Gehry Says He Thinks Yards Won't Get Built, Then Hedges
In an interview with the Architect’s Newspaper on Tuesday, starchitect Frank Gehry let this line slip about the Atlantic Yards project that he is the lead designer for: “I don’t think it’s going to happen.” In a press release, Bruce Ratner called Gehry a “great friend” and said it was understandable that he (and others)…
In an interview with the Architect’s Newspaper on Tuesday, starchitect Frank Gehry let this line slip about the Atlantic Yards project that he is the lead designer for: “I don’t think it’s going to happen.” In a press release, Bruce Ratner called Gehry a “great friend” and said it was understandable that he (and others) “have concerns about this project happening in the worst economic environment since the Great Depression.” Never fear, though, he said. It will get built. Gehry then responded through his publicist, saying that his original statement was “misconstrued as a prediction” about the project and that he remains “hopeful it will come to fruition.” Time will tell.
Q&A: Gehry at 80 [Architect’s Newspaper]
Gehry: Game Over for Nets’ Atlantic Yards NY Post
Atlantic Yards Project Is Dead, Says Gehry [NY Daily News]
Atlantic Yards Project Still a ‘Go’ [Star Ledger]
Gehry Backs Off Comment [AY Report]
better yet, see http://www.unityplan.org
The Unity Plan. See http://dddb.net/php/community/unity.php
One thing, bkre, is that rent stabilized tenants cannot be kicked out — one of the protections of rent stabilization is that your landlord is obligated to offer you a renewal lease unless you are in defualt of your lease. Of course eminent domain trumps tenants’ (and owners’) rights.
One of Ratner’s main goals in getting the use of eminent domain approved is to use it against property he owns in order to force out the rent stabilized tenants.
Really truly sick.
Not for nothing, but there is a plan for that site – and a very nice one at that, developed in collaboration with community residents and folks from Pratt. I don’t know where the mock up and drawings are now, but they were in a storefront close to the site.
BrooklynIsHome – I agree with your first three points. And your fourth point, while true, is irrelevent. Renters can always be kicked out of their homes by their landlords if the landlords decide not to renew their leases. That’s is one of the advantages of homeownership. I’m sick and tired of people having this outsized sense of entitelment as renters. I rented for a long time and I knew that at any time my lease could not be renewed and I would get kicked out. That’s like paying for a slice of pizza and demanding rights to the whole pie. If you want to be sure that you can’t be kicked out easily, buy a home. If you don’t, or can’t afford it, then you run the risk. That is the very defintiion of the difference between owning and renting. Someone needs to give the people of Brooklyn a crash course on the ins and outs of property rights.
Here’s the thing. The brouhaha (sp?) surrounding Atlantic Yards centered around four things. 1) The designation of the site and surrounding area as BLIGHTED was completely bogus. Would anyone spend $500,000 or more for an apartment immediately adjacent to th footpring to move into a blighted area? 2) Ratner gamed us and the MTA for the site. If the MTA is really that hard up for cash, why did the accept Ratner’s lower bid? Why did Ratner try to get more money from the MTA to complete the railyard rehabilitation as agreed to? Work to date is not up to the agreement. 3) Ratner ultimately used taxpayer’s money to buy the property. To hedge is bet against using eminient domain, FCR acquired the properties for friendly condemnation. 4) Those who had a choice as to whether they would stay or go owned their properties. Renters got little or nothing.
Last, the community had to be very careful. Now that this thing may not get built, we cannot let Ratner have site control over this hole for the next twenty or thirty years. That’s exactly how he built those two lovely malls. I would hate to think FCR could leverage the FAR on the combined lots.
I’m not arguing the “coolness” factor. I think what happened was wrong and despicable. I just think it’s a distortion of facts to claim that these poor people who accepted inflated buyouts for their apartments have no recourse. They got paid more than their apt was worth. They’re doing better than most homeowners in the country right now. I’m all for giving sympathy when someone gets taken advantage of, but I think you gotta be carefull not to lump people into that category who clearly don’t belong there.
to recap the appellate hearings…
the anti ratner folks pointed out that state $$ could not be used to clear slums unless ALL housing was subsidized.
the state, it appears, did an end run…
they gave $$ to ratner. ratner buys people out. ratner emptys and destroys buildings.
voila slum clearance with veiled state $$ and a not so veiled threat of eminint domain. not cool in any book. fraud in some books.
let the project die. get enough bidders for portions of the ralyard to get platform built. build quasi-organically. make everyone happy but forest city ratner.. where are they trading at today?
No. THey could have said no and held out. Like D GOldstein did. They chose to accept the money and not wait to see what happened. And yes, if you offered me way too much money for my “beloved” home of many years, I would take it and use it to buy a much nicer home that would also soon beomce just as beloved.
I don’t think you people understand the meaning of the word “forced”.