« Forgotten NY on the Crown of Queens Friday Links »

December 22, 2005

Ratner Won't Hear Second Engineering Opinion

press release
December 22, 2005, NY Post -- Developer Bruce Ratner has taken the first step toward demolishing six "hazardous" buildings in Brooklyn that stand in the way of his basketball arena — but he's refusing to let local lawmakers have an engineer analyze the structures. "They're only allowing elected officials with no engineering experience to access the buildings, which defeats the purpose," argued Councilwoman Letitia James (D-Brooklyn). James — along with fellow anti-arena politicians Rep. Major Owens and state Sen. Velmanette Montgomery — planned to tour the former parking garages and tenant-evicted apartment buildings today with an engineer who volunteered his services to them. But they opted out after being told the engineer was persona non grata. All the buildings are in the footprint of the developer's planned $3.5 billion residential and office complex anchored by an NBA arena at Atlantic and Flatbush avenues.
Ratner 'Razes' Stakes [NY Post]
(Picture of press release from Laetitia James, 12/22/05)




Posted by Brownstoner at 1:43 PM | Comments (44)
Categories: Development

Comments

The only issue I see here is a scumbag politician looking to score some political points. It's none of the city's business to determine if the buildings which are being demolished are truly hazardous ones- after all, what difference does it make?

Hey, don't look cross at me; I in no way support the use of eminent domain, ever. If that is what this politician is attacking in this case, then fine. But since it's not, these petty political stunts are just that.

Posted by: iceberg at December 22, 2005 2:21 PM

Ratner always claims they are transparent in their actions. its a bogus claim, and once again they prove it.

Iceberg. you are correct, it is NOT the city's business about he demolitions, its the state's business. right now the State is reviewing Ratner's project and the proposed footprint is under that review. Ratner has to therefore comply with SEQR the state's environmental review process.

SEQR says: "actions cannot be taken to alter the physical environment of the project site before the SEQRA review is completed." so the only exception to that is if these buildings are a public hazard that cannot be secured unless demolished. If that is the case, okay. but why should anyone go with Ratner's word on that w/o an independent engineer even getting to see the buildigns.
I know these buildings they want to demolish, and at least 3 or the 6, are not public safety hazards.

If its such a black and white issue, according to Ratner, than what is the fear of allowing an engineer not on his payrool into the buildings?

so its not a petty political stunt, its a matter of law that needs to be resolved.

you ask "what difference does it make." the difference is related to the eminent domain that you say you are concerned about. Ratner needs to show the footprint is "blighted" in order of the state to condemn. and a footprint with 6 vacant lots sure does help that appearance.

and since we're into name calling already in this thread, i'll join in. Gargano is a scumbag!

Posted by: ratnerville at December 22, 2005 2:30 PM

also, unfortunately brownstoner didn't include the release, in it Councilwoman James ties the demolition to the eminent domain issue.

Posted by: ratnerville at December 22, 2005 2:38 PM

Why can't there be intelligent discourse on this blogsite without all the infantile namecalling? We may not like the fact that people differ with our strongly held views. But, stooping to the level of calling people "scumbags" "morons" "idiots" and a whole host of other juvenile labels that get tossed around here alot, simply because we disagree, doesn't render our contrary opinion any more valid. If anything, such comments say more about the person doing the dumping than the one who is being dumped upon.

Enough already. If you're feeling the need to dump, try putting some of that energy towards a bit of peace and joy of the holiday season and renewing your spirit with the hope of an imminent new year. You'll probably feel better for doing so and you'll do the rest of us a favor by keeping your unproductive negativity to yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2005 3:14 PM

The heck with peace and joy, I'm still in a Thanksgiving mode. Thanks to Letitia James for continuing to put her energy into fighting the injustice so clearly evident in the Ratner project.

Peace and Joy will come when this project is stopped and right-sized development is planned for the railyards.

Posted by: SteveFtGreene at December 22, 2005 3:50 PM

Is anyone really surprised? If you were a developer and letting someone into a part of your project might delay it, would you do it? Are there any repercussions through SEQR that he might face for demolishing these if they aren't actually a hazard? Is there any other way to prove they should not be demolished, or to force him to allow a second engineer in? Would we all be disappointed if the independent engineer found that the buildings were in deed dangerous and needed to come down? Would the report of an independent engineer have any influence in stopping Ratner from demolishing them? Can't the DOB force a building owner to allow them to make their own structural assessment? Are there people here who are zealous enough in their opposition to this project to lie down in front of the bulldozers when they come?

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at December 22, 2005 4:23 PM

I'm with Anon 3:14.

Lets have intelligent adult conversations.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2005 4:37 PM

SteveFtGreene,

I'm Anon 3:14 and I'm strongly opposed to Ratnerville. As such, I fully support the actions of James, Owens, Montgomery, et. al with respect to this project. So, peace bro, 'cause I'm in political agreement with you on this issue! But, frankly, if you think peace and joy will be won when the fight over AY is won, that's where we depart. As far as I can see, there are enough issues of grave injustice going around Brooklyn, NYC, USA and the globe, to keep peace and joy at bay for the next millenium. I'm just saying that if we want to get our point across --regardless of which side of the issue we fall out on- the juvenile namecalling that seems to be increasing on this blogsite is extremely counterproductive.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2005 4:57 PM

I'm with Anon 3:14 also. I find that Brownstoner's blog can be interesting, educational, and informative, and I've benefited by some of the helpful input of its posters. However, quite honestly, the name calling is unnecessary and a BIG turn-off. I often click off a thread before finishing it and can't be bothered wasting time reading stuff like that. It doesn't advance the conversation in any constructive way. Please be adult.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 22, 2005 5:39 PM

Iceberg,
There's nothing wrong with letting off alittle steam. This is still Brooklyn, after all...isn't it?

Posted by: anon at December 22, 2005 5:54 PM

Ok, I just wanted apologize for the inappropriate outburst; I'll make a best effort to better temper my contrarian viewpoint in the future. (typing fingers uncrossed)

Listen, I'm against Ratner as much as the rest of you, but this nitpicking on his project is like trying to fight a forest fire with a water bottle. Go after the bigger issues, like eminent domain. Stop trying to fight the privilege being dispensed to Ratner with low caliber rounds.

Posted by: iceberg at December 22, 2005 6:32 PM

Iceberg, the demolition of these buildings IS about eminent domain. its an attempt to create "blight." so it is far from nitpicking to try to stop a developer from creating "blight" facts on the ground.

Posted by: ratnerville at December 22, 2005 10:10 PM

ratnerville,

are you saying that there is anything special to these buildings? I was under the impression that they look like @#&$ to begin with, so you'd figure thats its blight eitherway.

Posted by: iceberg at December 23, 2005 12:18 AM

Look like (*&*($? Have you never walked around lower Prospect Heights before? Those are perfectly fine buildings. It's a neighborhood. What look like s*&(*(* are, hmm, Atlantic Terminal, Metrotech, and that ghastly lapse of logic known as Atlantic Center. Ratner seems awfully good at creating blight, don't you think?

Posted by: babygreene at December 23, 2005 2:00 AM

Relax, people. Before you know it, these buildings will be history and the Ratner opponents will have moved on to their next losing battle. They've lost on every count so far and will continue to do so. Ratner is rich and powerful beyond their wildest dreams and simply unstoppable.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2005 7:59 AM

Anon 4:57,

Thanks for the clarification.

There'll still be plenty to do when this issue is concluded, but if Ratner when turned away from doing this thing, I think a "Peace and Joy Break" will be appropriate before moving onto whatever the next mess is.

In this particular case, the bad language came from someone who's against us, so it just reflects badly on that side. However, I can imagine a well-placed curse on the appropriate party to be a good thing - it just needs to be used judiciously.


Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2005 9:12 AM

It is amazing that AY opponents will critisize every single thing the guy does.

This just in......Ratner sometimes doesnt seperate his garbage!!!!

Posted by: David at December 23, 2005 10:23 AM

every time I see the Williamsburg bank building and then look at the Ratner debacle next to it (Atlantic Center), I'm reminded of the true disdain that he has for Brooklyn and its peoples. His buildings are all prefab and of the cheapest grade. No nuance, no sense of good design, everything an affront to the local environment.
On top of it all, the businesses are always national firms sucking out money from the local economies. The bulk of the jobs are low paying and for minorities (you don't see white people working there) , any white collar workers flee his building and the area at night.
who needs him to alter a way of life that been around for a century already?
tearing down buildings that are basically sound but just old (like much of nyc) continues his dictatorial and disdainful policies of treating anyone who isn't for him like scum.
he is the least visionary of people... a schlocky (sic) schnorr of a person who lives and dies by the bottom line. what happens to others doesn't matter much. forget about the quality of their lives and their childrens' future. ONLY HIS LIFE MATTERS
it's so easy to see through his company's schemes by just eyeing
the lowest common denominator.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2005 10:31 AM

"The bulk of the jobs are low-paying and only for minorities"

Here we go again with the class arrogance. Minimum-wage jobs are often stepping stones to better things. Plus, they allow college students (which, I'm sure, there are many working at the stores in Target, Pathmark, etc.) to earn money for school. In any event, it's a hell of a lot better than a massive vacant lot. David is right. This obsessive hatred of Ratner is almost comical.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2005 11:21 AM

When Ratner tries to tout a development as "Jobs, Housing, Hoops", perhaps you could understand why one would cynically look at other Ratner endeavors to see how poorly the job creation component is likely to go.

Posted by: SteveFortGreene at December 23, 2005 11:30 AM

The obsessive hatred is what Ratner deserves and its a good start. This is your typical good vs evil story, the type that could make for a hollywood ending. I think we willbe getting a bit more national press in a little while. Just a hunch. Here's looking at you, Ratner.

Posted by: HH57 at December 23, 2005 11:34 AM

The Williamsburg Savings Bank was built during a different era (can you say cheap immigrant labor, receiving no benefits and having no legal protections whatsoever).
That being said what is wrong with the architecture of Atlantic Terminal and Bank of NY tower above it - what similar development built in NYC in the last 10 years do you feel is better.

As for your critism of the jobs created by AT - this is a perfect example of how the critism of Ratner is so absolutly ridiculous.
He build Metrotech which is virtually all office buildings and people say the jobs only go to white people, then he builds AT and you say all the jobs are for minorities.

Again I will ask what Office or Retail development built in NYC during the last 20 years was done better and why?

Posted by: David at December 23, 2005 11:52 AM

David,

I'm talking about what's promised versus what's delivered.

And if you're such a fan of Ratner, I know you'll be pleased to detail how many new jobs his projects have created and at what income levels.

Posted by: SteveFortGreene at December 23, 2005 12:00 PM

I am not a practicing economist with access to the necessary data (and neither are any of you)so I cant accuratly answer your question - anecdotally and logically I know that 1000s of people work in Metrotech in relatively high paying financial sector jobs that certainly if would not exisit in Brooklyn if not for that development.

I also personally know many people who were exposed to Brooklyn from working here and have subsequently decided to live and raise their family here.

Anecdotally and logically, I know all the jobs in the AT and in the BONY Tower werent in Brooklyn when all that was at the site was dirt.

BTW I am not a "fan" of Ratner, he is a developer, he develops, virtually the same as any developer (although he was 1 of the 1st to be willing to do so in Brooklyn) - I am generally pro-Brooklyn development. If some other developer wanted to build an arena housing and offices @ AYs I probably would favor that (over doing nothing) - The idea that Ratner is personally evil is so absolutly juvenile and intellectually based on nothing as to make those espousing it look like fools. (BTW he might be a jerk or a super nice guy - I have no idea - and neither do you, nor is it relevant)

I have tried to honestly answer your question care to answer mine?

Posted by: David at December 23, 2005 12:15 PM

Nope.

Your answer amounts to an anecdotal "I don't really know" which is understandable as the statistics are hard to come by.

I differ with you in that I'd rather see something good to be done in the future, rather than do something bad right now.

Posted by: SteveFortGreene at December 23, 2005 12:20 PM

So you can not name a single comparable retail or office development (like AT and Metrotech) built in NYC the last 20 years that was done better...or are you just refusing to answer

Posted by: David at December 23, 2005 12:26 PM

He's refusing to answer.

Good point, David, about the "no win" situation when it comes to race and economics. It reminds me of how white people were maligned as racists for leaving the city in the 60s and then branded as yuppies and gentrifiers for moving into the the city in the 80s and 90s (and often by other gentrifiers). Simply put, you can't win.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2005 1:16 PM

This (constant) refusal to answer (even the most basic questions) is exactly why I call these anti-AY people anti-everything b/c in the end they really do oppose all development.
They will give rhetoric to this plan or that plan but when the concrete needs to get poured they essentially dont like anything new.

Posted by: David at December 23, 2005 1:23 PM

I'm definitely coming late to this discussion, but just to turn David's question around: Can you name any other retail/commercial development in Manhattan/Brooklyn over the past 20 years that's uglier or cheaper looking than the Atlantic Terminal malls/tower?

Posted by: babs at December 23, 2005 1:59 PM

Yes, the movie theater on Court Street is, IMO, uglier than the Atlantic Center. Still, even that's better than the decrepit buildings that stood there for nearly a decade before the theater was built.

Now, will someone please answer David's question?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2005 2:33 PM

Again I'll answer b/c I am actually willing to enter a real debate - off the top of my head

Retail only is the "mall within a mall" at the Fultan Mall (if it wasnt built w/in the last 20 yrs it has certainly been extensively rehabbed more than a few times in that period)

Queens Plaza Mall
Manhattan Mall
The Shopping Center on 2nd Ave btween 29th and 30th in Manhattan

Office w/retail - in Brooklyn the 2 horrible buildings on Flatbush near LIU - one has Applebees in it and other has Chase Bank

Again can you name a single comparable retail or office development (like AT and Metrotech) built in NYC the last 20 years that was done better

Posted by: David at December 23, 2005 2:44 PM

What would happen if these buildings really were dangerous and collapsed. We could all then yell that Ratner (not Extell, Danny Boy's and Tish's favorite )let a building collapse. How much milage could we get from that? And what I'd someone died?

Posted by: philip paul at December 23, 2005 2:48 PM

Thanks Philip Paul!

Yet another good example of the trap that Ratner opponents try to set. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Again, what most amazes me is their belief that nitpicking and launching into lengthy speeches about minutiae are actually going to increase their support and stop Ratner. Most people I know, whether pro or con, have accepted that the stadium and towers will be built.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2005 3:04 PM

Obviously this is a question of opinion -- i think the Manhattan Mall (are you talking about the former Gimbel's here?) is way nicer than AT -- if you mean the former Korvette's; I'd agree it's a hulking monstrosity, but certainly no worse than AT, as it's relatively in context in an already pretty gross area.

Queens Plaza doesn't count (I only asked about Manhattan/Brooklyn), because so much of Queens is so phenomenally ugly -- is that what you want to make Brooklyn like?

On 2nd Avenue to you mean the strip with the movie theatre and the Crunch gym? -- not pretty, but certainly less cheap-looking than AT.

And yes, the movie theatre/Barnes & Noble/skyscraper is tremendously ugly -- and a major contributor to the decline in that whole Futon St area. Same effect noticed at AT. Is this what you want the area to become?

I agree -- the Applebees and Chase Bank buildings are reprehensible, but at least they're low-rise enough not to offend the eye! Every time I walk down Flatbush, first I see the Williamsburgh Bank building -- lovely -- then a few steps later that AT monstrosity office tower sticks up -- yech!

So I really don't think these are any worse (and actually none of them looks as cheaply made) than AT -- the construction really looks like it was made using some sort of an erector set. I guess the only consolation is that those buildings will be in such bad shape in 50 years they'll either fall down by themselves or have to be taken down.

And actually, only Ratner says those other buildings are unsafe -- and considering they're unoccupied, are less dangerous than all the occupied buildings throughout the city that are probably in way worse shape...

Posted by: babs at December 23, 2005 3:05 PM

And again my question goes unanswered

Posted by: David at December 23, 2005 3:10 PM

I didn't see a response to my question. My understanding is that the public sector agreed these buildings are unsafe. Are we all so zealot that we would permit a human life to be placed in jeapordy?

Posted by: philip paul at December 23, 2005 3:42 PM

The public sector has said nothing about these buildings or, officially, anything to do with Ratnerville, because the public sector has been deliberately shut out of the whole process since day one.

Posted by: babs at December 23, 2005 3:53 PM

I'm no fan of the Union Square area, but the Whole Foods/DSW/Filene's complex is better looking than AT to my mind. Ditto the Avalon Christie (combination commercial/residential), not to mention Kenmare Square, Andre Balasz's new building (luxury condominiums plus commercial downstairs). Even The Sculpture for Living, reviled though it may be elsewhere, is way better than Ratner's characterless, on-the-cheap schlock.

Offices/shops -- what about the World Financial Center? Or is that over 20 years old?

Posted by: babs at December 23, 2005 3:59 PM

Guess who built the ugly Court Street movie theater -- Ratner! My question is why we have to let a single developer own and build such a large (bigger than WTC site) part of the city? Why can't the site be opened up to multiple builders and owners -- inject some competition into the process? If AY is built, Ratner will decide what services are available to a large section of the city. If someone other than Ratner owned one of the building in MetroTech, you might be able to eat a decent meal there, or get coffee when you have to work on a weekend. It might be a 24 hour community as Marty is always pushing.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 23, 2005 4:57 PM

"The bulk of the jobs are low-paying and for minorities."

I thought increasing minority employment was a universally shared goal (except maybe of the KKK). Are you a member of the KKK? Or are you suggesting that those low wage workers were forced to quit their corporate law jobs to work at Target?

Posted by: escap at December 23, 2005 6:29 PM

Babs I'm impressed that you answered my question but you sort of prove my point about Ratner - in terms of architechture, and execution the projects you cite projects differ from AT like a 'dime or ten pennies'

Avalon Crystie Place looks just like AT (except much,much bigger)
http://info.rentnet.com/property/50/473350/photo/473350.p05.jpg

AT=
http://www.fcrc.com/images%5Cprojects%5Cgalat21b.jpg

Kenmare Sq is just an ordinary building with some waves in it
http://www.tropolism.com/archives/2005/09/one_kenmare_squ.php

and Sculpture for Living has been attacked on exactly the same grounds the plans for AY have been :
http://pith.org/core/related-astor/

I truly believe you are fooling yourself if you think the anti-Ratner folks (or yourself) wouldnt be jumping up and down screaming about how bad AT is if Ratner had instead built any of the developments you mentioned -

Posted by: David at December 23, 2005 8:10 PM

I'd be jumping up and down about anyone who wanted to wantonly raze several blocks of perfectly nice, even architecturally distinguished, buildings, where people live and work, in order to create a totally disproportionate complex of towers that will radically change the character of the neighborhood and overburden its already heavily travelled streets and transit links.

Avalon Christie Place looks nothing at all like AT 1) because the structures that exist are at AT are shopping malls and an office tower, whereas Avalon Christie is a residential building with ground floor retail, containing (evenutally) a pool that will be open to the community and 2) because we don't know what the rest of Ratnerville will look like at all -- certainly not the Michael Graves design put forth, but it will include towers of some sort, whereas Avalon Christie place does not extend much higher than the surrounding structures.

Kenmare Square is an ordinary building with some waves in it that does not tower over surrounding structures, and that was built on a vacant lot. No-one's homes were destroyed to build it.

The Sculpture for Living was built on a parking lot.

And I notice you said nothing about the World Financial Center -- is that because it's over 20 years old or because the contrast with Ratner's projects a la Metrotech is just too crushing? That's the sort of office/retail complex Brooklyn should have -- why are the citizens of Brooklyn settling for second-rate suburban-style wastelands instead?

Now excuse me for getting sloppily sentimental for a bit -- I'd just like to say how much I enjoy this blog and all the work that Brownstoner puts into it, and how I truly appreciate the dialogue and differing viewpoints that one encounters here, and to wish everyone a very happy holiday.

Posted by: babs at December 24, 2005 9:23 AM

I've walked by these buildings and they do need to come down. This whole area is a big eyesore and wasteland. The politicians are all talking self serving and don't care about the people. Lets build this thing aleady and get people to work.

Posted by: Medgar at December 26, 2005 3:03 PM

The Underberg building may be beyond saving, but there is no evidence (beyond what Bruce Ratner says) that the buildings on Dean St (which were occupied until 1 year ago) are in such a state. And even if he does get the go-ahead to tear them down, no construction is to start until he's assembled his entire parcel which will take years and years -- the only people going to work here anytime soon will be a demolition crew if he does tear down those buildings.

Posted by: babs at December 27, 2005 8:14 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions