A Look Back at the Atlantic Yards Groundbreaking

Note, this is just the federal law suit, which was filed before the State -I guess they thought they could skip the lower courts. Note the magistrate - who is not the judge, says that "there is a real dispute between the parties." So this is not the end of the story.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 23, 2007 8:39 PM

Yes, it is the end of the story. Recommendations from magistrates are always accepted and a condemnation proceeding, once begun in NYS, is highly unlikely to be stopped. Technically, this is still alive, but in reality, it's over.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 25, 2007 8:56 AM

SuperAnon -- you are very poorly informed. This is a boondoggle -- massive public subsidies with little public benefit. What are we going to get for all the PUBLIC money that is going to be poured into Atlantic Yards? No park, a lot of traffic, a handful of apartments for low income tenants relative to the thousands of market rate apartments (the latter of which could have been built without public subsidies), an "interim" open air parking lot for a thousand vehicles and a construction time frame that's likely to extend to two decades. These buildings are going to tower over and overwhelm the existing neighborhoods on all sides and they will do nothing to knit together Prospect Heights and Fort Greene in the way that a better designed project could. 22 acres of real estate is being developed and yet the community has had absolutely nothing to say about it. There's is an existing land use process that was circumvented in order to push this thing through without consulting any of us who live in this borough -- except those community groups that Ratner either created out of whole cloth or bribed.

People like you act as if the choice is between no development or AY style development. In fact, there are other models. Those of us who are anti-AY, and for whom this is a sad day indeed, are not against development. We'd just like our development to be smarter and more democratic.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 25, 2007 1:28 PM

as long as CCGH and Puca are against it - I am for it

Posted by: Anonymous at February 25, 2007 1:31 PM

"some will be mowing the lawn" :-(

What's really sad to me more than the eminent domain issues are the supporters of the Slaverena shucking and jiving about the jobs they're getting and not careers. Then it's announced that stadium will be named after Barclay. And Barclay will use his his stolen money to repair basket ball courts thru out Brooklyn instead of repairing schools or opening up career centers.

How naive we are.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 25, 2007 8:22 PM

"8 acres is 8 more acres than exist today"

You could just as well say that 4 acres would be 4 more acres than exist today. Your argument does not address the fact that by building a housing tract twice as dense as the densest housing tract in the United States, AY will actually REDUCE the open space per person ratio of the surrounding neighborhood below what it is today.

Government property is involved here. Government power is involved here (eminent domain). So why isn't the government following it's own policy vis a vis open space ratios?

"central park is a "courtyard” too"

I'm guessing you're not actually so stupid as to think this is a good argument in favor of the type of open space (and in your earlier post you called it a "public park" -- why the change?) that AY will bring.

"Guess what, you live in the biggest city in the world. If you don't like density I’m not sure why you live in New York."

I never said anything about not liking density. But what's the limit? Or is there no limit in your opinion? Wouldn't TWICE AS DENSE as any existing development count, in most people's book as beyond some kind of limit? Look, I'd be delighted to see 12 story buildings lining 4th Avenue all the way to Sunset Park. I'd be delighted to see 16 story buildings lining Atlantic Avenue all the way to East New York. What I'm not happy about is a 40 story building at the corner of Dean and Carlton.

affordable - you are damn right the middle class needs subsidies. a teacher and a firefighter with 2 kids who combine make about $100k would qualify for this housing. you bet i think they deserve it.

I disagree. I think that a couple with a combined income of $100K can rent an apartment or save to buy.

" You said, "The vast majority of the so-called affordable apartments are not even slated to be built until "Phase 2", which might not happen for 10-15 years"...so, what is your point? do you want density immediately or do you hate density?

I don't want a housing tract that is twice as dense as any other housing tract in the United States. And I want a REAL park as part of the development of 22 acres. AND, if there is going to be affordable housing, I want it built AT THE SAME TIME as the luxury housing, not 20 years later.

"Yes, thousands of high paying union construction jobs. what is wrong with that? How many projects are being slapped together right now in Brooklyn not using Union labor, but using the cheapest labor they can find?"

I support unions. I truly don't see how that's in conflict with opposing AY. I support mid-rise construction in the AY footprint and I would be happy if it were done with union labor.

"I don’t know exactly, but just think about it, sure some will be selling hot dogs, others will be managing buildings, plumbers, electricians, fixing elevators, mowing the lawns, office jobs, not to mention I'm pretty sure that having thousands of more people in the area may help some of the local businesses."

Like I said, just because an arena will generate a certain number of jobs doesn't mean that the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic is the best place for it -- ie, that the best place for it is the busiest intersection in Brooklyn.

Even if the consensus is that Flatbush and Fifth Avenue is a great place for an arena, where the planning around traffic and parking? Many analyst of the environmental impact statement pointed out possible ways to ameliorate traffic that should be part of the plan.

As for whether having thousands of more people in the area will be good for business -- wouldn't those thousands of more people spread out along 4th Ave and spread out along Atlantic and as part of additional development throughout Brooklyn also be good for business? Isn't this a bit of a zero sum game? Or do you believe that Atlantic Yards will induce people to move to NYC who would not have otherwise?

Finally -- "mowing the lawns"???

"You have an entire newspaper dedicated to trying to stop the project (the Brooklyn Papers, who really has lost any credibility it ever had with it\s complete lack of journalistic integrity), you have had articles written like every other day in the daily papers."

There is a small local FREE paper that covers AY. There ARE NOT "articles every other day in the daily papers." The New York Times has had very flawed coverage.

"People have voiced their concerns. Questions have been asked. Accretions have been made and rebuked and made again, from all of it changes have been made from what I have read. I don’t know about heights, and what not but sure seems like there have been a lot concessions on both sides."

Thanks for admitting that you don't know about heights. Now perhaps you might admit that you actually don't know anything about "a lot of concessions on both sides", because the fact is that there haven't been any concessions by FCRC. They are building exactly the project they proposed in 2003. And, since you are apparently a supporter of AY, it might behoove you to "know something about heights."

"at the end of the day these same politicians believe the benefits outweigh the concerns. Not to mention there are even more outside of the area that do not want any changes, which again proved what a NIMBY issue this is. Hell, even your fearless reporter and leaders (oder and goldstein) said this whole thing would be fine in Coney Island...in other words, it's great, just not in my backyard."

I don't know which politicians you are referring to. Bloomberg and Pataki wanted this thing. Marty Markowitz (who is basically a clown) was happy to be a booster. What other politicans believe that the benefits outweight the concerns? And why does any politician have the right to completely by-pass existing City land use regulations, which mandate a very different sort of process than AY went through?

As for the NIMBY issue and Coney Island -- here you can only be referring to the arena. There are reasons to put an arena at the AY location and there are reasons to put it in Coney Island. Was there ever a public debate about the pros and cons of each? And where is the plan to make the AY site workable in terms of transit and traffic? If we are going to have a "transit-oriented" arena, then where are the transit-oriented plans? Lots of things have been proposed (you can read about them on the Brooklyn Speaks website). But again, because the City land use process was by-passed for this project, there is no leverage on the developer or on the City to adopt these proposals.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 26, 2007 11:19 AM

D-O-N-E-D-E-A-L!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2007 7:58 PM