« Tuesday Links Community Boards Debate AY Project »
August 8, 2006
Learning to Oppose the Atlantic Yards Project
Even though he lives within a few blocks of where the Nets arena would be built if Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project gets the go-ahead, writer Chris Smith had been long in forming an opinion on the subject. Partly in denial and partly in the interest of maintaining some kind of journalistic neutrality, it was not until he jumped head-first into researching this article--and witnessing first hand Ratner's "truly chilling" manipulation of the political process--that he found himself standing firmly in the opposition camp. It's a long, personalized article with lots of color, but his Bertha Lewis encounter was arguably the most histrionic, providing the article's money-shot of a race-baiting quote (equalled only by the class-baiting of Assemblyman Roger Green):
"You want to talk to me about traffic, you want to talk to me about density, you go right ahead," she says, implying she considers it all a pretext. "Talk to me about what your resolution is to the resegregation of Brooklyn. Black and brown folks have been driven out of central Brooklyn!" Lewis ladles on the "street" theatrics as she warms up, shimmying in her chair and dropping her g’s. "We’re looking at the gentrification—I don’t see a lot of black and brown folks in the wave runnin’ up in here! The overwhelming folks who are opposed are white people and wealthier people and more secure people and people who just arrived. Come on! This is about the power dynamic of who in fact is going to be living in Downtown and central Brooklyn and where the power really is going to be. And we’re down to get it on! We’re tired of being pushed out. If we can stop one iota of gentrification, we’re gonna do it!"
For what, 900 apartments for the $35K-and-under set? What about all the people who will be waiting longer on crowded subway platforms and whose children will see their public school class sizes balloon? Certainly many of them will be "black and brown," no?
Battle for the Soul of Brooklyn [New York Magazine]
NY Mag Weighs in on Atlantic Yards Saga [Brooklyn Record]
Comments
Public schoool enrollment, especially north of district 15, is still well below historic levels. Having crowded public schools is actually a very good problem to have. As for traffic, if the roads are free and clear, more people will buy cars. If traffic and parking are awful, people will be less likely to keep their cars.
Posted by: OE-from-WT at August 8, 2006 10:22 AM
I agree with your statement about cars. People love to complain about traffic, but no one is willing to give up his/her own car.
It's tempting to continue weighing in on these Atlantic Yard debates, but at this point the whole thing is tiresome. The public meetings will be a mere formality and the state will surely uphold its findings. Goldstein and Co. will file their lawsuits and, like every other battle they've fought, will lose. After that, this squabbling will finally end and the construction can begin.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProwd at August 8, 2006 10:38 AM
CrownHeightsProwd, why not just get your own screen name instead of copping someone elses? It's pretty hard to take you seriously when you're working the imposter angle.
Posted by: TonyTone at August 8, 2006 10:50 AM
This article is the best I've read so far. The pluses of the project - an arena in brooklyn, development of the actual railyards, 900 units of truly affordable housing for lower-wage households - are such a meager tradeoff for the impact this project will have on the surrounding neighborhoods.
More and more areas of Brooklyn are on the upswing precisely because the borough offers a quality of life that Manhattan doesn't. The areas and people in them that haven't yet been lifted by this tide won't see much benefit from AY - this is primarily a residential development with all but a tiny portion meant for over $75K/year earners, permanent jobs will be fewer and lower-paying than advertised, How is this a good deal for any of us?
For OE - traffic is already horrible in the area, and I don't see anyone leaving their cars at home. And as someone with 2 kids in an already crowded public school, I don't see that it's such a good thing. The PH/FG/CH area schools would benefit from more local attendance, but on a sensible scale -AY would just swamp them.
Posted by: petunia at August 8, 2006 11:07 AM
I totally don't understand people obsession with cars and their insane desire to drive a car to a destination (like AY) that sits on top of a MAJOR transportation hub.
I have no car, no drivers' license, and have survived my entire adult life in Brooklyn using only public transportation, occasional taxis and occasional rides with friends/family.
I also use public transit extensively when I travel. Often I get strange looks when I ask for directions, and I say that I will be walking and/or using public transit to get to my destination.
Posted by: Arsenic and Old Lace at August 8, 2006 11:11 AM
Amen to that, TonyTone!
Agreed, Petunia- it was a great article. I also found it interesting that one of the project's AY supporters had this to say "There’s a class of people who are going to the opera. And there’s another class of folks who will go to a basketball game and get a cup of beer.”
Which brings up yet another very disturbing fact. They sell beer at the games. How good will it be to have thousands of drunk Nets fans screaming and yelling after a game? And the other implication of his statement is that Black people are only interested in beer and basketball, as opposed to Opera. In other words, the Arena is "catering to the lower classes." My closest friend is a Black opera singer (and I know of quite a few others). So I thought that was pretty insulting to the Black community.
As for Bertha Lewis- I can't help but be amazed that she thinks 900 units of subsidized housing is going to stop lower income folk from being pushed out. If anything, the AY will accelerate the gentrification she speaks so scornfully of.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 8, 2006 11:17 AM
It is actually a real plus of the AY project that many housing units will be used for families making $75,000 to $100,000. Think about it: a teacher married to a firefighter is not what we think about when we think of rich people, but they will make about $75,000 to $100,000 (if not more)combined. THEY are the exact people that can't afford to live in NYC and they are the people we most desperately need to stay. The ultra rich can take care of themselves and there are city, state, and federal programs to help the very poor. The city will be in trouble if all that is left living in the city is the very rich and the very poor.
Posted by: Jamzer at August 8, 2006 11:27 AM
I actually didn't take away from that that it meant drunk black people. I find loud and drunk sports fans to be annoying regardless of race, and it usually is quite a mix. you can't really argue with the notion that opera fans are inherently more staid - black or white or asian or hispanic.
regarding gentrification, I am always amused at how people like bertha completely neglect to observe or mention that in areas like Ft Greene and clinton hill, the first wave of gentrifiers were and continue to be "black and brown" - lady, you're the one being racist if you cannot acknowledge that black people can be affluent too...
this is the nature and flux of NYC - it is impossible to artificially freeze the cost of living in NYC. gentrifiers came here because, while affluent enough to buy brownstones or rent floorthroughs here, they were being priced out of manhattan by the Hilton sisters and their friends.
Finally, the traffic does suck there and it would be a nightmare to worsen it. I have kids and I use my car to get to costco where I stock up on cheap diapers etc. would love to take a bike, but that would be a terrifying balancing act and probably kill someone.
Posted by: misspriss at August 8, 2006 11:27 AM
Arsenic,
You don't have kids, do you? They change everything. We certainly wouldn't have a car if we were childless, but, man would life in Brooklyn with kids be a hell of a lot more difficult without a car!
Posted by: brownstoner at August 8, 2006 11:38 AM
The Atlantic Yards development could be a great thing! Honestly, the area around the Atlantic Yards is so ghetto at night. Im not talking about Fort Green or near BAM Rose. Im talking about on Flatbush from the Altantic Center to the Manhattan Bridge, including Fulton Mall. Some of those blocks are not fun to walk around in at night. What I think the Atlantic Yards project will do is increase the value of the areas of Fort Green and Clinton Hill that we love, and make the areas of downtown Brooklyn that are so ghetto that much nicer and safer. The Atlantic Center Mall did that. Remember the years before that mall was there on Flatbush? It was scary. My two cents...
Posted by: ClintonHillHomeOwner at August 8, 2006 11:50 AM
Arsenic,
Talk to me when you've travelled on the subway or bus with two toddlers under the age of three, one of whom can't even walk yet. If you're going far enough to take transportation, you're going to need a big diaper bag with supplies like water bottles, sippy cups, wipes, extra clothes, food, etc., not to mention your own purse or wallet. Two or three flights of subway stairs down to/up from the platform are more than daunting in this scenario: they're impossible!
Posted by: fortgreener at August 8, 2006 11:53 AM
Stay strong Arsenic.
I was raised by a single mom in Park Slope sans car. We traveled, went camping, even had a country house all without a car. B-man: Your car is all about you, not your kids.
Cars are simply bad for this, and most other large cities, and otherwise enlightened people who think about "context" and "scale" when it comes to development projects, have a huge blindspot for how out of "context" and "scale" cars are in Brooklyn.
Posted by: MrLomez at August 8, 2006 11:56 AM
What really needs to happen is that they need more elevators and exscalaors on the subway? It discourages ridership. I hate to see people carrying strollers up and down the stairs, or elderly people taking one step at a time slowly. Most other modern metros in other cities have this basic service.
Posted by: ClintonHillHomeOwner at August 8, 2006 12:03 PM
Do you think Ratner will actually build all these buildings for which he is seeking approval? It seems to me that market forces may significantly downsize the project. Eventually it may be built, but I really wonder if it can be built at the size and schedule of the current plan. Any thoughts?
Posted by: trudylou at August 8, 2006 12:04 PM
TonyTone: this is my screen name. Even if it weren't, I doubt that you'd take my statements seriously, given that I disagree with your views.
Once and for all, what does having kids have to do with public transportation? Every day, hundreds of thousands of New York parents manage to take care of business without the luxury of a car. My neighbor raised four children and neither she nor her husband have ever had driver's licenses.
It's funny that when discussing development people are quick to decry the "suburbanization" of Brooklyn, but when it comes to the ultimate symbol of suburbania - the automobile - they change their tune. As usual, people are long on lectures, but when it comes to actually sacrificing their personal comforts for the better of the community (i.e. traffic) they become quite individualistic.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProwd at August 8, 2006 12:48 PM
Uh, I don't get it, why do black people want this and white people oppose this?
Are blacks not inconvenienced by traffic jams? Do whites not want to go to baseball games? I just don't get it. Someone help me out.
Posted by: Blabber at August 8, 2006 1:16 PM
So let me get this straight. People need to drive their cars to AY so they can bring their babies and toddlers to a Nets game, drink lots of beer and then get back in their cars and DWI their way home with baby in the back seat.
Posted by: Arsenic and Old Lace at August 8, 2006 1:30 PM
Blabber, that is an extremely simplistic explanation that just doesn't hold water. Nothing in this city goes down straight racial lines, for which I heartily thank God daily. People who are both pro and anti AY would like to make it that simple, but it certainly is not.
I thought the article was very interesting and quite good, for the most part, but then, the author is preaching to the choir in my case. BTW, I am African-American and not thrilled with AY and Ratner. That does not mean I am anti development at the site, because I think mixed income and commercial development at that site is both necessary and desirable, but not that behemoth monster that is AY.
What I don't like are super rich companies dangling jobs and affordable homes in front of desperate people. I don't like the sniff of race baiting in the way this is being portrayed as black and Latino versus white yuppies and aging hippies. Homes for minority families vs gentrifying white folks, basketball loving inner city people vs the US Open, or maybe the Master's Tourney crowd. Too simplistic, and just not true.
Misspriss is correct - there are plenty of black folks aready in the area who will be as adversely affected by the shadow of the complex, as well as all of the other issues of transportation, density, etc. Some old, some new, some rich, some poor, most in the middle. When will politicians, writers and reporters learn that Black people, like all people, are not monolithic? We don't all vote alike, think alike, dress alike, worship alike, have the same income levels, or listen to the same music. Just like everyone else. We don't all think the same about AY. Bertha Lewis is correct in saying that black people should not be pushed out of PH/FG/CH. She chose the wrong company to further an admirable goal.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at August 8, 2006 1:50 PM
Blabber - its not baseball so sounds like you haven't been following it anyway.
My question is - at what point(size/# of apts) does it become this major disaster crowding schools, subways, overwhelming traffic, shadows from a low-impact, beneficial, 'we will greet you with open arms project'? What is the magic number?
And to Trudylou - probably right, changes in market could have major impact on development, success of the undertaking. Of course talking a 10 year span - so you never know. But if doesn't get going soon will be wasteland for another generation.
Posted by: Petebklyn at August 8, 2006 1:50 PM
So this issue with AY is drunk people walking out after the game, and not imminent domain? Meanwhile major parts of NYC are turning into variations of Smith Street with drunks, outdoor cafes, etc, and people seem to be ok with that.
I still feel that the NYC public school system is well equipped to handle this so-called "influx", and that traffic will be a non-issue because if it really is horrible to drive around there, people won't. e.g. not too many people drive to MSG, but they do drive to the meadowlands.
They are not tearing down any brownstones, so nobody's "social fabric" will be manhattan-ified. There are brownstones next to high-rises all over the city, and people seem to be ok with that too. In fact we even have thriving brownstone neighborhoods next to (gasp!) Flatbush ave, which is quite depressing in certain stretches.
Posted by: OE-from-WT at August 8, 2006 1:58 PM
Whatever you say then CrownHeightsProwd, keep up your secret covert psy-ops, looks like it's helping you get your point across.
Posted by: TonyTone at August 8, 2006 2:01 PM
Regarding cars: we can argue about whether people should or shouldn't have cars till the cows come home, but the reality is that cars and drivers are out there, and any sensible developer/city planner needs to plan for their existence. That means wide enough streets, traffic lights and parking. To not do so is like telling high school kids to just say no to sex, and not provide sex education. That plan didn't work either.
Oh, and Prowd, your originality is staggering in its absence. If you want to be taken seriously, you've failed miserably.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at August 8, 2006 2:04 PM
OE, you've got to be delusional. People will drive because they want to, and nobody is going to tell them they can't. Everyone always thinks the other guy is not going to drive because it will be a mess, and then everyone is out on the road. Plenty of people drive to MSG, the difference is that the streets there are set up to handle more people and cars, and there are parking lots all over the place, or you could park 20 blocks away and walk, which plenty of people do. Midtown Manhattan is not the AY area.
As to your assertion that the schools can handle it, you obviously are not a product of NYC public schools, especially at the elementary levels. These are the schools that are going to be overcrowded, not necessarily the upper grades and high schools. If children can't get a quality education from the beginning, if they are sitting in the halls trying to learn to read, they will never get the skills and disciplines necessary to propel them into good public schools, or even private and parocial schools. Without education, the odds of them doing better than their parents is almost nil.
That is not a price I would want just so I can go to a Nets game.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at August 8, 2006 2:15 PM
Whoops - "parochial" good thing I got me an edjimication.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at August 8, 2006 2:20 PM
Right on, OE-from-WT!
Posted by: ClintonHillHomeOwner at August 8, 2006 2:51 PM
CrownHeightsProud,
Yes, I went to NYC public schools (go Jamaica High!)... but that's another story. Based on my observations, there is a positive correlation between how crowded a school is and how good it is (i.e. more crowded = better). Basically, these are the effects of people playing the system by going to their non-zoned schools or moving to better districts.
As for traffic, people will not drive if they know they will stuck in traffic for hours.. that's why JFK is losing out to LGA in terms of air-traffic, for example.
Posted by: OE-from-WT at August 8, 2006 4:09 PM
crowded = better?
Schools are crowded because they are the better schools. This is often true, but the causation doesn't work the other way -- you can crowd a school and expect the extra students to make it better. The schools have to be good first. Adding all these kids to the existing pool of classrooms and teachers will be a strain and new classrooms will have to be added.
Posted by: trudylou at August 8, 2006 4:53 PM
OE, it seems to me you are picturing a full classroom of eager, well behaved kids sitting at their desks looking up to the front of their classroom at an enthusiastic teacher, who is engaged in some kind of innovative teaching method which has the kids totally enthralled. Very nice.
More often than not, however, that will not be the case here in Brooklyn. Instead you will have an overcrowded room with not enough desks, with kids who want to learn, mixed with kids on medication, and kids who didn't have anything to eat since yesterday. The teacher will have to try to maintain discipline while trying to teach. If the teacher is lucky, he/she will have a para in the room whose sole job is to help discipline the kids. More than likely, the teacher is paying for any supplies out of his/her pocket, and more kids mean more expense. Heaven help the teacher who has a couple of kids with serious discipline or attitude problems, because those kids will get the attention, not bright little Johnny or Susie, who causes no problems.
Larger classrooms cause nothing but larger problems. Nothing is in a vacuum. The problems in schools are a reflection of the problems in society. A public school is going to reflect the community around it, good and bad. The schools that the AY kids would conceivably go to are already in need of a lot of attention, funding and renewal. Another couple thousand kids will strain an already strained to the bursting system to the breaking point. No one - white or black, middleclass or not wants their children to be a part of that particular social experiment.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at August 8, 2006 4:54 PM
I live right near the proposed project, own a car, and I do not drive it here in the city (aside from going on trips or using it for a large purchasing/moving purposes). I do this because keeping a car in the city, even in brooklyn, is too much of a hassle and to be perfectly honest, bad for the community, environment and my wallet. I keep my car at my parents house upstate. Ive lived in FG and now PH for 13 years and my friends with families seem to get by without the use of a car. Perhaps the people moving into these residencies will have cars but not all of them will and the people who are going to basket ball games mostly would not be driving. Nobody drives to Knicks games, having 5 trains that run to the garden... no one would drive to Nets games in BK, having something like 15 subway lines and the LIRR. Its faster, cheaper and less of a hassle...
Basically I feel the traffic issue is kind of BS.
Posted by: robdesign13 at August 8, 2006 4:55 PM
OE-from WT- you must be a cock-eyed optimist. If it were true that people being stuck in traffic for hours makes them take mass transportation, then the LIE wouldn't be the parking lot it is twice a day. And as for your observation that the more crowded a school the better it is- my jaw hit the floor. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but you need a reality check, bad. And I am also a product of NYC Public Schools- and I got a great education.
As for the "mahattanization" of Brooklyn- it will happen- AY is just the first wave. Drunk fans are just another issue on top of all the rest. By the way you must not be keeping up with this topic because you would know that misbehaving drunk people on Smith St. is not considered ok with anyone. (Or as CHP said- delusional).
I can understand if you support the AY project- that's your perogative. But I certainly get suspicious about someone who willfully denies the impact that most experts see happening. You either consider yourself more intelligent and far-sighted than the experts, or you simply do not comprehend the impact the AY will have on the area.
Misspriss- I know I might be overly sensitive to race issues, but I somehow got the feeling he was saying the old "give them the Roman circus" thing to keep em down. But then I also found Clintonhillhomeowner's use of the word "ghetto" several times also obnoxious. Only a truly ignorant New Yorker would use a loaded code word like that, rather than simply saying it'll be nice of the streets were busier at night or some such.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 8, 2006 5:01 PM
Lots of people drive to Knicks games and will drive to Nets games. I can't find the percentage, but I think it is higher than us city dwellers would expect. Despite being near all these transportation lines, a whole lot of people are frightened of public transportation at night when the games would end or it isn't that convenient for them.
Posted by: trudylou at August 8, 2006 5:06 PM
CHP - I see your point. I'm just figuring that if there were a school like that in FG or PH, for example, enough people would do whatever they can to avoid it, and it would no longer be overcrowded. That won't make the school any better, though, because it's usually the kids who need the most help who are most likely to stay in a bad school.
Posted by: OE-from-WT at August 8, 2006 5:10 PM
The problem with that, OE-from-WT, is that it isn't always possible for kids to go to the school of their choice. Too many kids and not enough good quality schools.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 8, 2006 5:12 PM
Exactly, trudylou. Also, when you get out of an event at 11 at night, most people who have cars would rather drive home, rather than stand on the platform and wait for one or more trains. I know I would, and I don't even have a car. In fact, those are the few times I really wish I had one. Who doesn't want to retreat from the public chaos into their own private vehicle, put on their music of choice and head directly home, without having to drop half a million people off in between?
It's unrealistic to think that people will automatically stop driving just because it will be crowded. If that were so, the LIE and the BQE would be more like the Autobahn, not parking lots.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at August 8, 2006 5:16 PM
a quick note on the word "ghetto" - while I agree that it's loaded, I think at this point, to many people, it has come to mean a stretch of unattended poverty, dismal conditions, or just simply ugly. I have heard it used by blacks and whites in reference to not only real estate, but also clothing, or watches, etc...I don't like it any more than you do, but then again, I didn't really like soup nazi either - that's pretty loaded too...
Posted by: misspriss at August 8, 2006 5:18 PM
There seems to be a alot of conflation here.
Arena traffic.
Let's be clear. We're talking about maybe 5,000 incremental cars 75-100 nights per year. To put that in perspective, there are something like 70,000 cars that cross into lower manhattan over the 4 east river crossings during rush hour. Adding 5,000 cars at the end of the Brooklyn-bound rush hour isn't going to be that drastic.
Even if there is an impact on traffic, as others have mentioned, this is self correcting. More traffic delays really do lead to fewer cars.
Schools.
This is only really an elementary school issue. NYC junior high and high schools are not strictly districted. I see the new residents generating a single school of new pupils at most. This seems pretty manageable. These new residents are paying taxes and the Board of Ed should make sure there are enough resources. There are big swings in population around the city all the time. This is a B of E problem, not a development problem.
Subway traffic.
There are 4-5 subway stations and 5 distinct lines that will serve the residents of AY. Atlantic/Pacific, Bergen, 7th Ave, Lafayette and Clinton-Washington. Once again, the new residents pay taxes and fares, so the MTA can add train cars if necessary.
Let's all be honest. This isn't about race, economics or democracy. This is about stuff like "context," "scale," "character" and "shadows." (Should I really care that your $2-million brownstone is going to get less light?) These objections are way too ill-defined and impossibly subjective. The current residents don't want to share their piece of heaven with new (and more) people.
There is a way to stop development. Get state legislation passed. I don't see any bills.
Posted by: MrLomez at August 8, 2006 5:40 PM
MrLomez -
Have you read the DEIS? I haven't finished it yet, but I can tell you:
Arena Traffic > something like 68 out of 97 intersections will be worse off, with the ones closest to the arena impossible to mitigate. [Besides that, when traffic is bad, what do you do? You leave earlier. There will always be people driving in, some new ones, some earlier, creating the same traffic impact.]
Schools > DEIS notes that Ratner isn't planning to build the one or two new schools they will need. Why, if the city is subsidizing the development, should the city then have to fund a new school?
Subway Traffic > Again, DEIS says that the MTA has no plans to increase subway service.
And I disagree. This is exactly about Democracy. It's about tax-paying citizens being force-fed a project they have had NO say in. I can't wait until the next election.
Posted by: chuck at August 8, 2006 6:03 PM
Nobody "needs" a car in Brooklyn. My parents managed to transport us around just fine without a car. Just admit it...you "want" the car because it's convenient. I have a car and use it around Brooklyn for transporting my dogs, Home Depot runs and large shopping trips. I am a lazy American! Stop making excuses and just admit that you are too!
Posted by: yente at August 8, 2006 6:41 PM
Chuck:
This isn't responsive.
Traffic is a self-correcting problem. This is not conjecture at this stage, this is science. I have stated that I am not particularly troubled by traffic arguments anyway, since I do not consider private automobiles to be a reliable form of transportation for residents anyway.
What are the consequences of not building an additional school? A 10% increase in class sizes at surrounding schools? 3 more kids in each class? I'm not losing sleep over this.
You seem to acknowledge that the subway capacity is neither fully utilized nor has hard constraints. The MTA deals with shifting population all of the time. AY would seem like a particularly resilient place in the system for a big jump in ridership (as opposed to Williamsburg which is served by one line.)
There are numerous elected officials that have supported this project including, the governor, the mayor, several assembly people and state senators in and out of NYC. Many of these have stood for election during this debate and won handily.
Development of state lands is not governed by referendum. There are plenty of people in the Adirondacks who resent the strictures of the "Forever Wild" designation as supported by many New York City legislators. Fortunately, they don't get to develop wilderness that belongs to all of us. If you want to place state land use decisions in the hands of the people who happen to live closest to the project, get your elected officials to introduce legislation. I don't think it's a good idea.
Posted by: MrLomez at August 8, 2006 6:42 PM
Traffic is indeed not a self-correcting problem. It simply gets worse. If that's science, its the science of creationism, not Einstein. And insofar as the transport hub- it's a hub in downtown. The people living in the rest of the borough find subway stations few and far between-ever look at a subway map? Maybe the transportation problem doesn't worry you because you don't think cars are a reliable form of transport but reality trumps your opinion.Cars are here to stay and then some. 5000 additional cars aren't a big issue? You have drunk the Kool-aid. By neither acknowledging the strain on area resources, or assuming they will "self-correct." I can only think that your source of information must have been the AY flyer Ratner put out. And actually it is about democracy, economics and class. Foremost is the cynical assumption that Ratner could sell the project to the Black community by preying on their biggest needs. As some pointed out, Blacks were in the forefront of gentrification in the surrounding neighborhoods. Blacks, the working poor, the elderly- they will all be affected. You say residents just don't want to share their little bit of heaven with new residents. I think the question is why should they want to see the character and quality of life in their neighborhoods be destroyed when they have worked so hard to bring these neighborhoods back? The democratic issue is whether or not a developer with friends in high places should be allowed to circumvent laws and regulations. It's a question of why the people who pay taxes are made voiceless by the very people they elect. It's a question of why the people we elect care so little about us that they are more than happy to give our tax money to a man who truly doesn't need it to overbuild an area that will be badly impacted in a negative way.
All in all I get the impression that you feel if everyone can't have the same quality of life, then no one should have any.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 8, 2006 9:02 PM
MrLomez, I'm so glad you don't lose sleep over issues that don't concern you. However, they do concern thousands of other people who are either personally affected, or are more civic minded that you seem to be.
What on earth makes you think that even 5000 additional cars on the road at certain times is not going to make an impact? Self correcting? I'm still trying to imagine another 1000 cars on Atlantic and Flatbush Aves between the Mall and Boerum at any given time, and that is giving me the willies. 5000? Parking lot.
"These new residents are paying taxes and the Board of Ed should make sure there are enough resources." Waahh! ROTFL! When has that ever happened? Please! Why start now, when they've never been able to before?
"Once again, the new residents pay taxes and fares, so the MTA can add train cars if necessary." Uh, can you say Williamsburg? The L line has experienced a marked increase in riders since the place got hip and happening. What has the MTA done about that? Where's the increased service there? There are no plans on board to increase service to the lines around AY, in any kind of meaningful way, and I'm not just talking about at game time, either.
Someone's blocked sunlight may not mean a damn thing to you, but your arguments don't even make sense. You can be as dismissive as you want about only 3 more kids in a class, but your "facts" and figures have about as much meat to them as the shadow of Miss Brooklyn. If you want Ratner's AY, just say so, you're entitled to your opinion, as we all are. Insulting our intelligence is not necessary.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at August 8, 2006 9:04 PM
I have two kids; my wife and I work full time; we have two daycare drop-offs; and we have no car. Believe it or not, there are lots of people just like us, riding the buses and subways with their kids every day.
So please don't give me the "kids change everything" line (forgive me, Brownstoner). Anyone have tough parents or grandparents who were raised in the city?
What's the big deal with mass transit and kids? The "inconvenience"? The "germs"? The "strangers"? C'mon, you're from Brooklyn!
Posted by: Will at August 8, 2006 10:44 PM
I don't have a car and I use mass transit everywhere. That said, while it is possible and realistic to deal with mass transit if you have kids, the truth is it can be very uncomfortable, difficult and sometimes unsafe. It also puts pressure on you to plan your day around rush hours because of the crowding. And carrying strollers, with the baby in it, up and down the stairs is dangerous but done all the time. I think it's unfair to fault families who would rather drive under those circumstances. Everyone has their comfort level when it comes to their kids.
But the trade-off is the environment. I think it would be illegal on some level to say only families with kids can have cars in the city, but what would it be like if the city imposed limits on the kind of car you can own- ie, has to be built to environmental standards, must get a certain amount of mileage per gal, can't be larger than a certain size and must use alternative fuels? ANd NO HUMMERS!
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 9, 2006 10:36 AM
No need to get personal CHPu.
I'm not carrying anyone's water. I'm just trying to cut through the hysteria and the hyperbole.
As a product of NYC public schools of the 70s and 80s, please don't lecture me on class size. I'm aware of the perils, but believe these can be dealt with effectively in the medium term.
I framed the additional vehicular traffic in terms of current levels. My figures showed a 7% increase in east river bridge and tunnel traffic on game nights. I don't see a parking lot. Sorry.
As for mass transit, Williamsburg is actually an excellent example of what happens when the projects are diffuse and not centrally planned. All the medium sized developments in the 'burg have created this problem because there hasn't been planning. The AY project has long lead time and an exhaustive review process. This is how planning is supposed to work.
I can't help but hear alot of the arguments in the AY debate that one hears about zoning ordinances in leafy suburbs that ban multifamily developments. The arguments always seem to center around traffic and schools. I don't think it's an accident that the most visible leader of the anti-AY forces is from a wealthy suburban background. I'd go even farther and suggest that the most committed opposition comes from folks who didn't grow up in Brooklyn. This doesn't make their views less valid, but it tells me a bit about what has instructed their opinion.
Maybe I missed some new thinking in the urban planning world, but I always understood density to be a good thing. While there are adjustments that must be made, high density urban development is good for regional traffic, mass transit, the environment, etc.
Much of the opposition has a very suburban tone. I believe that more energy should be focused on planning, instead of opposition. Let's push for a new school. Let's push for a mass transit plan. Let's push for a traffic mitigation plan. I think we cede authority by becoming zealots.
Posted by: MrLomez at August 9, 2006 12:19 PM
Mr. Lomez- I think your approach is more on the order of an intellectual exercise, rather than a reality-based assessment of the issues.Nor does it serve your argument to assume anything about who is in opposition to AY. You cannot fit the facts to the argument- you have to fit the argument to the facts.
So far you've stated a number of stats, but no information on where they are from. Especially with traffic numbers, you seem to be laying out the best case scenario- overly optimistic and not grounded in reality.
You say:"The AY project has long lead time and an exhaustive review process. This is how planning is supposed to work."- yet all reports show very clearly that Ratner was able to use his contacts to circumvent the review process and bulldoze ahead. I don't think this is how planning is supposed to work. I wouldn't even put the blame on the developers for Williamsburg. Are suggesting everyone should crowd into a 5 block area surrounding subway stations? That's an impossibility. And the problem isn't even the number of trains- its the number of stations, and services.
Of course we should be pushing for more planning, schools, etc. But to just barrel ahead with a project of this magnitude before your ducks are in a row is only asking for trouble once it's built. Then they'll slap a few band-aids on the problem and forget about it. Planning has to be proactive, not mitigated after the fact.
High urban density is good up to a point. The your problems start to tip the other way. Environmental quality levels go down, traffic gets worse, as does mass transit, area resources are stretched to the vanishing point. And lets also not forget there is a very real psychological/stress factor to be dealt with. Studies have shown that the more crowded rats in a cage are, the more violent they become. Rat race indeed!
You make a good point about zealotry, and DDB's biggest problem has been that- their attacks have hurt, rather than helped. Yet I wonder at the deafening silence regarding Ratner and his cronies' bullying, hardball tactics from the pro-AYers.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 9, 2006 12:58 PM
I've said my piece on impact, but the anti-AYers seem to want to wrap this project in scandal. Ultimately this is a decision that was made by state and city government. If you haven't noticed, we have duly elected republican governor and mayor. That these elected officials would have a pro-development view should come as no surprise. If Freddy Ferrar had one last year, this might be a very different project, but he didn't win. The city voted overwhelmingly to reelect Bloomberg in spite of his pro-AY view. Was Bloomberg, who can buy and sell Ratner ten-times over, "bullied" into this view? Where is the failure of democracy here? There seems to be a lot of focus on the arm-twisting (which has been happening on both sides, I note), but no acknowledgement that our most powerful elected officials support the project.
I will state again, that state land use is not subject to referendum. It is subject to the executive and legislative process. You can very visibly and unambiguously block this project by passing legislation.
Posted by: MrLomez at August 9, 2006 1:47 PM
Please try to attend:
RATner Meeting
Bruce Ratner's Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Project
The Fort Greene Association & The Society for Clinton Hill
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2006, 7:00-9:00 pm
Queen of All Saints Church
Lafayette Avenue between Clermont and Vanderbilt,
enter on Vanderbilt
http://clintonhillblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/ratner-meeting.html
Posted by: LesterP at August 9, 2006 2:06 PM
MrLomez, by no means did I make this personal. I rather took exception to your rather dismissive attitude to things you seem to find unimportant, as evidenced by the following: "I have stated that I am not particularly troubled by traffic arguments anyway, since I do not consider private automobiles to be a reliable form of transportation for residents anyway." Just 'cuz you say it, don't make it so. Are you an expert on traffic and transportation issues? Where do you get your facts and figures? Bx2Bklyn is correct, this is much more than simply an intellectual exercise on cars per square mile, or somesuch. I base my opinions on living in Bklyn for 25 years and seeing the traffic in the AY area as both a pedestrian and as a driver or passenger. Does anyone remember that it took the city over 10 years to finish the streets at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Aves? That will be nothing compared to what the traffic will look like between the construction and the congestion at game time, with not only a gazillion more cars, but with also thousands more residents and sports fans in the streets and byways.
As for education, I am from a family of educators, and have heard both the horror stories as well as the stories of hope and success. In one of my mother's schools, they turned a teacher's lounge (which was itself originally a utility closet) into a classroom, because they needed the room. The closet was a wall away from a girl's bathroom, and the sound of toilets flushing, as well as the smell of strong disinfectant was present all day. That is what an overcrowded system produces, and trust me, it would not be long before stories like that start coming from local schools. Even 3 or 4 new kids IN EACH ROOM means a couple hundred new kids, all putting more wear and tear on aging buildings and systems. Maybe many of the new people in AY won't send their kids to local schools, does that mean that those who do, added to those who always have, deserve even less than what they already have? No. No. No.
Just as our esteemed gov't has no exit strategy or plan for Iraq and Afganistan, FCR's plans are sketchy at best and dismissive and condescending at worst. They and you, apparently, dismiss the opponents of the project as lefty, white ex-suburbanite NIMBY's, and of course, like anything, there is a bit of truth in that. However, the opposition to the project is made up of people from all over the spectrum, and includes elected officials. To say that Bloomberg and crew were elected by people who either want AY, or don't care, is like like judging the opposition to the US policies by the re-election of the Shrub. There is still major opposition, and more people are joining every day.
I believe that development on the AY site is both necessary and inevitable. I do not live in the shadow of the project, but I believe I will be affected by it, and I believe that the quality of life of my fellow Brooklynites is worthy of my attention and action. Community involvement in planning issues, infrastructure, affordable housing, and all of the rest should be done with the cooperation and participation of representatives of all concerned, not forced down our throats by a paternalistic, profit driven monster entity.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at August 9, 2006 2:21 PM
MrLomez- you have said your piece on impact but I have asked you more than once for the source of your traffic stats and you refuse to reply. And yes I have noticed we very unfortunately have a Republican mayor and governor. The mayor however became a Republican in order to run for office. Up to then he was a lifelong Democrat. Nothing like a man who sells out, right? There wasn't much focus at all on the AY project at that time. People had much more important worries, like Iraq, terrorism, the whittling away of women's rights and the increasingly disgusting attack on homosexuals and their rights. Bloomberg made sure to avoid mention of AY, especially since he got burned on the Westside Stadium (yay!!). But Bloomberg is also elitist, and arrogant, stating that he was elected to do what he thought best. And that is erroneous. We vote because we want someone in office who will act on our best interests.
I don't get your argument about elected officials supporting the project as if we are to accept their "wisdom" and their "honesty" as a given. It's paternalistic and foolish to expect that once a pol is elected he is free to do as he pleases. If that were the case we wouldn't need the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
As far as the failure of democracy, because the entire process was flawed and decided by persons in powerful positions with prior ties to Ratner, and the circumvention of the public review process, I think we can safely say democracy and law had nothing to do with their decisions and cronyism everything. Whether or not state land usage is subject to referendum, the point is the people are the state and it is the state which is supposed to act FOR the people, all of the people, not a select group. So when the MTA sells the air rights for a paltry 100 million or so, and the state gives Ratner huge tax abatements and money, I question who is really benefiting. So far Ratner is making out like a bandit. Please don't tell me about all the jobs and new housing.
1. Construction workers are not the only people who need jobs. When the job is over, they're gone. THe job creation for the long haul is hardly rosy for the AY- low wage scale for the most part.
2. An in-depth analysis of the subsidized housing shows maybe 900 apartments set aside for truly low income people, and the balance of the over 2000 others are subsidized for families with incomes the range from about 75,000 up to 119,000 (if I remember correctly). I know plenty of people who have raised families on that and without subsidies. If you can make that kind of money, and I make far far less, why the hell should I subsidize you? If you can't live within your means at that income level, there is something wrong with you. Life is very different at 35,000 than 100,000.
3. The amount of money Ratner paid to the MTA is more than made up for by the abatements and grants.
4. As the project strains services and roads in the area, the fixes will once again come out of the public's pocket.(Got the source of those stats for me yet?)
5. The size and scale of the project will put the AY area very close if not over the tipping point where density helps the environment and starts to impact negatively. And the impact on surrounding neighborhoods will be enormous and not for the better.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 9, 2006 2:52 PM
The stats for 70k east river crossings come from wikipeda daily crossings into manahattan between 5am and 11am.
1. Queensboro Bridge: 31,000
2. Lincoln Tunnel: 25,944
3. Brooklyn Bridge: 22,241
4. Williamsburg Bridge: 18,339
5. Queens-Midtown Tunnel: 17,968
6. Holland Tunnel: 16,257
7. Brooklyn Battery Tunnel: 14,496
8. Manhattan Bridge: 13,818
I simply add the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, Battery Tunnel and Willamsburg Bridge numbers. Arguably you could include the Queensboro and the Midtown Tunnel which I have not.
5000 is my estimate of incremental vehicle traffic based on 20,000 attendees and workers per event, 65% of whom take personal vehicles to the event and 2.5 people per car (these data are conservatively rounded figure from the FEIS report on the Yankee stadium project).
So 0.65*20,000/2.5=5,200. Some of these will be people who already drive home from manhattan through this area, so they are not incremental.
With respect to schools and mass transit, it should be acknowledged that supply of these resources is dynamic. Arguing that there aren't enough schools is like arguing there aren't enough supermarkets. There is no structural limit to supermarket capacity or school capacity. Some mass transit resources are limited, but the utilization system-wide hasn't reached historical highs. Ridership has nearly doubled in the last 10-years. Cities grow.
Posted by: MrLomez at August 9, 2006 5:07 PM
"Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and yes, as wonderful as it is, where did they get their stats? And you've used stats that you yourself guesstimated. So what you're saying is that these statistics are not from an official City source, and the numbers you've arrived at are based on your own interpretation? What qualifies you? Not to be disrespectful, MrLomez- but why are your statistics any better than the numbers quoted by DDDB?
As far as schools and supermarkets- yes- it's a dynamic resource. So what? That's possibility, not actuality. Saying there is no structural limit to school capacity is meaningless if there is no structure in the first place.So basically you haven't addressed the issue at all.
Whether or not mass transportation has reached historical highs system-wide is not the issue. The issue is how functional is it system-wide and you will find that in the outer boroughs the subway system and the bus system are far from satisfactory. The Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn are enormous in size compared to Manhattan, yet the subway system is centralized around Manhattan. In the outer boroughs, as you get further out,stations are spread further out.This leaves thousands of workers, families, students, even potential Nets fans in the position of trying to get to a station however they can and that could mean as much as 2 buses and then subway. And in general, those are usually working class and poor neighborhoods who have the stress of a daily commute that is long and difficult. Your numbers are useless because by factoring in Manhattan as if all parts of the system are equal to Manhattan, you come up with an average that looks fine on paper, and like hell in subway car. YOu can use addition when you need calculus.
Cities do grow (well... not all.)but not at an even or evenly distributed rate. Touting the Atlantic Ave. hub as the answer is simply ignoring the reality of thousands of New Yorkers who have to use a car to get food, go to work or to a Nets game because mass transit is few and far between. And depending on slick media spin (especially when its empty) still doesn't make it better.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 9, 2006 6:31 PM
Oops- that is, you can't use addition when you need calculus.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 9, 2006 7:00 PM
I'm comfortable with my numbers. The whole debate is inherently speculative and requires estimation. I don't have an econometric model up (yet), but I've tried to be conservative in my assumptions.
Much of the debate looks at infrastructure as static and fixed, which it is neither. That's addition.
Calculus acknowledges that there is adjustment. For example, the more parking you build the more traffic you will generate. I've heard plenty of hand wringing about parking shortages at AY followed by moans about traffic.
The more high income housing you build, the less strain on public schools. So complaints about a lack of affordable housing in the plan and a shortage of classrooms rings false to me.
I am trying to raise this debate to a level that acknowledges the complexity and the plannning challenges. I'm sick of the shreiks about "scale" and "context" and "Brooklyn's character" as if we could ever agree about any of that stuff.
Posted by: MrLomez at August 9, 2006 7:57 PM
"The more high income housing you build, the less strain on public schools. So complaints about a lack of affordable housing in the plan and a shortage of classrooms rings false to me."
So you are actually saying that by building more luxury housing,(with the assumption that the children therein will not attend local public schools)the problems of overcrowding of said public schools is thereby solved.
Wham, bam, boom.
Way to go! One pesky social problem solved!
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at August 9, 2006 9:33 PM
Honestly your arguments are so obscure they make no sense. "The more high income housing you build, the less strain on public schools. So complaints about a lack of affordable housing in the plan and a shortage of classrooms rings false to me." What on earth are you saying? The richer you are, the more likely you are to send your kid to a private school, not public, ergo we should build only hi income housing so as to alleviate the pressure on public schools? How does this make sense? What would you like to do with the poor and low income folk? Let them all live on the street?
The more parking, the more traffic? Parking is the end result of getting to a destination. The arena wants to be an enormous attraction- that's what will generate the traffic. Did it ever occur to you that the cause of traffic are streets too narrow or not laid out for the high density areas now being built? Sheesh- Brooklyn's street plan evolved out of roadways for horses and wagons, almost 300 years old in some places. Face it- any hi density project is going to bring in a lot of cars. Especially hi-income housing because the rich love their cars.
No one assumes that infrastructure is static- that's your opinion, but not the case. What the protest is about, is that the powers that be are trying to do as little as possible to upgrade the infrastructure to accomodate the extra strain the AY will cause in the area. And while the development hasn't happened yet, it would be a huge mistake to build it based on speculation and estimation. This is to be and too important. If speculation is the best response you have for what should be expertly researched facts, then your whole argument is invalid.
If you want to raise the level of this debate to a level acknowledging the complexity and planning challenges, then your level of response has to be much higher, and that means starting with statistics from an primary source , not wikipedia, and truly understanding the complexity and challenges.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 9, 2006 9:49 PM
oops- I meant, this is too big and important.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 9, 2006 9:51 PM
Stop dwelling on the data sources. They are not massaged to favor one view or another. The point is that AY is big project, but Brooklyn is a big place. Nothing I have seen refutes this central reality.
I am not advocating more high income housing as solution to strain on public schools, I am simply suggesting that many of the objections to the project may be at cross purposes. If you are inerested in positive correlation between parking and traffic please read the comments and reports surrounding the Yankee stadium project.
I've examined some of the AY reports and can say that there is alot of speculation about how residents and visitors will adjust to the infrastructure challenges. There is a core of economic behavior. Traffic isn't a cup that's going to overflow if you pour too much water into it. Stop with the wailing, and start being a little analytical.
Posted by: MrLomez at August 10, 2006 8:52 AM
I think anyone looking at our posts will immediately see who is being analytical and who isn't (hint: you). You've presented some of the most obscure, lame excuses for logic I have ever read. Even a high school debate team knows to use primary sources, and to stick to the point.
You make arguments such as: "The point is that AY is big project, but Brooklyn is a big place. Nothing I have seen refutes this central reality." You said absolutely nothing here, (ok- so you mastered doublespeak when you read 1984. A dubious accomplishment), and the majority of your posts are in the same vein. My suggestion to you: get real and stop thinking you can obscure your lack of facts with meaningless verbiage.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 10, 2006 9:06 AM
Hey, how about those Nets?
Posted by: yente at August 10, 2006 9:30 AM
A high school debater would also recognize that ad hominem personal attacks rarely endear you to the judges.
I have presented a consistent view that three of the core infrastructure concerns are not well founded. East river crossing data is published in the New York Times each week and my data is consistent with these numbers. Wikipedia was convenient. If you have an issue with the traffic numbers I have listed in their entirety above, please correct them promptly. My event traffic assumptions are based on both sides of the debate over the Yankee stadium project and seem realistic to me. Is 65% personal vehicle use too high or too low? Is 20,000 attendees and event workers too high or too low? Is 2.5 attendees per vehicle user too high or too low? I count at least 600-700 public and private elementary school classrooms within 2 miles of the project. Too high or too low? Are subway volume to capacity ratios currently at levels that would not accomodate the residents and event attendees at atlantic yards? How many more subway cars would the existing lines require?
I have stated my views in considerable detail. This is not a logical exercise, it is an empirical one. All I see from on the otherside is a count of congested intersections - not a particularly useful statistic out of context. The concerns of the opponents have been disturbingly unfocused and non-credible and have run from preserving the historical character of the area (absurd on its face) to doom and gloom predictions of environmental disasters. All wrapped in the shrillest voices. Lower the pitch and fight for better local schools, improved public transportation and a sustainable traffic plan that actively discourages the use of personal vehicles around the project.
Posted by: MrLomez at August 10, 2006 10:03 AM
Bx & co: it's commonly known that adding lanes of traffic increases the number of cars driving on said road. So it makes sense that adding a parking lot to the arena will encourage people to drive to the game, which is a bad idea. As for schools, just look at the wave of people moving into and out of areas all over the city to see the city cope with this over the years.
Right now there are condo's being built all over the south slope, but in fact the number of kids of schools there are not going up because (a) yuppies rarely have more than 2 kids, less then historical avg in those areas (b) families are moving out of brooklyn because they are being priced out (c) restrictions on immigration. All these forces will more than offset the AY project.
Posted by: OE-from-WT at August 10, 2006 11:01 AM
Well, OE & MrLomez- I have to say we must agree to disagree.
MrLomez- you haven't presented anything with any substance if you admit the numbers you gave are both speculation and estimation. You make odd comments such as: "The more high income housing you build, the less strain on public schools. So complaints about a lack of affordable housing in the plan and a shortage of classrooms rings false to me." and "The point is that AY is big project, but Brooklyn is a big place. Nothing I have seen refutes this central reality." Yet you claim you have presented your case clearly and in detail. I don't think so.
It's obvious no argument or fact will make you rethink your position, so its simply absurd to try. I understand your objection is that DDDB is shrill (you aren't the only one. I think it hurts them also), but you also refuse to consider there is truth in anything they say, so it's a losing proposition to debate. We will never see eye to eye.
And fyi- as far as insults go- you wrote,"Stop with the wailing, and start being a little analytical." That comment wouldn't win you debate points either.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at August 10, 2006 7:22 PM
Your final problem with my thesis is that it relies on estimation? You are being truly obtuse. Do you somehow believe you have actually participated as an equal in this exchange, and we've come to logical loggerheads? Should we take our pipes to the drawing room for a good-natured brandy by the fire - two foes well-versed in the art of rhetoric? I don't think so. Please. You've simply thrown mud at my otherwise clear exposition. We do not agree to disagree. Until you can empirically support your position with some substance you will fail to persuade me or, more importantly (I am loathe to admit), any serious decision maker. You and your ilk are staring down the barrel of a 500 page Draft EIS that finds nothing that will prevent or significantly alter the AY construction plan. Yet, you want to talk about abstract notions of size, scale and tipping points. This is not a pop philosophy exercise. Are you going to cite Malcolm Gladwell when you are called to testify?
Please read the traffic and transportation sections of a real Environmental Impact Statement for yourself. Any statements about the prospective effects of a project are based on estimates of resident, attendee and driver behavior. The percent that drive, the occupants per vehicle, even expexted attendance assumptions are hotly debated. They are not facts, they are informed conjecture. The formal AY review, insofar as there is one, will center on the minutiae of these estimates. I've proposed some estimates that I find credible in support of my all-too-clear thesis. You have offered nothing but vaguaries and contentious remarks.
Posted by: MrLomez at August 11, 2006 1:08 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.