Ouroussoff, Tell Us How You Really Feel

i've been ambivalent, because i live in the neighborhood and i truly believe that a world-class arena with inspired architecture could have been great for this part of brooklyn. though the process was clearly far from ideal, i still believe that it will take the acumen and political savvy of something like FCR to coordinate all the working parts here and to actually get done all that is necessary before anything can get built. i believe this even though, in principle, i'd much prefer slower, more deliberate development.

i simply don't agree that sports facilities (or other large facilities) have to be the death knell to a neighborhood. pac bell park is a good example, and there are many others. and this area is much more like the neighborhoods with successful arenas than it is like the ones that do not succeed. but it seems to me that the complexes have to do something to uplift the area in order to avoid being a "black hole." the sports and other events themselves don't do it - there has to be the right kind of development and, yes, the right kind of reworking of the space - including through its architecture - to bring that "something else." a something else that can bring the area up, not down, has to give people a reason to treat the space differently - to respect it, to want to be there, to want to feel part of it, to want to locate your quality business there because good patrons will come, both during games and after. this design, plainly, is not that. i might go so far as to say it's insultingly ugly. no, i don't think it will destroy my neighborhood - it's certainly not worse than some of the crap that's already there - but i can't see it making it better.

it also seems to me that without the discipline of building the housing or other business development at the same time, the incentive for FCR to make it a welcoming or inspiring location is vastly decreased. building just the arena has always seemed to me the worst case scenario, and now it seems we are there.

that said, i believe FCR has said outright that it's the economy (through increased cost in credit) that's led them to make the switch. it doesn't make sense to say that the architecture didn't matter to supporters but that it's a bait and switch. who is being baited and switched on, then? obviously, the architecture mattered. it mattered particularly to those of us who were ambivalent but came down on the side of optimism, believing that the increase in traffic and years of construction in our neighborhood might ultimately be outweighed by the development of what currently already IS a black hole.

Posted by: i disagree at June 9, 2009 11:24 AM

i do agree with ENY that the AY area wasn't really coming back on its own, and that the idea of "joining" the neighborhoods is kind of a fiction. the mall, one hanson, the nature of atlantic ave, and the other big, unfriendly either underused or coldly developed plots on either side of atlantic between PH and FG/CH make it somewhat impossible.

but i don't agree with ENY's perspective about what a basketball arena "should" look like. the urban context of the location already gives this arena a much stronger likelihood of holistic success than arenas and stadia that are built on the outskirts of cities (the suburbs or exurban no-man's land) and realistically inaccessible by anything else other than private cars. but projects like pac bell park and coors field have absolutely relied on the space looking like something different, something to respect and enjoy. yeah, they look like *sports complexes*, and they still work. it doesn't need to be frank gehry, and maybe even shouldn't be. there are many redesigns that could do it. never say never, i suppose, but this pile looks less like a fun place i want to go than that the pathmark across the street decided it needed a few more windows.

i happen to be a basketball fan, and as a family-type person i'll be glad to have another venue for family events so that a trip to the circus or to whatever doesn't necessitate an hour subway ride. but FCR already has already revised its predictions and is now saying that the arena itself won't be profitable (again, due to increased credit costs), at least not for a long time. the success of the project, financially, aesthetically, and for the community relies on the arena bringing something more - it either needs to create intimacy itself, or inspire it through contrast. this rendering does neither.

Posted by: i disagree at June 9, 2009 12:59 PM

also agree with ENY's post at 12:47.

Posted by: i disagree at June 9, 2009 1:04 PM

i think you're partially correct, bxgrl at 1:09, in the sense that AY was designed to be different from what is currently in the footprint. i think the conclusion that it was designed to be "apart" reflects your distaste for the design - you think it would have had the effect of setting it apart, whereas i think it would have had the effect of a landmark, a transitional space that could have developed its own energy and spirit that would have been different from, but complementary to FG and PH/CH. that's a fair difference in perspective, i think, and, yes, agree to disagree.

from an urban landscape perspective, i think it would be extraordinarily difficult for PH or FG/CH to have the kind of organic growth you're talking about in the AY area and its surroundings. as i see it, the energy is moving west to east on both sides of atlantic, not north/south, and that's mainly due to large scale of atlantic avenue and the natural/built barriers it has created, particularly when contrasted with the smaller scale of crown heights and bed stuy.

i understand that some people think the way to solve this is to rebuild the area around atlantic on a smaller scale, but i personally think that is not feasible. that is why i believe that landmark construction that accepts the limitations and makes unique profit out of the benefits of that particular area is the best approach. however, i think it will only benefit the community if it doesn't repeat the mistakes of the what's currently there, and instead works to create intimate (or, less fluffily, a sense of ownership and belonging) spaces for actual people. a couple of street trees just isn't going to do it.

Posted by: i disagree at June 9, 2009 1:30 PM