« Brainiacs Take Brooklyn Open Thread »

December 16, 2008

Atlantic Yards: Beneficiary or Victim of Economy?

Reason number 14 to love New York: "Because sometimes immense, gratuitous, noncontextual acts of real-estate ego don’t pan out." Those adjectives belong to New York magazine, pointing out that Ratner's "$4.2 billion, 22-acre combination of residential towers and office buildings, anchored by a basketball arena for the Nets, was supposed to completely transform downtown Brooklyn—with seemingly little thought given to what it might do to the already paralyzed intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues." Though the lawsuits against the project "never got any real traction," they did indeed delay the project, they write, until the market changed. "At the moment, the old neighborhood is winning. Score two points for entropy." Is this a victory for opponents? A pit-stop on the way to development? Construction may be a while off, but demolition is long underway.
Because Sometimes Immense, Gratuitous, Noncontextual Acts Of Real-estate Ego Don’t Pan Out [New York]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7638

Comments

Although there has been demolition and abandonment in the margins. AY was supposed to be built on a platform over the rail yards. All that's there now is air!

Posted by: rf at December 16, 2008 9:21 AM

Dear, would you please take that project off the kitchen table and put it somewhere? ...I don't know where, just somewhere else, because it's dinnertime and we have to set the table. Now that the school fair is over, frankly, and everyone's seen it, you might want to just put it in the recycling, or give it to your little brother to play with.

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at December 16, 2008 10:19 AM

Brenda, very funny.

as for the NY Mag pied, lawsuits shouldn't be discussed in the past tense. there are 3 pending suits.

Posted by: brokeland at December 16, 2008 10:22 AM

NY Mag PIECE, not pied, of course.

Posted by: brokeland at December 16, 2008 10:27 AM

As long as ratner has to play with his own money, the deal is dead as it ought to be.

As long as the opposition has lawsuits up their sleeve this will remain so.

I smell a class action suit coming regarding arbitrary rules for blight determination that gracie mansion wouldnt pass.

When they want to file that one, ill jump in also as it impacts EVERYONE in the city.

Posted by: bkn4life at December 16, 2008 10:33 AM

Very funny Brenda, you are on a roll today. This is the truest thing NY Mag has said in a while.

Seeing the model just makes me wonder even more than when they first unveiled it - what was Frank Gehry thinking? Sometimes when the idea well is dry, walk away. I just picture him sketching a couple of ideas, not liking them and balling them up to do a Nets-like toss into the wastebasket. The paper misses, rolls on the floor against the basket. Gehry looks, jumps up, and screams, "that's it! That's the design for AY!." Sheesh!

Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 16, 2008 10:35 AM

Brenda, my cat ate the homework- after doing unspeakable things to it. I apologize for the inconvenience and will remake it. It will be a better design next time and look more like real architecture than crushed pieces of paper and ups boxes. And I won't even charge you for materials this time. After I take the cat to the vet- he seems kinda sick at the moment.

-brucie ratner

Posted by: bxgrl at December 16, 2008 10:37 AM

Frankly if it were just the Miss Brooklyn tower and the arena I could live with it. It would still be non contextual but Gehry is never contextual and those two buildings are the best of the lot. Would at least be interesting/eye catching.

Posted by: wasder at December 16, 2008 10:39 AM

bkn4life you wrote:

I smell a class action suit coming regarding arbitrary rules for blight determination that gracie mansion wouldnt pass.

When they want to file that one, ill jump in also as it impacts EVERYONE in the city.

----------

That blight challenge is pending a decision from the appellate division. The account of the Sept. 17 courtroom argument is here:

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2008/09/in-appeal-of-case-challenging-ay.html

So, it has been filed. If you would like to jump in, that is still possible by helping with the legal fees for the community-funded suit. Just visit:

http://www.dddb.net/donate

Posted by: DDDB at December 16, 2008 10:44 AM

Oops- I see MM also got the crushed paper idea :-). Gehery was a real disappointment this time. I know many of his buildings have problems with construction, but some of them are just so spectacular. I saw one rendering of the aena that really made it look incredible but the overall design and concept- ugh.

No one wants a hole in the ground, but Ratner's project was really much more about ego, than intelligent civic design. If the area has to wait awhile longer for the right project, so be it. Whatever goes up there, we'll be living with for a long, long time so it needs to be right for the area and the city.

Posted by: bxgrl at December 16, 2008 10:44 AM

dddb,

i repectfully disagree that the final nail in the coffin has been filed. you have done good work and it may be enough. but for my money, there is more awaitin the rat.

Posted by: bkn4life at December 16, 2008 10:47 AM

Instead of reading Brownstoner, I think I'll pick up one of these New York Magazines I'm hearing so much about. Seems they have some very interesting articles.

Posted by: noah at December 16, 2008 10:57 AM

actually wasder, i was thinking that also-but he seems to have drastically altered Miss Brooklyn, unless I'm mistaken.

Posted by: bxgrl at December 16, 2008 11:12 AM

Look, I don't like the look of the AY buildings either... but can someone please tell me what would be contextual in that space? It's the edge of P.H. brownstones, ratty Flatbush storefronts, 4th ave restaurants with permanent garbage in front, the Ratner shopping center monstrosity and the most phallic high rise (W'berg Savings) in the entire world.

Posted by: havelc at December 16, 2008 11:47 AM

havelc,

how about no special zoning?
how about dont demap streets?
how about no spot zoning?
how about free-market development?

Posted by: bkn4life at December 16, 2008 11:59 AM

How about brownstone townhouses and low-rise (non-Scarano) buildings?

Posted by: cmu at December 16, 2008 12:07 PM

But what happens now? Will Ratner begin selling off bits of the property to smaller developers, a la BK Developers? Or Boymelgreen? Or will the land lay fallow and become a dumping ground for mattresses and old Christmas trees? Or maybe homeless shanty towns, a la Tompkins Square Park circa 1986? Will responsible development prevail? Can this fiscal crisis and ongoing lawsuits convince Ratner to build contextually and responsibly? I am not advocating Ratner-style development, no, no, not at all, but really would like to know--what are we in for?

Posted by: ctinbklyn at December 16, 2008 12:09 PM

bkn4life:

There is no need for "rezoning" as the land is/will be state property. City zoning laws do not apply to land owned by the state of nation. Spot rezoning applies to the growth of zoning districts (i.e. you can build at the higher density if your zoning abuts a higher density zone) and has no relevance here.

As has been said countless times, the demapping is needed to accommodate the design constraints of the decking. It is not just to piss off people like you.

As for the free-market issue, I would normally agree - the problem is the the train yard. If it was land, I'd say you are 100% right. The train yard complicates matters however, so it's not that easy.

Posted by: Polemicist at December 16, 2008 12:17 PM

Polemicist: The land is not state property. If one day it become state property, then you are correct, the zoning override by the state overrides the city zoning regulations and no rezoning required. But, if Atlantic Yards does not happen, and Ratner wants to develop the non rail yard properties, he'd have to get a city rezoning.

The demapping has nothing to do with the decking. the demapping has to do with the superblocking. Also, they will not be demapped, they would be condemned by eminent domain just like the private properties.

bkn4life wrote:

"i repectfully disagree that the final nail in the coffin has been filed. you have done good work and it may be enough. but for my money, there is more awaitin the rat."

not saying at all that the "final nail is in the coffin." That is not the case whatsoever. What the comment said is that you were saying you'd be interested in a lawsuit challenging the blight finding, and that suit has been filed.

more about it here:
http://dddb.net/FEIS/appeal/index.php

Posted by: DDDB at December 16, 2008 12:33 PM

maybe next time marty markowitz, bloomberg and the MTA decide to give valuable public land and a boatload of subsidies to their pal Bruce Ratner or some other random crony, they should insist on an ironclad schedule for him to actually build whatever white elephant they have in mind.
just a suggestion. . .

PS-- if you're mad about paying $2.50 or $3 to ride the subway, think about whether the MTA should try to cut a better deal with Ratner or the next big-bucks con man who wants to get public land on the cheap.

Posted by: ontheparkway at December 16, 2008 12:36 PM

If the City invests in prepping that land for substantial development, isn't it likely that they can then auction it off whole or in pieces for more reasonable development? As a business proposition it doesn't seem that risky for the City. Waiting around for a big developer to promise (lightly) to develop the whole parcel before investing in remediating the land seems silly to me. What am I missing?

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at December 16, 2008 12:36 PM

slow pain instead of quick pain. antiAY=antiSensibility

FCR > lisa

Big Daddy Kane >> Kanye

Posted by: BrooklynLove at December 16, 2008 12:41 PM

Globabl Fiscal Crisis >>>>>> FCR

Posted by: brokeland at December 16, 2008 12:49 PM

i agree with dddb,

railyards iffy, outside, including streets, not so iffy. and i love the carve out of the daily news plant. just begs to be a part of the process.

even so, that zoning doesnt apply to the state should be a good one in court. win, lose or draw, the fireworks will be delightful. and dddb, lets just say that there are a few people whom the existing lawsuits do not represent who havent had their day in court. just because you filed, doesnt make everyone in the city a party in interest.

fwiw, i may be using odd terminology as IANALAIDWTBO (I am not a lawyer and i dont want to be one).

Posted by: bkn4life at December 16, 2008 1:04 PM

Brooklyn Chicken, you are not missing out anything other than thinking our elected leaders act responsibly.

btw, the parceling you are referring to is the principle behind the UNITY PLan to develop the yards.

see: http://unityplan.org/process.html

Posted by: brokeland at December 16, 2008 1:29 PM

brokeland = sheep.

knowledge > brokeland.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at December 16, 2008 2:07 PM

"At the moment, the old neighborhood is winning."

How, exactly? The funny thing is, there isn't any "affordable housing" in the immediate area presently, unless you're talking rent control. I lived in an two-bedroom apartment at 521 Dean Street for four years in the late 1990s and paid up to $1,650 per month, which I thought was relatively cheap. The Ratner plan was far from perfect. I agree, some of the buildings looked ridiculous, and I'm also aware of the difficulties with some of the architect's buildings. Also, it's debatable whether or not the afforable housing in that plan would have ever been built. But the present state of things ensures there won't be any affordabe housing there in the forseeable future. I really don't see a "winner." Just the same hole in the ground I've been looking at since I was a kid.

Posted by: East New York at December 16, 2008 3:15 PM

"Also, it's debatable whether or not the afforable housing in that plan would have ever been built. But the present state of things ensures there won't be any affordabe housing there in the forseeable future."

Why make that a point in your argument? affordable housing is really important, but everyone pretty much acknowledges that Ratner was playing fast and loose on that one.

It wasn't that Ratner's plan was far from perfect- it was unworkable in so many ways. Why put up something that causes more problems, more crowding and more strain on the infrastructure, when a little more forethought and site consideration would make it a real asset?

Posted by: bxgrl at December 16, 2008 3:35 PM

and east new york...

others are taking up the fight you could not possible have won prior.

your children will be a winner if the city's budget is not boondoggled for this travesty.

its been a railyard for 100 years. a year or two more till ratner is out is a small price to pay for sensible - and not necessarily small - development.

Posted by: bkn4life at December 16, 2008 3:37 PM

"Why make that a point in your argument?"

Why not?? I paid a lot of rent to live there. I didn't have the benefit of rent control, either. I was paying market rate, a lot of money for me. I culd have liced somewhere cheaper, but I felt it was important, as a single parent, to live in the best neighborhood I could afford at the time. I KNOW I would have appreciated some lower-cost options in that area at the time.

I really can't understand the problem. The site is adjacent to Brooklyn's downtown, over a major tranportation network and is at its center undeveloped. Yes, there would have been big traffic snarls, a lot like the streets around Times Square or Rockefeller Center. But this is NYC! What's new about crowded streets?? I really think we could handle what comes - we always have. But, I'm not going to dedicate my life to fussing over it, either. It won't be like I'm mising anything!

bkn4lfe, can you provide reasons why "your children" will be a winner? Really, why do you say this? I'd like to hear your explanation.

Posted by: East New York at December 16, 2008 4:03 PM

Dunce > BrooklynLove

Posted by: brokeland at December 16, 2008 4:18 PM

ENY- not sure what you're answering to. affordable housing that might or might not be built isn't a plus for AY. Only because it wasn't guaranteed.

the other point is that "affordable housing" sounds great but when a part of it is set aside for those making 100,000, I have a serious problem with subsidizing it. And if you remember, the affordable housing component for AY was pretty loosely defined in that respect. I make far far less than 100,000- I have never qualified for affordable housing. Why should AY be allowed that?

Posted by: bxgrl at December 16, 2008 4:43 PM

ENY,

Less debt for your children to erase and less profit for the Cleveland based development firm. Ask Cleveland how they feel?

Better yet...

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/08/forest_city_officials_support.html

In short, the Robert Moses era is over. No need to substitute a private developer for the public one. In fact we should re-introduce public shaming on this one. Didn't we elect Obama on the premise of no more of the the same old same old?

WE should all be aware of this type of shenanigans if we wannt a better Brooklyn, not necessarily a super-sized Brooklyn.

Just because the fight is ugly and possibly futile doesnt mean it shouldnt be fought.
Cue the Maryland 400. They should be rolling over in their graves about now.

http://www.somdnews.com/stories/053106/entefea173542_32080.shtml

Posted by: bkn4life at December 16, 2008 4:47 PM

"ENY- not sure what you're answering to. affordable housing that might or might not be built isn't a plus for AY. Only because it wasn't guaranteed."

I didn't say it was a plus. I said that ironically, there isn't any "affordable housing" in the area now, and the stall/defeat/whatever of the AY plan guarantees one thing - there won't be any built there in the near or medium-term future. Also, as you said, PART of the plan would have been set aside for those making $100K. Part, if I recall correctly was for folks making less than that.

Bkn4life, I do care about the debt my kids take on (indirectly) through city projects, but I don't care if a "Cleveland-based company" or any developer for that matter - makes money. This is America - developers are in business to make money, which is OK. I agree there shouldn't be a Robert Moses-style blank check, but I don't agree that's exactly what happened here. And I don't necessarily have a problem with a "super-sized Brooklyn" in this relatively small area of a very large borough. As I said earlier, it's on the edge of the downtown directly proper, with links to transportation. Where else would you put a large project in NYC?

Posted by: East New York at December 16, 2008 5:22 PM

ENY -

its not about making money, its about making obscene money based on back room deals that are still getting uncovered daily.

if ratner lived in the area and his kids grew up there I would be much more willing to, as you are doing, look the other way.

As for a blank check, check out http://www.dddb.net and http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/

this project is nothing but a billion dollar blank check. how on earth do you see an arena owned by the city where every single dollar goes to the developer. look at the barclays 400 million and not a dime to the city.

just because ratner approached city official doesnt mean he gets a pass on everything.

let him risk his own $$, not ours. especially with the minimal upside for the city.

and just because developers are in the business of making money doesnt give them a pass on zoning, due process, etc.

put a large project there, but not a tumor.

read "the geography of nowhere" and understand your fate if you choose to ignore that which confronts you here.

/end rant

Posted by: bkn4life at December 16, 2008 5:50 PM

In a place where the infrastructure could be adequately expanded to alleviate the present day bottlenecking that makes Atlantic Ave a parking lot at certain times of the day, and where packing that many more people into that small a space won't put more of a strain on the surrounding neighborhoods. I confess- I don't know where that would be but I do know that rush hour at the Atlantic Ave. station is already hellacious. As is traffic.

Yes- part was for people making less than that. My objection is to why people who are making 100,000 need housing subsidies? IMHO- they don't. Whereas those who make half of that or less certainly do. I do- it's a struggle for single people to make ends meets. food is more expensive, I don't get the same tax breaks, I don't get the same beneficial return on my tax dollars (no car, no kids) which pay for roads and schools for example. Now I should see my taxes go to help those with 100,000 incomes find a nice place to live?

More than that, Ratner offered "affordable housing" under pressure. He left himself an out also, so that he could build off site. If he ever got around to doing it. So since we know all that, worrying about the affordable housing that isn't getting built doesn't really bolster your argument.

Being anti-AY doesn't automatically make us NIMBY. we're fighting for good civic planning that's sustainable and realistic. Superblocks, supersized- they're great for Midtown Manhattan but as residential neighborhoods, they're awful.They're dehumanizing.

Posted by: bxgrl at December 16, 2008 5:53 PM

brokeland says "Dunce > BrooklynLove"

sheep confirmed, thanks for playing.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at December 17, 2008 8:06 AM

« Brainiacs Take Brooklyn Open Thread »

December 16, 2008

Atlantic Yards: Beneficiary or Victim of Economy?

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions