« Streetscapes: Henderson Place on the UES Even A-listers Have Brownstone Troubles »

July 5, 2005

Gehry & Ratner Show Their Cards

skyline
July 5, 2005, NY Times -- The massive building plan surrounding a new Nets arena east of Downtown Brooklyn will include a ridge of a half-dozen skyscrapers as high as 60 stories sweeping down Atlantic Avenue, along with four towers circling the basketball arena, according to new designs completed by the developer Bruce C. Ratner and the architect Frank Gehry. The project, the largest proposed outside Manhattan in decades, would include much more housing than originally announced in 2003, growing to about 6,000 units from 4,500, according to a plan made available to The New York Times. But the real impact would be in the size and density of the buildings, which are taller and bulkier than once envisioned. With 17 buildings, many of them soaring 40 to 50 stories, the project would forever transform the borough and its often-intimate landscape, creating a dense urban skyline reminiscent of Houston or Dallas. The project would be built in phases, starting with the blocks around the arena, then the apartment complexes along Dean Street at the Vanderbilt Avenue end, and finally the northern stretch of housing along Atlantic Avenue. The arena is planned to open for the 2008-9 basketball season, said James P. Stuckey, an executive vice president at Forest City Ratner Companies, with the entire project completed as soon as 2011. The project will come before the Metropolitan Transportation Authority tomorrow as Mr. Ratner makes a formal proposal to buy and develop the Atlantic Avenue railyards.

Comment: We have to admit that these renderings are pretty exciting. Over the past several months, as the debate over the project has intensified, we found our sympathies leaning towards the anti-Ratner camp. We're extremely uncomfortable with the concept of eminent domain and if our brownstone happened to be directly affected by the plan we're sure we wouldn't be pleased. But it's hard to look at Gehry's renderings and not get swept up. We couldn't give a rat's ass about having a local basketball team, but being at the center of arguably the most significant urban development effort in a generation (or more) is starting to outweigh our earlier reservations. Let's hope that it's more than a giant P.R. stunt to close the deal. Enough people's lives are being uprooted that this better end up being something special. From the looks of it, it just may be.

Instant Skyline Added to Brooklyn Arena Plan [NY Times]
An Appraisal [NY Times]

Comments

I don't know, Brownstoner. The comment about it looking like Houston or Dallas is a little scary, dont ya think?

Posted by: VJ at July 5, 2005 9:36 AM

I had a very different feeling when seeing those renderings in the NYT this morning. They look hideous.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 9:39 AM

I'm with the Stoner on this one. I think these designs are a heck of a lot better than having Scarano et al. gradually fill in Atlantic Avenue with el cheapo junk over the next decade.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 9:43 AM

i'm excited about the developement of downtown Brooklyn... but I can't help being pesimistic about the outcome of this project. New development makes me so sad... These plans don't look like an exciting skyline to me, they look like a bunch of boxes (I especially dislike the skewed boxes). The Manhattan skyline is so beautiful, I love the grand old buildings with all their detail. I'm definitely not anti all new architecture, so I'm still cautously hopefull about this...

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 9:45 AM

Oh, believe us, our optimism is EXTREMELY cautious at this point. But other than the State Street townhouses, we can't think of a single new building in Brooklyn that's even moderately attractive. Gehry's not our favorite, but we'd prefer his stuff, as the previous poster points out, over the crap that is otherwise getting constructed in the borough right now.

Posted by: Brownstoner at July 5, 2005 9:56 AM

I just wonder if anyone singing the praises of this project has ever been to the Atlantic Center or the new Target mall.... Um, yay, go Ratner.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 10:04 AM

Metrotech, as one critic put it, was built with its back turned on the neighborhood. It is unfriendly and its public spaces are well guarded but underused. This new project seems to be heading in the same direction. It would be nice if the new development were integrated into the surrounding areas and the public spaces were not just open, but inviting by design. Metrotech and Atlantic Center (before the facelift) seemed to be about security and considering the surrounding neighbors as threats - the invitation was to stay out, not to come in. I hope the design of this project is more neighborly.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 10:04 AM

Glad I'm far enough away to avoid living in the shadows of Ratnerville. Do you think permanent darkness will affect propety values in FG or PH?

After watching the fireworks from a 6th floor roof last night, I gained an even deeper appreciation for low-rise development in the cozy confines of Brooklyn.

That rendering is some ugly sh*t. I've seen Bilbao and Bard, but I would hate to have a Ghery in my backyard...

Posted by: clintonhilbilly at July 5, 2005 10:07 AM

"living in the shadows" doesn't seem to have affected the price of brownstones off of Central Park West.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 10:10 AM

This Gehry "designed" project, if built, will be a scar on Brooklyn. What a pathetic project! In the article, Gehry says that he wanted the project to look like it wasn't all built at the same time -- to look like it grew "organically." Give me a break! This looks like a massive and destructive project that Robert Moses himself may have come up with if he were alive today.

B'stoner, you disappoint me. You're getting all caught up in the marketing of project that is basically a land grab by a politically connected developer. How about all those people who do not want to sell, but will be forced to do so? And for what? For a development that looks like some bad sci-fi vision of the future when the barbarians have taken over and can't even manage to build a building that doesn't sag?? Pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 10:33 AM

his whole think is just a publicity stunt to overcome local opposition.
Ratner uses F Geary, Nets, Minorities etc. to build outrageous, giant Atlantic Mall/ time square in the middle of Brooklyn
It will change Brooklyn as we know for ever.

F Gehry architecture is quite bad right now, and it will only get only worst. (Bigger duller and boxier)
Just look what happened to WTC master plan by Libeskind.

I am surprise that Brownstoner is falling for this.

F Gehry said:

"It's big and so we're trying to design it as a good neighbor, which is hard to do when the buildings you're building are bigger than the ones around you," he said. "No one's had an opportunity in a long while to build a new urban complex of this density in the city," he added. "By breaking it down and making it look like a city it has a sense of belonging and a sense of choice. You're not saying everybody's got to live in the same thing. And that's something that's quite Brooklyn."

I totally can see Bruce coming to Frank saying:
“Hi Frank can we do something to make it fit better; I know it is so big but can we make people to believe it will fit?
You could do your crazy shit it will sell nicely on TV, later we will have time to fix it ”

So here we have new version of the plan, more twisted with some soft fabrics on the model just to make people to believe it is ok.
SIZE IS A REAL ISSUE AND IT DID NOT CHANGE.

Posted by: malymis at July 5, 2005 10:40 AM

This seems to me to be in complete conflict with your response to the ratner project:

An unhealthy obsession with historic Brooklyn brownstones and the neighborhoods and lifestyles they define.

Posted by: anonymous at July 5, 2005 10:40 AM

TO ANONYMOUS WHO STATED -- "New development makes me so sad... These plans don't look like an exciting skyline to me, they look like a bunch of boxes (I especially dislike the skewed boxes). The Manhattan skyline is so beautiful, I love the grand old buildings with all their detail." ... Just curious, how do you think the NY skyline got that way? I wonder if anything preceded the Chrysler Building? You know, I'm sure some lovely small structures were torn down to make way for these present awesome views. My optimism is cautious as well but this plan is well worth a shot. And in terms of a basketball team, well, Brooklyn is a first-rate city and deserves a professional team. No disrespect to the Cyclones but we deserve more.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 10:41 AM

Like Brownstoner, I have mixed and conflicting feelings about this plan. I think the Nets coming to Brooklyn is a great thing for the borough, but I am worried about the use of eminent domain for private development. Objectively, I like Frank Gehry's work, but his buildings look best when viewed alone, free of the confines of neighborhood context and scale. So what to make of this latest plan? Experience tells us that grand plans get whittled away by the process, especially when the prime driver for Ratner is economic rather than architectural. I'm afraid that by the time all is said and done we will have hulking towers without the artistic flair that Gehry envisions now.

So I say build the arena and build it boldly, but perhaps leave it at that. If I want big bland 60 story towers I'll move to Manhattan (or Houston or Dallas...shudder).

Posted by: Whitbo at July 5, 2005 10:41 AM

We have a big problem with forcing people to sell as we said up front. Architecturally, however, we have lost all faith in the current day developers to do anything right in Brooklyn. Show us one compelling apartment building that's gone up in Brooklyn in the last generation! Organic development of the area over the next decade would surely end up with an uglier result than this.h Unfortunately, most of the people who own the developable plots of land couldn't give a damn about aesthetics. This may ned up looking a little Disney-World-Meets-Dallas, but it will sure beat what Bedford Avenue and Fulton will look like when the Scaranos and Developers Groups are finished!

Posted by: Brownstoner at July 5, 2005 10:43 AM

I agree that this design seems pretty ugly and garish, but I also don't think you can judge by a few sketches. Also, the opposition seems to be forgetting what's there right now--namely abandoned warehouses and a railyard!! Hardly worth saving. (Yes, I know, poor Dan Goldstein and a few other holdouts are a shining example of the vitality of the neighborhood, etc....)

If anyone out there (UNITY or otherwise) has any better ideas, they should come forward by tomorrow and bid for the land. Otherwise, opposition to the plan is nothing more than obstructionism. In the name of holding out for the perfect development plan, the dddb crowd will just give us 30 more years of blighted wasteland.

Posted by: anonymous at July 5, 2005 10:43 AM

I'm very optimistic. The southside of Atlantic Avenue going east from Flatbush looks like urban wasteland. As does Flatbush Avenue south of Atlantic.
Opportunity for filling in this area with commercial and residential will be great for area and city.
New York didn't become world-class city by thinking small. For the size/number of new housing units that will be built amount of displacement is small. Even ACORN is going along with it.
How rediculous calling a scar in Brooklyn or comparing to Robert Moses projects - they are not ripping down blocks of brownstones or going through heart of some neighborhood for a highway - they are building a new community where
little exists. How many people think its a pleasant walk from Prospect Hts to Ft Greene now at 11Pm at night.
And before the Atlantic Center was built - do you remember what area looked like? I think memories are pretty short or haven't been in area very long.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 10:50 AM

test

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 10:55 AM

I cant tell anything from these sketches and I too am generally disappointed by most modern building design but what do people expect - no one is going to be building another Chrysler or Woolworth Building again. So if Ratner maintains the street wall (i.e. no big plazas circa '85) and puts in good retail - so as to keep place vibrant (unlike Batter Park City) - there is no reason that this development wont be a successful addition to the community. As for attractive new construction I happen to think that Warren Street Condos (at Smith), Park Slope Estates I(2nd btween 4th and 5th) and One Pierepont Plaza (office bldg on Cadman Plaza West) are all examples of attractive new (or semi-new construction), and at the risk of being pummelled I happen to think that the Atlantic Terminal (not the old one) Mall is also reasonably well done and the adjoing tower is very tastefull.

Posted by: David at July 5, 2005 10:57 AM

ok...so let me get this straight...

this is a crappy design and ratner has strong-armed most owners with the threat of eminent domain...

but its OK because building a stadium is better than nothing. oh, and the area will become "safer".

what about building in context? what about "brownstone brooklyn". am i the only one who sees 50 story skycrapers in ft greene and goes "what the f--k!?!?!"

Posted by: pksloperenter at July 5, 2005 11:03 AM

Except PSrenter - it isnt IN Ft Greene or Brownstone Brooklyn - it is being build along ATLANTIC AVENUE - across from a 30+ story building - next to a huge transit hub and over rail yards! There is no "context" to deal with. It is such a ridiculous argument that this area is not "appropriate" for large scale development - if not here then where on earth is it appropriate???

Posted by: David at July 5, 2005 11:09 AM

define "in context." oh sure, let's just rebuild all of brooklyn with brownstones. that's a brilliant idea. you know, just because nothing remotely interesting has been built in bklyn in years doesn't mean architecture is lacking in creativity. and now here we have a chance for it to come to bklyn and all you want is an 1880's bwnstone. i love historic bklyn too -- but you know what? i love it because it is historic and unique. i don't want it all over again 125 years later.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 11:13 AM

Lets make it straight; most of the people who oppose Ratner.
Do not oppose development. They do oppose unbalance oversize development without community input.
They oppose ignorance; they oppose community voice being destroyed by big money developers and politician. (Deal behind the close door is very robert moses like)

http://www.developdontdestroy.org/

Posted by: malymis at July 5, 2005 11:17 AM

WTF, my sentiments exactly!

Has anyone seen the Ratner buildings in Times Square, the Atlantic Center or the Target Mall - crass, fugly, garish, no respect for history, architecture or community.

Don't be suckered by Ghery "branding," The stadium is but a very small piece of the pie. Ratnerville will be hideous––and we'll be the ones paying for it, thanks to city tax rebates.

I definitely prefer barren railyards, piecemeal development, anything...to this monstrosity.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at July 5, 2005 11:18 AM

David
Manhattan is more appropriate.

Posted by: malymis at July 5, 2005 11:20 AM

"if not here then where on earth is it appropriate???"

uh...nowhere.

Posted by: anonymous at July 5, 2005 11:23 AM

Just curious, why do you feel you should have a voice in what's built there? Is it your property? Can you (and this "community") put your funds together, purchase the land and do something better with it? All I see when I go home from work in FG/CH are anti-Ratner posters and anti-eminent domain posters. I haven't heard one single good idea from any of you people other than don't build it. We're all listening and waiting but there's nothing. Not good enough...

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 11:28 AM

I agree with the previous poster. As a resident of Clinton Hill (used to live in Ft. Greene), I have not seen a viable alternative proposal. I am however, concerned about traffic and subway conjestion, and don't like the fact that eminent domain is being used (or abused). At the same time, the railyards are a real wasteland between several neighborhoods, and that if developed over time would end up looking extremely unattractive (moreso than the proposed Ratner project anyway), if it were developed at all, which is questionable.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 11:34 AM

Plase here you are very resonable altrnative master palan.

http://www.developdontdestroy.org/public/AYDWS.pdf

Posted by: malymis at July 5, 2005 11:42 AM

I think part of the reason a lot of Brooklynites live here is because much as we love new york city, we find brooklyn's smaller scale to be much more livable than the density, congestion and shadowed streets of manhattan. Development is inevitable, but how many of us want what looks like a big chunk of rockefeller center plunked down right next to us?
And don't forget that the stretch of Fourth Ave. leading away from the Ratner site has also been "upzoned" for major residential development, putting further strain on schools, traffic, etc.
In dallas, atlanta and houston, most of the housing is miles away in the suburbs. I'm not an urban planner, but surely there must be some middle ground? Just because I don't have the answer doesn't mean it's not a fair question.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 11:50 AM

Hey, look, no one said it isn't a fair question. But asking the question isn't enough to halt the project. You can ask away for the rest of your life but that then prevents Bklyn from growing period. What would you prefer to have happen here, if anything? And if nothing, why? Sure, let's weigh in for the fun of it but it's not your Bklyn and it's not my Bklyn. Cities develop for better or worse. The thing is you're speaking for yourself when you talk about shadowed streets of Manhattan, density and congestion. And it's fine, you should speak for yourself. But no offense, our individual piddly little reasons not to build this aren't quite enough. Bklyn is a city, a pretty large one at that, so you must've seen it coming. I mean, right? And in terms of look, it's such a personal thing. You think it's a big chunk of Rockefeller Center and I love it. Comes down to: you say potato and I see pototto. Hey, may the best plan win (it's just that this is the best, if not only, I've seen yet).

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 12:00 PM

malymis - But who would fund etc. the DDDB plan. Is it organized at all from a project planning/funding perspective? Kind of on the back foot if there is no real backing from a practical standpoint - no architects, no funding etc.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 12:01 PM

at 11:28am, this poster writes:

"Just curious, why do you feel you should have a voice in what's built there? Is it your property?"

We can ask the same thing of Ratner who is trying to use eminent domain to take the property of people who choose not to sell. It is their property. Who are you to say that it should be stolen in order to build a stadium and a bunch of Gehry buildings? By what right do you claim that Ratner should have the power to take someone else's property?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 12:03 PM

"malymis - But who would fund etc. the DDDB plan. Is it organized at all from a project planning/funding perspective? Kind of on the back foot if there is no real backing from a practical standpoint - no architects, no funding etc."

Idea is that Atlantic yard is devided and sold on free market to many samall local developers.
And they would have to build acording to the master plan.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 12:13 PM

Obviously, development is not an inherently bad thing, especially when it's an abandoned railyard we're talking about. But weighing the impact of such a large-scale development on the lives of the thousands of people who live nearby, many of whom either have spent their lives here or plan to spend the rest of their lives here, is not an individual, piddly concern. Ratner is getting help from our city gov't to push this through, so I don't understand why we the taxpayers should be quiet little mice about this.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 12:23 PM

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I'm not saying that the area should be 100% brownstones or remain undeveloped.

However, I look at Metrotech & Atlantic Center Mall and I get a little uneasy thinking about 40 to 50 more stories of Ratner-land.

Is it too much to ask that Ratner (or whomever) have an honest discussion with a MAJORITY of the community that will be affected in order to reach a fair middle ground on development? Maybe in 7 years I'll be eating my words but the way in which Ratner has approached this project doesn't fill me with confidence.

Can't say that I know all the details but when I read articles like this, I can't help but think something is wrong here.

http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_27/28_27nets1.html

Posted by: PkSlopeRenter at July 5, 2005 12:53 PM

"Idea is that Atlantic yard is devided and sold on free market to many small local developers.
And they would have to build acording to the master plan."

Retailers do not build property, they buy or rent property and conduct business out of it. A disorganized, piecemeal sale to dozens of different developers with disparate and competing agendas would result in complete chaos and would never be entertained by the MTA. Furthermore, if an organized coalition exists that is willing to bid in concert for the land, why don't they come out and bid already? Obviously, there is no such coalition. If the UNITY plan is feasible, it should have been implemented years, if not decades, ago. Anyone who has been in the neighborhood for the thirty years that I have surely knows that the alternative to Ratner's plan is thirty more years of desolation. We should welcome a developer who actually looks to Brooklyn as a worthy investment rather than a blighted afterthought next to Manhattan.

Posted by: anon at July 5, 2005 1:05 PM

Whether this makes you feel better or worse, but you can bet that there will not be any "tilted" buildings was this gets budgetted. Too expensive by far and they will become straight up and down buildings.

Posted by: Max at July 5, 2005 1:06 PM

To PkSlopeRenter - I get more uneasy thinking about what Metrotech and Atlantic Center looked like before Ratner.
Or what blocks of parking lots on Schermerhorn, Livingston and State have looked like for last 30 or so years or what Atlantic Ave looks like right now in area of proposed development.
Its not all about the community affected - its 1st and foremost about NYC in general. About 4-6000 new housing units and the people that will live in them. And about 1/2 of them have very few
options right now about finding decent affordable housing. Its about Class A office space that will mean jobs for NYers - in competition to financial services jobs moving to JerseyCity.
The area is well served but public transportation infrastructure and needs to be fully utilized-meaning large scale- if NYC is to remain healthy economically.
Of course there will be an affect on areas nearby, some negative but people are overstating the negatives and sounding quite provincial.

Posted by: pete at July 5, 2005 1:09 PM

Please don't let that hack Gehry build in Brooklyn. He is a cartoonist, not an architect. The man cares nothing for architectural context or history and his whatever-is-swept-up-in-the-woodshop buildings show little concern for public space and the environment in which they are built. His work is egotistical and self-centered more than anything else. As somebody said above, Gehry may want the finished project to look "organic" but it will in the end look more like a malignant tumor than a work of architectual beauty. This will be a blight on Brooklyn and, if it must be built, I would call for somebody more respectful and humane than Gehry to design it.

Posted by: Quinn Skylark at July 5, 2005 1:16 PM

"Furthermore, if an organized coalition exists that is willing to bid in concert for the land, why don't they come out and bid already? Obviously, there is no such coalition. If the UNITY plan is feasible, it should have been implemented years, if not decades, ago. Anyone who has been in the neighborhood for the thirty years that I have surely knows that the alternative to Ratner's plan is thirty more years of desolation."

I totally agree. While I have misgivings about the project, the opposition does not have a viable alternative and no one from UNITY or DDDB has anyone bidding for the rail yards. The result would be decades more of no development. Covering the yards is a monumental task that cannot be done in a hodge-podge patchwork. This development, while not my ideal, will help solidify the already gentrified, or gentrifying, adjacent neighborhoods.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 1:34 PM

This is bullshit.
Cities have grown for ages without mega developments.
This land has not been developed before because it belongs to MTA.
City must divided it to small lots create appropriate zoning/ master plan and start selling them.
Sooner then you think we would have nice natural grown city.
As I understand UNITY plan is going this direction.

Ratner plan will give us results like Rockefeller center/ battery park city/ trump ghetto.
Whole idea of building mega project by city or one developer does not work.
Please show me one successful example.

Posted by: malymis at July 5, 2005 2:30 PM

The proposed "affordable housing" is in the form of below-market rents for a limited period of time. As the buildings go condo, this "affordable housing' will disappear. Poof! Just another example of "Ratner Magic."

Don't be fooled - this project is not about sports, or a stadium, or dubious Ghery architecture or, least of all, affordable housing. It's a land grab by a wealthy and powerful developer paid for by taxpayer money.

It's a huge F*ck You to all of us - and it is an awful shame that anyone would suggest that we should take it lying down. There are other options, but the people suggesting them don't have the political clout or marketing muscle of an oligarch like Bruce Ratner.

Posted by: clintonhillbilly at July 5, 2005 3:02 PM

Malymis -- one successful example (among many) is the one you yourself pointed against: Battery Park City. Not sure how you couldn't count this as successful. I mean, come on.

Also, just so I understand -- what exactly is a "nice natural grown city?" What are examples of such cities? Actually, just give one example.

Posted by: archer at July 5, 2005 3:03 PM

Rockefeller Center is bad development? Battery Pk City? C'mon folks - I'm beginning to see your visions as sterile because everything would be same size style and age and the 'quaintness' of your fantasy urban village would be stifling.
A vibrant city can handle a big mix all in proximity.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 3:46 PM

No one said they want a "fantasy urban villiage" or even a neighborhood w/o any new development. Surely there is a middle ground between the technicolor nightmare vision of Ratner and the current barren wasteland of the Atlantic Yards.

Posted by: anonymous at July 5, 2005 4:02 PM

Malymis -- one successful example (among many) is the one you yourself pointed against: Battery Park City. Not sure how you couldn't count this as successful. I mean, come on.
Also, just so I understand -- what exactly is a "nice natural grown city?" What are examples of such cities? Actually, just give one example.

nice natural grown city means that there are small lots develop by different developers within zoning restriction.
For example most of the Manhattan will qualify. Think union square vicinity for example – human scale mix of business and apartments.

Battery Park is just too big mega structure of set back towers it does not create neighborhood. (most resident use tribeca for that)

Rocefeler center is just too big of cluster of office space (specially the new part) so dead at night It is close to American downtown syndrome.

In order to do it right following condition should be preserve:

1 plurality of architecture (only can be achieved by multiple developers and small lots) Ratner is single developer of mega structure
2 street preservation (means buildings are facing and interact with a street and there are NOT set back tower I like to call them city killers) Ratner mega structure will swallows pacific street.
3 Preservation of human scale. self explanatory

Posted by: malymis at July 5, 2005 4:18 PM

If so many people are so eager to explore the middle ground, what is the middle ground? where's the alternate plan? what's better about it over ratner's plan? will it prevent people from being displaced and if so what % displacement is the community "comfortable" with? what does it do to affordable housing? what does it bring to the neighborhood? what does it take away? how does an alternate plan affect transportation? let's stop talking in terms like "technicolor nightmare vision" and say something meaningful, something that's beyond simply the personal. otherwise, there's not much to say...

Posted by: archer at July 5, 2005 4:31 PM

What I find humorous is the idea that those who disagree with Ratner's plan are derided for not doing the intellectual heavy lifting of proposing a competitive alternate plan complete with funding, blueprints, etc...yet the apparent supporters of Ratner's plan feel as though they are immune from the same request to prove that the development will not be destructive or bad for the surrounding neighborhoods or Brooklyn itself.

Why should detractors be required to come up with an alternative project, anyway? The idea that a bad development now is better than a good development years (or even a decade or so) from now reflects poor vision. If the idea is to develop something that will last for decades upon decades, it should probably be critiqued on a more sophisticated basis than, "Well, do you have a better idea?"

Posted by: Eric at July 5, 2005 5:04 PM

Much better idea is to do anything that is not a mega structure swallowing clock tower and pacific street.
It is as simple as that.
Lets stop this” do you have better idea””.
It will takes average second year arch. student to come up with better plan.

Posted by: malymis at July 5, 2005 5:26 PM

well, there are detractors in higher places who have a lot to say and little to show. not easy to predict the future but who's to say it's a bad plan? you? and how do you know that in decades to come, having gained hindsight, this won't be one of the greatest achievements ever brought to brooklyn? sure eric, the debate has been going on for a while now but at some point shouldn't the detractors (or at least the "backbone" and figureheads representing the detractors) bring something with a little spine to the table other than their words and fears. shouldn't someone be required to do some (just some) intellectual heavy-lifting if there are so many detractors? if all you're going to do is oppose it, fine, that's your opinion, i respect it. but that's not going to stop the building. having said that, i have my fears about it too but the project signifies progress and growth.

Posted by: archer at July 5, 2005 5:31 PM

malymis says..
"Manhattan is more appropriate"

Why? - it is already almost completly developed, and it is so expensive as to make affordable housing and reasonable cost office space way too expensive - additionally in terms of office space it is unsuitable for "backoffice" operations b/c it is on the same power grid and vulnerable to the same terrorist attacks as the corporate headquaters usually located in Manhattan.

Atlantic Avenue is approriate for large development because it is a transportation hub (subways, LIRR, major roads and bridges nearby), is undeveloped (unless you consider Uhaul lots, empty rail yards and abadoned warehouse/factories developed). BUT of course the anti-development people are really just spouting NIMBY. I also find it so ammusing that the anti-development people often consider themselves enviromentalists when any reasonably sound enviromental policy would keep development very dense the closer you are to major mass transit and then less dense as you move away from the transit lines (thereby reducing sprawl, auto-centric development). The hypocricy being spouted over the organic veggies at the PS Food-Coop cracks me up!

Posted by: David at July 5, 2005 5:36 PM

Why is the Clock Tower sacrosant??? If Willamsburg Savings Bank proposed it today it would be opposed by the exact same people who are oppossed to Atlantic Yards Development and in reality it has exactly the same issues (shadows, traffic, not in context etc....).
The truth is that Clock Tower standing alone is a reflection of the decades of dispair that was caused by lack of economic opportunity in Brooklyn (and many northeastern cities). No one designed or expected the Clock Tower to stand alone and that it does, is not justification to halt development.

Posted by: David at July 5, 2005 5:42 PM

This is amazing... 53 comments so far, but when Brownstoner posted a story about Ikea last week there was barely a peep. yet here you all are talking about out of context development and how it will destroy the urban fabric of brooklyn. But turning Red Hook into a suburbia is okay? Giving up your waterfront to a 26 acre big box store is fine?

From Ikea's Red Hook to Ratner's Atlantic Fun House to Boymelgreen' Gowanus Village, the next ten to twenty years will forever change Brooklyn and the chance to Unite and save it from becoming a developer's playground is now. There is nothing wrong with wanting to develop Brooklyn but it must take into account what already exists.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 5, 2005 5:48 PM

David
All respect, but can you finally understand that all I think is that this area should feel more like Union square less like Midtown
I am not trying to preserve uhal parking lot. It should be develop but not with this f**king megastructure and with comunity imput.

Posted by: malymis at July 5, 2005 5:50 PM

I thought Red Hook was suburbia? Don't you have to drive there? Sorry, kidding.

Good points, David. Couldn't agree more.

Posted by: archer at July 5, 2005 5:55 PM

malymis
1. Union Sq didnt develop with community input 2. Union Sq isnt at the center of one of the largest mass transit hubs in the country 3. NY City doesnt need 2 Union Sqs, it needs more affordable housing and more jobs like those that are going to Jersey City. 4. No one is proposing Union Sq type development and if they did you could be sure many of your compatriots would oppose that b/c it isnt brownstones....

Posted by: David at July 5, 2005 5:58 PM

To be honest, an alternative plan at this exact moment in time has no real effect on my feelings regarding the Ratner project. Whether or not the land the MTA owns and the land around the yards owned by Ratner and private landowners gets developed this year or five years from now is not as important to me as not having this specific development built for a variety of aesthetic, social and political reasons. The land is undervalued, for sure, but I can wait for a better plan whenever it may come.

As for NIMBY comments, yes David, quite astute to realize that it's a truism that those who are most affected by development in any sense are going to be the most critical or questioning of the development itself. I'm sure the Atlantic Yards project is a real hotly contested topic in the Bronx right now.

It's a perfectly defensible and respectable position to be from Fort Greene/Prospect Heights and against the Atlantic Yards project, especially if it's your home that will be lost or your neighborhood that will be dramatically altered in terms of population density and character.

Posted by: Eric at July 5, 2005 6:00 PM

But Eric...
City government cant be dictated by the relatively small number of people who want to perserve things as they are - otherwise NY would extend no further north than Wall St. Seriously, a successful city needs housing, offices, stores, power plants, garbage processing facilities, sewage treatment plants, etc, etc, etc.... and these things may require change - sure listen to those most effected but in the end do what is best for the city, state, nation etc.... BTW: the best thing is to utilize the existing transit hub and road network and put large scale development as close as possible to it.

Posted by: David at July 5, 2005 6:07 PM

By the way, if healthy environmental policy was merely about keeping urban areas as dense as possible to keep down transporation pollution than certainly China would be an environmentalists paradise and the Lower East Side of Manhattan the healthiest neighborhood in NYC.

Sorry, it's a bit more complicated than that.

Besides, considering the already scarce nature of greenspace in NYC urban "sprawl" as it contemporarily concerns most people will hardly ever be an issue in NYC.

Posted by: Eric at July 5, 2005 6:11 PM

Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues is hardly an appropiate "existing road network" and I'm not so sure how much busier you want that subway/LIRR station to get.

An arena for the New Jersey Nets that primarily benefits a private entity is not at the high end of what I believe as a public good. The New Jersey Nets already have a perfectly good arena in the swamp on the NJ turnpike.

Posted by: Eric at July 5, 2005 6:19 PM

David

1. Union Sq didnt develop with community input
union square has self controlling mechanism in the form of small lots develop by different developers in different times.

2. Union Sq isnt at the center of one of the largest mass transit hubs in the country
Do you have any data comparing union square to Atlantic ?

3. NY City doesnt need 2 Union Sqs, it needs more affordable housing and more jobs like those that are going to Jersey City.

Union square is just an example of successful urban fabric.
One million apartments is off the free market because there are rent stab. Not surprise it is expensive
Downtown Brooklyn has a lot of not rented office space.

4. No one is proposing Union Sq type development and if they did you could be sure many of your compatriots would oppose that b/c it isnt brownstones....

How do you know that?

Posted by: malymis at July 5, 2005 6:23 PM

this debate is so typical of the brownstoner demographic-- we tend to be overwhelmingly privileged, in a borough that just isn't. brooklyn's amazing energy doesn't just come from acres of beautiful housing stock; it also comes from diversity and generations of people living in poverty and struggling their way out of it. the wasteland at the prosposed site (yes, i know there's some housing nestled in there, but shockingly little given the scope of the project) presents a great opportunity-- one that, realistically, can only be exploited by somebody who is extremely rich, ballsy, and politcally astute. ratner, for all his ugliness, fits the bill (and apparently nobody else has presented a viable solution since the area was razed 50 years ago). he's played his cards very well- offering what look to me like pretty fair deals to current owners and tenants. most importantly, he is bringing tons of desperately needed jobs to our borough. and the fact that we get a basketball team to boot is a great bonus, imho. sure, the buildings, like most huge modern structures, are kind of ugly, but if they bring the growth and propserity that non-brownstoner brooklynites need right now, i'll take them.

Posted by: anonymous at July 5, 2005 7:03 PM

Eric -
who said envirometal policy is limited to simple density - but it is a large factor in our auto-centric surburabn sprawled America (China is whole different story) - and your reccommendation of sending everyone to a stadium in a swamp is exactly the NIMBY that destroys sound enviromental policy and wetlands) - BTW in case you didnt realize you enviromentalism is about preserving the natural enviroment not making the LES the healthiest nabe.

Posted by: David at July 5, 2005 8:33 PM

i was for the project before today.plopping 20, 40 story buildings in the middle of brooklyns largest commercial artery asks the question,where do all the cars go? from the trucks and commuters who take atlantic and 4th avenue to escape the bqe to the traffic that goes to the manhattan bridge. and lets not forget the nets game and all the workers and apartments adding to congestion. oh a traffic disaster the likes of herald square awaits and those with cars and trucks will not escape. except me, if this turns out to be as bad as i think it will i'm out of here!!!!

Posted by: adam at July 5, 2005 9:37 PM

I don't really like the sketches, though I'm not against the development of the whole area per se -- i actually think the Target, as ugly as it is, is an improvement for the area for example, much better than the mall with the Old Navy that was built in the mid-90s, for example.

Some caution about eminent domain and Brooklyn development, however. In the mid-50s, brownstones in the area surrounding the LIRR railyards at Atlantic Ave were condemned and knocked down to make way for a stadium development, just as Ratner is proposing today. Then the Dodgers got a better offer in CA, and that was that -- the lots sat empty until the mid-90s, when some affordable housing was built (around Atlantic and South Oxford) and the ugly Old Navy mall went up. There were scattered proposals for developments in the 80s, but community opposition was too strong.

I think Ratner often does a nice job -- I've always been a fan of Metrotech, which was much better than the Fulton Mall development of a decade earlier, and a big improvement for downtown. But I'm wary of using eminent domain to condemn all of the residential properties around the railyards -- it seems like there's enough empty space as it is to build the stadium. If he wants to build housing, there are still a lot of empty lots and industrial spaces surrounding 3rd and 4th Avenue, leading up to the Atlantic terminal area. Small in-fill housing would be more appropriate for the community than an enormous Gerhy plan, in my opinion.

Posted by: Sloper at July 5, 2005 10:51 PM

Ok, can one person who supports this land grab explain to me why the so-called middle ground isn't development ONLY on the rail yards? thats the open space. the rest isn't open, sorry.

there is no other explanation than: HUBRIS and GREED off the taxpayers, homeowners, businessowners, renters backs.

The rail yards aren't enough for Ratner, he wants MORE! 14 acres more, give or take (do we really know? no.)

DDDB, in the beginning, met with Gehry and Ratner and suggested, on a napkin sketch (basically) that the arena be built over the demolised Atlantic Center mall, elevated over Atlantic Avenue and on top of that section of the rail yard. By doing so Ratner would give up a little (the development rights over his hideous, failure of a mall) and not TAKE from others. Frank Gehry was intrigued and excited by the idea. Ratner and his people, on the other hand said no go. Why? Truck bomb under the arena overpass and it would be hard to load and unload the elephants for the circus. Gehry intrigued. Ratner "NO".

But what was the real reason? Greed. Ratner wants to build higher above his hideous and failed mall.

8.5 acres were not enough
Using some of his property instead of other owners' property, not enough.
ONLY 21 acres and 8.0 million sq. ft was enough for Bruce Ratner.

this little story alone should tell you what he and his firm are up to.
Land Grab.

and for "anonymous" above and his "poor Dan Goldstein" crap and the NIMBY chants etc. give me a break. have a real debate.
the only NIMBY's involved here are the one's who support this project, but would never do so if it was in their neighborhood. that is a NIMBY. People concerned, with their immediate surroundings and building something that is reasonable and hurts the fewest people possible are just that--people. Keep the NIMBY stuff on the BrooklynNets yahoo group.

Posted by: Daniel Goldstein at July 6, 2005 1:44 AM

Though I disagree with Dan Goldstein on almost every point I've ever heard him make, and his depiction of Ratner as a greed-crazed maniacal monster who takes twisted delight out of "grabbing" other people's land is in line with his usual over-the-top style, his point below about it being preferable for Ratner to build on undeveloped land is indisputable. The most controversial element of this whole plan, by far, is the use of eminent domain, and if Ratner had the opportunity to use his own land but instead chose to use political connections to further maximize profit, that would definitely constitute eminent domain abuse.

That being said, Dan, does this mean that you would have actually supported the plan if your own property wasn't involved? I can understand your opposition given your position, but clearly you would still be opposed anyway, so pretending to reasonably support a middle-ground rings false. I am a lifelong resident of the neighborhood who lives just a few blocks away from the Atlantic yards, and I support the project, because I have seen too many proposals quashed over the years. I don't doubt the good intentions of community activists, nor do I dispute many of their criticisms of this particular plan, but these good intentions have never produced anything constructive, and in reality have done nothing more than preserve the status quo of desolation, decade after decade after decade.

Posted by: escap at July 6, 2005 8:31 AM

Dan - easy question, it costs so much to build over the railyards that in order to make it economically feasible (yes that would include a profit for Ratner ) the project needs to be larger. You cant support the cost of the decking with only the land created - and certainly not if you want to give 50% to affordable housing.

As for NIMBY - Maybe you are confused - I live blocks away from AY and I support it. The question is if you could accept that it is for the greater good - would you?

Posted by: David at July 6, 2005 9:52 AM

i'm a little confused from the maps as to where the houses are being taken by eminent domain. it looks like between atlantic and pacific, up to vanderbilt. that the area with the old NY Daily News condos, the police precinct, and a lot of old row houses, right? why not build the project on the other side of atlantic, toward fort greene instead of prospect heights? there are a still a lot of empty lots there, and really bad ugly 1970s apt buildings. can anyone who has been following this explain?

Posted by: Sloper at July 6, 2005 10:17 AM

the other side of atlantic towards ft greene already has a project called atlantic ave terraces or something planned already. and then on south portland/oxford, cumberland contains middle income housing that was built by ratner back in the atlantic center days. so that is not a possibility.

Posted by: ltjbukem at July 6, 2005 10:37 AM

wow, i didn't realize there was already something planned along the Atlantic Avenue side -- that's a lot of development for one area. 6,000 apts from Ratner, plus Atlantic Terraces, plus who knows what else!! silly question, but where are all these people going to come from? sort of seems like the market is going to be flooded with excess supply for awhile...

Posted by: Sloper at July 6, 2005 10:58 AM

The affordable housing in this plan is only a ploy. Ratner is saying whatever he can for PR purposes. In any case the affordable housing component is only temporary. This is not a community-minded endeavor. It is massive money-maker and affordable housing doesn't fit in that equation.

So stop touting it -- it's just a ruse.

Posted by: anonymous at July 6, 2005 11:02 AM

Sloper, believe me, there is no housing glut in NY. In fact, it is the tremendous shortage, mostly the fault of policies that discourage development, that has sent housing prices skyrocketing. Anyone who is concerned about affordable housing should be clamoring to support this and other development projects because they will increase supply. Unfortunately, even 6,000 units will barely make a dent in prices given the huge imbalance between supply and demand in NY. But at least it's a start.

Posted by: escap at July 6, 2005 11:12 AM

what % of this project should be devoted to affordable housing? funny how this becomes the rallying cry for people to voice their disdain (everyone suddenly becomes concerned about those not as fortunate as those buying in FG/CH now) -- in 5 years these same people will be complaining about how they can't believe there's still no whole foods or balducci's in the neighborhood and how freshdirect never delivers on time or forgets to pack food what was ordered and paid for and how the thing to do here and now is form a food co-op so you don't have to trek every week to PS.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 6, 2005 11:25 AM

if they're affordable apt, then i'm all for it. my understanding, though, is that it's not like they're mitchell-lama housing or permanently rent stabilized. i'm just shocked that they're counting on 6,000+ fancy-schmancy people buying these apts, i guess i still remember the guy who lived in a plywood house in the empty lot on atlantic and south portland from at least 1990-1994. and the dying body i saw at the corner of sixth avenue and atlantic in the middle of the day, just 2 blocks from the police station.

i'm not against affordable housing at all, and if they build all the apts and it does glut the market and drive down prices, that's fine too. if they actually sell these at the market rate they intend, i'll be shocked but not necessarily unhappy. i'm just wondering if maybe Ratner's overshooting the market a little... though I actually think he's pretty smart, so maybe I'm doubting he's actually going to build as much as he's claiming, maybe it's a ploy of some sort, I don't know.

Posted by: Sloper at July 6, 2005 11:27 AM

This is in response to the person who made the statement that the apartments reserved for middle and low income people is only temporary.

Where is it stated that this will be phased out? Is this your spectulation or is it a fact?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 6, 2005 4:32 PM

"Housing Shortage" is a total farce.

In actuality there is a huge demand for below market priced apartments in desirable areas.

At the same time there are so many abandoned buildings and vacant lots in less than desirable areas such as BedStuy, Bushwick and EastNY.

Do we really need to flood the Fort Greene/Prospect Heights/North Slope market with 6000 units of housing?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 6, 2005 4:42 PM

I wish Santiago Calavatra was chosen as the lead architect on this project. I think Gehry's design looks like a Las Vegas hotel. Brooklyn needs outstanding modern architecture to complement its turn of the century (Victorian/Queen Anne) architecture.

Posted by: Dieter Alphonse at July 6, 2005 4:51 PM

another developer has submitted a last minute counterproposal. I guess someone has the cojones to stand up to ratner and the city.
Oh, and to all those supporters of this plan, why is it that we didn't see five or ten plans and get a chance to pick the best one.
Isn't that democracy?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 6, 2005 7:17 PM

Who is this collective "we"? Do you feel you had a voice in the rebuilding after 9/11? Do you feel you had a voice in the $22m Theater for a New Audience coming to FG, if that's in fact moving forward still? Hey, as a supporter of the plan (until today the only plan submitted) I would've loved to have seen 5 or 10 plans too but it's not Ratner's fault that no other plans came through. And yes, another plan has come through. But Ratner's plan is backed by Governor and Mayor with $100m in private funding. Anything can happen but if I were a betting man I'd say too little too late.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 7, 2005 9:56 AM

Fear not! The combination of Gehry's inability to design within budget and Ratner's need to make the numbers work is totally incompatible. I wouldn't mind betting that Ratner is using his influence to persuade the MTA to accept the Extell offer rather than his own so tht he can extricate himself from the inevitable fiasco without excessive loss of face.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2005 9:17 AM

could you tell me what is the effect of privatization vs michell lama. is it good for the middle income? example; coop city.

Posted by: david sanquiche at March 18, 2006 8:15 PM

« Streetscapes: Henderson Place on the UES Even A-listers Have Brownstone Troubles »

July 5, 2005

Gehry & Ratner Show Their Cards

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions