« Wednesday Links Open Thread »

March 25, 2009

Gehry Says He Thinks Yards Won't Get Built, Then Hedges

In an interview with the Architect's Newspaper on Tuesday, starchitect Frank Gehry let this line slip about the Atlantic Yards project that he is the lead designer for: "I don't think it's going to happen." In a press release, Bruce Ratner called Gehry a "great friend" and said it was understandable that he (and others) "have concerns about this project happening in the worst economic environment since the Great Depression." Never fear, though, he said. It will get built. Gehry then responded through his publicist, saying that his original statement was "misconstrued as a prediction" about the project and that he remains "hopeful it will come to fruition." Time will tell.
Q&A: Gehry at 80 [Architect's Newspaper]
Gehry: Game Over for Nets' Atlantic Yards NY Post
Atlantic Yards Project Is Dead, Says Gehry [NY Daily News]
Atlantic Yards Project Still a 'Go' [Star Ledger]
Gehry Backs Off Comment [AY Report]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8979

Comments

Shoot me if you must, but I'm kind of glad that this may not go forward. Except that people lost their homes to eminent domain behind this foolishness. Anyone know what recourse they may have if the project truly does fold in its entirety?

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at March 25, 2009 9:02 AM

They should build a refugee camp here.

Posted by: tybur6 at March 25, 2009 9:27 AM

With Ghery design tents and yurts.

Posted by: tybur6 at March 25, 2009 9:27 AM

"Anyone know what recourse they may have if the project truly does fold in its entirety?"

A empty lot..

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at March 25, 2009 9:28 AM

Well, to be quite honest, when weighing an empty lot against that monstrosity they were going to build, I can't say I'd be disappointed with the empty lot. But, I don't live over there so that's easy for me to say.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at March 25, 2009 9:31 AM

They could make a little platform & put some crumpled aluminum foil on it & put magnifying glasses at "viewing spots" around the perimeter.

Posted by: Arkady at March 25, 2009 9:34 AM

Not to defend Ratner - but it's not really accurate to say that people "lost their homes to eminent domain" for 2 reasons. #1 - eminent domain didn't actually happen (yet). If anything they lost their homes to the threat of future eminent domain. And more importantly, #2 - It's hard to say they "lost their homes". Really they were bought out, and compensated very handsomely for the privelage. So that's their recourse. They can take the money they were paid for their homes (at the top of the market by the way) and go buy new ones.
Now I just with this atlantic yards fiasco would go away and die so we can start talking about building something relaistic on this site...

Posted by: bkre at March 25, 2009 9:44 AM

Some of those people who were 'bought out' had to take the money. They were not given a choice. It was, "We are taking this area of land and this is the amount we are giving you for it. Don't like it? Tough titties said the kitty cause the milk's too cold!" Some did not want to leave and money was not the issue. If you had lived in your beloved home for years and were happy there with no intention of or desire to ever move, would you be placated with a check in any amount? I think not.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at March 25, 2009 9:51 AM

correct, they were forced to sell their homes by the threat of eminent domain, which is the same as using eminent domain, but by a private party rather than the state.

eminent domain has been used. and is being used.

Posted by: brokeland at March 25, 2009 9:53 AM

"I don't think it's going to happen"

"misconstrued as a prediction"

Then what was it Gehry baby?

"Never fear, though, he said. It will get built...'hopeful it will come to fruition.'"

When economic forecasting fails, we have evangelism.

Will the City allow us to dry-hang our laundry on those pipes?

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at March 25, 2009 10:10 AM

No. THey could have said no and held out. Like D GOldstein did. They chose to accept the money and not wait to see what happened. And yes, if you offered me way too much money for my "beloved" home of many years, I would take it and use it to buy a much nicer home that would also soon beomce just as beloved.

I don't think you people understand the meaning of the word "forced".

Posted by: bkre at March 25, 2009 10:13 AM

to recap the appellate hearings...

the anti ratner folks pointed out that state $$ could not be used to clear slums unless ALL housing was subsidized.

the state, it appears, did an end run...

they gave $$ to ratner. ratner buys people out. ratner emptys and destroys buildings.

voila slum clearance with veiled state $$ and a not so veiled threat of eminint domain. not cool in any book. fraud in some books.

let the project die. get enough bidders for portions of the ralyard to get platform built. build quasi-organically. make everyone happy but forest city ratner.. where are they trading at today?

Posted by: bkn4life at March 25, 2009 10:20 AM

I'm not arguing the "coolness" factor. I think what happened was wrong and despicable. I just think it's a distortion of facts to claim that these poor people who accepted inflated buyouts for their apartments have no recourse. They got paid more than their apt was worth. They're doing better than most homeowners in the country right now. I'm all for giving sympathy when someone gets taken advantage of, but I think you gotta be carefull not to lump people into that category who clearly don't belong there.

Posted by: bkre at March 25, 2009 10:50 AM

Here's the thing. The brouhaha (sp?) surrounding Atlantic Yards centered around four things. 1) The designation of the site and surrounding area as BLIGHTED was completely bogus. Would anyone spend $500,000 or more for an apartment immediately adjacent to th footpring to move into a blighted area? 2) Ratner gamed us and the MTA for the site. If the MTA is really that hard up for cash, why did the accept Ratner's lower bid? Why did Ratner try to get more money from the MTA to complete the railyard rehabilitation as agreed to? Work to date is not up to the agreement. 3) Ratner ultimately used taxpayer's money to buy the property. To hedge is bet against using eminient domain, FCR acquired the properties for friendly condemnation. 4) Those who had a choice as to whether they would stay or go owned their properties. Renters got little or nothing.

Last, the community had to be very careful. Now that this thing may not get built, we cannot let Ratner have site control over this hole for the next twenty or thirty years. That's exactly how he built those two lovely malls. I would hate to think FCR could leverage the FAR on the combined lots.

Posted by: BrooklynIsHome at March 25, 2009 11:05 AM

BrooklynIsHome - I agree with your first three points. And your fourth point, while true, is irrelevent. Renters can always be kicked out of their homes by their landlords if the landlords decide not to renew their leases. That's is one of the advantages of homeownership. I'm sick and tired of people having this outsized sense of entitelment as renters. I rented for a long time and I knew that at any time my lease could not be renewed and I would get kicked out. That's like paying for a slice of pizza and demanding rights to the whole pie. If you want to be sure that you can't be kicked out easily, buy a home. If you don't, or can't afford it, then you run the risk. That is the very defintiion of the difference between owning and renting. Someone needs to give the people of Brooklyn a crash course on the ins and outs of property rights.

Posted by: bkre at March 25, 2009 12:09 PM

Not for nothing, but there is a plan for that site - and a very nice one at that, developed in collaboration with community residents and folks from Pratt. I don't know where the mock up and drawings are now, but they were in a storefront close to the site.

Posted by: Brooklyn Red at March 25, 2009 12:58 PM

One thing, bkre, is that rent stabilized tenants cannot be kicked out -- one of the protections of rent stabilization is that your landlord is obligated to offer you a renewal lease unless you are in defualt of your lease. Of course eminent domain trumps tenants' (and owners') rights.

One of Ratner's main goals in getting the use of eminent domain approved is to use it against property he owns in order to force out the rent stabilized tenants.

Really truly sick.

Posted by: babs at March 25, 2009 1:43 PM

The Unity Plan. See http://dddb.net/php/community/unity.php

Posted by: babs at March 25, 2009 1:45 PM

better yet, see http://www.unityplan.org

Posted by: brokeland at March 25, 2009 4:34 PM

« Wednesday Links Open Thread »

March 25, 2009

Gehry Says He Thinks Yards Won't Get Built, Then Hedges

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions