid.html
Posted by: SPer at February 27, 2007 10:48 AM
Zoo- in my opinion people flock to the Atlantic Center mall because it’s like one huge 99 cent store. It's like a smorgasbord of discounted stores. When I visit Target or Circuit City I buy and leave quick not cause of the black faces but because it’s a disgrace to all malls and the design is terrible. The mall is not a hit.
If it was up to me Id tear down the mall and build the stadium there and build an outdoor park over the entire rail yard.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:32 AM
11:32. packed mall=a hit. you shop there and so do the "black faces" as you so tastefully called them. the mall is crowded because people want to shop at those stores whether they are discount stores or not. maybe you buy quickly and then leave because you have a hang up about not shopping at whatever you consider to be "cool" retailers. whatever. ..
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 11:41 AM
for the record 11:41 "black faces" was the phrase used by the poster above. look before you leap. I have no problem with my people just sick and tired of Ratner's crumbs.
The mall is shitty.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 12:10 PM
D-O-N-E-D-E-A-L!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 1:22 PM
ANon at 1:05 -- of course there are arguments for putting the arena at Flatbush and Atlantic, although some analyses I have read make a good case for the current site of the Ratner malls as much better vis a vis traffic issues. But there are also arguments for putting it in Coney. Indeed, that was where Ratner originally intended to put it. Wall Streeters manage to get to Yankee Stadium and out to Shea, don't they? I don't see why putting the arena at a traffic choke point is somehow some sort of obvious and good idea, as you seem to think.
You point to bus transfers at Atlantic and Flatbush. These will be pretty much useless if traffic is as bad as predictions have it. As for the subway, of course many lines terminate at Coney.
Even Ratner doesn't think this arena is a money maker. It's a loss leader for a luxury housing development -- a way to claim that he's providing a public good.
But thanks for pointing out that the target audience for this arena is millionaires. I love those in-pocket African-American "leaders" who claimed that bringing the Nets to Brooklyn is some kind of great thing for black people. As if the typical Bed Stuy resident can afford NBA tix. That was one of the most cynical playing of the race card I've ever seen.
As for "embarassingly stupid" -- doesn't that apply to your kind of silly listing of all the streets and highways that people could drive on to get to AY? Yes, you have shown that there are lots of streets that all converge at the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic. Then what? I think you've made the point as eloquently as anybody could that there is going to be horrible traffic congestion radiating out from this arena.
Posted by: SPer at February 27, 2007 2:08 PM
so to you a new stadium = Steak house
what a lard ass.
Posted by: jenny craig at February 27, 2007 2:57 PM
In terms of subway/transit lines - AY is the biggest hub in NYC.
If you are for the enviroment (in general not just your own little corner of it) then you cannot argue against putting high density and mass entertainment/shopping venues anywhere else but at convenient points of convergence for mass transit.
People want it both ways - they want to have lower housing costs but they dont want more housing to be built near them; people want to have a cleaner enviroment but they dont want to be near the density necessary to reduce automobile dependency - BTW we have a term for this type of selfish thinking=NIMBY.
Dont worry, I am well aware of the responses.....the subway is already too crowded it cant hold anymore (not true), we dont mind density but it is "unlivable" desity we oppose (not true) etc, etc...
You have to face facts - it is better enviromentally to build dense over/near mass transit then further away because inevitably more people will take mass transit when it is so convenient (even if it is crowded); and it is better enviromentally to have mass entertainment and shopping venues built over/near mass transit for the same reason.
Posted by: David at February 27, 2007 3:07 PM
***
Mr. Brooklyn, and a lot of others, dismiss the density issue -- "it's not a census tract" "it's not a square mile".
***
Well, I don't mean to dismiss the density issue, I'm just pointing out that comparing the density of a residential development to that of a census track is deceptive. The comparisons to other residential developments is fair but let me ask, does it feel really crowded in and around stuyvesant town? That hasn't been my experience but I haven't spent much time there. If the population is going to grow by hundreds of thousands (with NYC growing by 900,000 over 15 years, I think, by Bloomberg's estimate) those people have to live someone. And yes, that will mean that we need more schools, more fire and police stations etc. Why would we assume that those those places won't be built over the next 15 years as AY builds up? Is there good reason to believe that AY is a bad place for such a massive residential development? I don't think that anti-AY activists have presented any good reasons.
Polution is certainly a concern and the sewer system needs to be fixed so that it doesn't overflow into Gowanus but, the long and short of it is that ceteris parabus, more population density = more polution and the increase population density is coming AY or not. I think we should be finding the best ways to cope with the increased population density instead of fighting against it.
***
Mr. Brooklyn above says: "I'd hope that downtown Brooklyn becomes like downtown Manhattan in that people just know better than to drive into it and I'd also hope that Brooklyn becomes even less of a car culture."
Umm, Mr. Brooklyn, have you ever been to downtown Manhattan? Have you noticed the horrible traffic that people have to live with there? As for Brooklynites giving up their cars, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but public transportation for moving about WITHIN Brooklyn (as opposed to commuting to Manhattan) just isn't that great. Look at a subway map.
***
What I mean is that it takes a fool to try to navigate around downtown Manhattan in a car instead of taking the subway. I'd see the larger downtown Brooklyn (I'm using a wide definition of downtown to basically refer to everything within a 10 minute walk of an A/C/2/3/4/5/F/R train) would be much the same.
I'm not a basketball fan (I'd be thrilled if AY was getting a baseball team) nor am I a fan big skyscrapers. I just happen to think that this project adds much needed housing and helps develop the commercial area that I think Brooklyn needs. I also happen to think that if project was opened up to a number of nimby community groups who could all hold things up and insist and having their special interests met, it would have turned into a big mess.
Posted by: mr brooklyn at February 27, 2007 3:20 PM
I dont agree with the argument - 'we need AY so we can get some good steakhouses in Brooklyn (besides Lugers)' BUT I do agree that there are no good steakhouses in Brooklyn
Ok now back to your regularly scheduled arguments
Posted by: David at February 27, 2007 3:22 PM
Mr. Brooklyn,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
As regards increasing the housing stock, I invite you to visit any number of areas of New York City where there are vacant lots and where the housing that is being built is of very low density -- lower than what existed before those areas got destroyed in the 60s and 70s. How about incentives to create apartment building housing in those areas?
I think we would be much better served in terms of quality of life issues by mid-rise construction on suitable avenues (4th, all the way out to Bay Ridge, Atlantic all the way out to East New York), than by the construction of a new luxury high rise zone. Because the fact is that the reason Ratner wants to build high rises in Prospect Heights is because this area is now extremely desirable and he can charge a premium for living there. That's what makes the claim that the are is "blighted" and therefore can be claimed by the State of NY via eminent domain such a bald-faced lie.
It may be foolish to attempt to drive in Manhattan, but enough people do it anyway to make the traffic very unpleasant for those of us getting around on foot and on bicycle. One of my favorite things to do is to walk on 5th Ave. between 3rd St. and Flatbush. I'm sad that this lovely shopping street is going to be choked with traffic and no longer a pleasant place to stroll.
Brooklyn had an opportunity to do development at Atlantic Yards that would be pedestrian and bicycle friendly, that would tie together Fort Greene and Prospect Heights, that would encourage walking from one neighborhood to another. But that's not what we're going to get.
As for density -- you're right, Stuy Town is great, and a great example of how to privatize open space by the way, just like AY will. Now ask yourself if it would be a nice place with more than twice as many people living in the same space.
Finally, even if you think a 40 story building at the corner of Carlton and Dean is a good idea, I would still question the decision to turn over valuable real estate and to demap streets all for a single developer. If what we want is 40 story buildings in Prospect Heights, then let's rezone the area and see what happens. If we want 40 story buildings along Atlantic Avenue, then let the City put in a platform and invite competitive bidding. That's the way it's going to go with the West Side Rail Yards.
To me, the worst things about this project is not necessarily the extreme density and concommitant reduction in net open space per area resident, nor is it the horrendous congestion that will come with the arena. It's the corruption of a deal made between Ratner, Bloomberg, and Pataki, and the lack of input afforded the community as to what happens to public land. Yes, the community has had the chance to speak, but nobody is listening and there have been no concessions. That's because I don't see anybody with real power looking out for the public interest in all this.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 3:45 PM
Post at 3:45 is mine.
Posted by: SP'er at February 27, 2007 3:46 PM
Sp'er - brillant development plan - rather then building where people prefer to live and near where they work (Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn) - spread them out over miles all the way out to East New York and down to Bay Ridge. Absolutely brilliant!!!!
So rather then offering these residents the plethora of mass transit options and a short ride into Manhattan (AY), you offer them few choices (causing significantly more car use) and longer trips. Did you ever hear of sprawl? Just b/c you arent building suburban subdivisions doesnt meant you cant have sprawl.
Here is an inconvenient truth - Density is the best way to lower automobile dependency, reduce emissions and protect the enviroment. Put that in your Birkenstocks
Posted by: David at February 27, 2007 4:16 PM
I love how 4:49 AM on the one side spews hatred of all of yuppidom, yet longs for a Gehry building. It shows some of the contradictions in the pro-Ratner crowd. They hate the "newcomers" who oppose the Ratner proposal, yet they don't realize that once built, it will house 15,000+ newer newcomers. Who do they think will live in these luxury apartments with no open windows?
Some could debate whether the project will be the densest residential development on the planet, but there's no doubt that it will have the highest "Bugaboo pushing, flat and narrow corny Bikram yoga ass" density by far. (quoting 4:49 AM)
Posted by: iguana at February 27, 2007 4:29 PM
David -- your definition of "sprawl" is mid-rise construction on top of a subway line? That's truly weird! That, plus your obsession with Birkenstocks, which seem to come up a lot for you. Some kind of traumatic incident perhaps?
I think that what makes Brooklyn a unique and desirable place to live is its neighborhoods. In my view, plunking a cluster of 16 high rises in the midst of low rise neighborhoods is damaging to what makes Brooklyn a great place to live. That's why I think we would be better served by mid-rises along the broadest streets and avenues of the borough.
I suppose lots of people would prefer to live and work right in Manhattan. Does that mean we should have a 40 story apartment tower on the corner of 6th Ave and West 3rd?
Posted by: SPer at February 27, 2007 4:53 PM
No sprawl is putting mid-rise construction all the way out to Bay Ridge and East New York while forcing the same density or even empty lots over the largest transportation hub in NYC (and probably the country) which is literally 1 stop into the center of America's largest city.
And yes if West 3rd and its vicinity was an empty railyard, empty lots, and underutilized and outmoded buildings then yes a 40+story building would definetly be appropriate.
Posted by: David at February 27, 2007 5:39 PM
David,
You keep making strawman arguments. Who ever said that there should be empty lots in the AY footprint? And the last I noticed, there was no empty lot at the corner of Dean and Carlton. Are you going to claim that those buildings are "outmoded"? "Under-utilized"? That's a way to justify tearing down anything and everything. Apparently in your conception of urban planning, high rises are the way to go everywhere. Thanks but no thanks. I prefer my cities to be pleasant places to live.
Anon at 2?56 writes:
"Give us the break down of all the public transportation options to CI from Staten Island, Long Island, Queens and Manhattan. Please include time of commute too."
You know, I'm not even strongly anti-arena at AY. I would be for it if it were accompanied by a reasonable transit plan. Yes, there's a lot of public transportation options to AY. So why is there going to be a 1000 car open air parking lot? Why are there going to be thousands of additional underground parking spots created. Come one, get real. People are going to drive to AY unless they know in advance that there is absolutely nowhere to put their car. If the arena were being proposed WITHOUT any on-site parking, I'd be for it. But that's not the plan. Just one more example of FCRC doing whatever the f*ck it pleases and disregarding those of us who are going to have to live with the consequences.
Since people ARE going to drive, let's put the arena in a place where there is room for all those cars. Or, if you're really serious about a "transit-oriented" project, show me how you're going to prevent severe congestion.
Posted by: SPer at February 27, 2007 6:01 PM
you people really dont know prospect heights. The neighborhood is already booming with or with out Ratner. You people should leave whatever outskirts yall from and visit our LOCAL community it's really not "underutilized" or "outmoded".
Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 6:02 PM
To the lard ass at 2:34pm who's excited about steak houses coming to Brooklyn -- will you be taking the subway with your clients to those fancy restaurants, or will you be driving???
Posted by: SPer at February 27, 2007 6:06 PM
SP'er the only strawman is you.... You advocated Midrise housing at AY and Mid rise housing down Atlantic and 4th Ave and I responded that it is sprawl to have the same density miles away from the city center as you have 1 subway stop from city center. But it is a nice distraction technique to claim that I said you were advocating empty lots at AY.
BTW - let me add that Midrise Development is totally out of the question for the railyard site b/c the cost of building a deck makes anything but high density uneconomical.
Finally your suggestion for midrise construction down 4th Ave is already late - since most of 4th Ave has been re-zoned for such construction (of which I am in favor) but I must point out that many of the same people oppossing AY are now complaining about the construction on 4th Ave for the very same reasons.
Posted by: David at February 27, 2007 6:37 PM
Duh...if the arena was at Coney, the city would make way more money. The masses would be able to watch a basketball game, cross the street and take a spin on the Ferris Wheel, then a nice stroll to the Aquarium to catch the sea lion show.
Win win situation. And yes all this by not stealing people’s homes.
Note: To the folks concerned about transportation. A wise man once told me "if you build it they will come".
p.s. don’t call me nimby if you're not from Coney Island
Posted by: Gobner Pacrappy at February 27, 2007 10:25 PM
CIR?? I didn’t even mention color or poor neighborhoods. I mentioned fun filled recreational activities all in one radius. East NY and Brownsville are stupid suggestions save your belly aching.
I'm curious how'd you come to that conclusion that I was white? Because guess what I’m black like you.
Did you really think all opponents are white and the black home owners in the foot print of this stadium are supporters? Please don’t believe Ratner and his propaganda machine and don’t follow his puppets.
Only a few can see the developer’s true intentions of using the stadium like one carrot in front of a bunch of mules. "bring a team to Brooklyn! Yeah Ra Ra Ra" His real focuses are the skyscrapers and the money he will pocket. Even the whole "Nimby" phrase is a trick to cover the truth and every one is running around "nimby" this "nimby" that taking attention away from the victims of this project.
Yes this is America so let him build his junk towers one by one in Prospect Heights and Clinton Hill in lots that belong to him and put the stadium in an area that's packed with similar activities. All with his money not mine I didn’t budget for that. I won’t hate but at least people can keep their homes.
Imagine you receive a letter in 2007 that your home was just jacked by a tycoon and the powers that be in government don’t care and cant pick up the phone to answer questions because their palms are to greasy. All they do is remind you that NY was built this way on Eminent Domain. Yes it was but they all fail to mention that NY was also snatched up from the locals who didn’t really understand the value of a dollar and shiny trinkets.
The past is the past why do we need to repeat it and for the life of me I can’t understand why this is happening to innocent people and folks are ok with it.
If you really live in CI and you're not one of his employees can you explain why the stadium is so bad for Coney without pulling out the emergency race card?
Posted by: Gobner Pacrappy at February 28, 2007 11:05 AM
In all honesty, Coney Island is so far away that it actually encourages people with cars to drive.
Posted by: doh at March 1, 2007 2:46 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.