« Today on the Forum Closing Bell: Mini-Golfing in Bushwick »
June 11, 2009
Quote of the Day
The final dots that need to be connected are left unconnected by Ourossoff. Bait-and-switchers don't just bait-and-switch once, it is a pattern. And if Ratner's Gehry bait-and-switch is stunning, so is the bait-and-switch on "affordable" housing, "publicly accessible open space," job creation, commercial space, reneging on a contract with the MTA, and changing the project timeline from 10 years to, unofficially "decades" and officially 6 years to build just the arena according to state financing documents. Atlantic Yards itself is a monument to bait-and-switch.
— by DDDB in Ratner Cans Gehry For Good
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10153
Comments
I think some of this righteous anger should be redirected at targets we can actually affect: our elected politicians. I'm voting the bums out, because it annoys -no, infuriates me that my tax dollars get wasted in such an obvious way. They should at least have the decency to produce better smoke and mirrors about the public interest aspect of such sweetheart deals.
Posted by: Maly at June 11, 2009 3:44 PM
on the other hand it could also be a symbol of how difficult it is to get projects built in Brooklyn. Especially ambitious projects that can be slowed down indefinitely by lawsuit after lawsuit. It is unrealistic to think that a proposal will remain unchanged for year after year and lawsuit after lawsuit. Things change during that lapse of time.
Only government-funded projects can withstand years and years of delay, market-driven projects are subject to the ebb and flow of financial circumstances.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at June 11, 2009 3:44 PM
Ah yes, another day on Brownstoner. Let's see, what do we have today...
-an article bashing Scarano;
-another article bashing Ratner (what is this, the 314th in that series?);
-for good measure, in the thread about the Cobble Hill condo conversion, we have nostalgia about how today's developers just can't measure up to the philanthropy of Alfred White.
Nauseating.
Posted by: benson at June 11, 2009 3:53 PM
Oh, and I forgot to add...
....when a developer actually takes the time to blog about what it takes to build something (Third and Bond) the armchair generals here have nothing to say, except offering snark.
Mr. B: proud of what you have wrought?
Posted by: benson at June 11, 2009 3:59 PM
Benson, I am sure you would admire consistency if it were in agreement with your opinions. To expect people who love traditional brownstones to also love cheap Fedder/brick jobs is an exercise in bitterness.
Posted by: Maly at June 11, 2009 4:01 PM
Maly;
I have no idea what you are talking about. Neither Hudson (the developer of 3rd and Bond) nor Scarano specialize in "Fedder" buildings.
Posted by: benson at June 11, 2009 4:04 PM
OH SHUT UP DDDB- You are an idiot. you are a waste of space. what a bunch of horse sh*t. you have contributed to maintaining the sink hole on Atlantic Avenue. you are the opposite of useful!
why take your time and spend it prevent progress? you need therapy.
please you your apparent limitless energy to produce something instead of babble!
yuck yuck yuck to this retarded comment.
GROSS!!!
Posted by: wine lover at June 11, 2009 4:04 PM
I wasn't alluding to these particular developers, or even THAT architect. Just pointing out a more general point, that to complain that people on Brownstoner dislike Ratner or Scarano or any developers of very cheap+ugly buildings is like complaining of the rain in England.
It doesn't seem to me the developers of Third and Bond fit in that category at all. They seem to be taking pains to develop a solid, well-thought building. No Fedder builder would start a blog for Brownstoner.
Posted by: Maly at June 11, 2009 4:17 PM
When a project sidesteps and sweetheart-deals its way past the normal review process, then you get lawsuits from the public shut out of the process. Do the people who are blaming DDDB for this state of affairs really think that ambitious projects such as this should be rushed through without public oversight and that valid concerns about the surrounding infrastructure - traffic, schools, etc, etc. should go unaddressed because otherwise nothing "ambitious" will ever get built? Bruce Ratner is no Ayn Rand hero, guys. And asking hard questions of this project (and getting unsatisfactory answers) is not knee-jerk NIMBY-ism.
City Hall's lack of attention to the new infrastructure needed for all the new development it's championed is starting to have real consequences in Lower Manhattan and elsewhere, overflowing kindergartens being one example - do you think this project would have been an exception?
Also, we'll all soon be paying higher subway fares and waiting even longer for the F train to arrive, all while the MTA gives FCR an 80% discount upfront. That's not the inevitable result of an unfairly delayed project, that's sheer chutzpah from the powers-that-be who concocted this farce in the first place.
Posted by: petunia at June 11, 2009 4:26 PM
Petunia- agree!! The idea that anyone who wants public funding, sweetheart deals and tax breaks for a massive project all the while expecting no one would dare oppose them has got to be living with their head in the sand. Blaming DDDB for Ratner's problems is just blowing smoke over the fact that Ratner and his pals tried to steamroller over us while expecting New Yorkers to pay for it. If he didn't want feedback or controversy, he should have found the private funding to pay for it.
Posted by: bxgrl at June 11, 2009 4:36 PM
Petunia and Maly;
I might be more inclined to believe what you say if I saw ANY development receive positive treatment here. If someone loves brownstones, that wonderful - I like them too. However, I fail to see where admiration of brownstones translates into the constant derision for developers seen on these pages.
With regard to "Fedder" homes: I once challenged Mr. B to go out and interview one of the builders of these homes, to see what "drivers" they are under. "Fedder" homes are built by 100's of small builders in this city. So,in order to improve this situation, one can do two things:
-one can, as Mr. B. does, pretend that these 100's of builders collude to produce this stuff. Yes, 100's of independent builders in the NY area are infected with some type of malice in their heart, and - don't you know - they all come up this stuff.
-one can examine the constraints and drivers they face, be they economic, regulatory, whatever, so that postive changes can be made.
The latter approach is not taken. No, it's much more snarky fun to preach to the choir about these "Horror Shows"
Posted by: benson at June 11, 2009 4:38 PM
Petunia lists all the reasons against development and progress. Although I understand this is the fashionable position at the moment it should be noted that building a public stadium and large mixed-use complex diretly over a mass transit hub is precisely the sort of redevelopment advocated by enlightened planners and environmentalists. It is not as if the proposal was to be sited on a residential street in the center of Park Slope or in Fort Greene Park. The outrage was not commesurate with the quality of the proposal. But the public does not differentiate between good and bad; they just want nothing built anywhere at any time. This is a knee-jerk reaction that is not in the best interests of the future of the Borough. I say it is a shame that the original project was not able to be built, perhaps scaled back in a reasonable way. There is too much negativity regarding new buildings and modern architecture in Brooklyn. One would think this was a backwoods community in Vermont seeking to preserve its rural character. Public input is fine as far as it goes but it can be as often hysterical and ridiculous as it can be legitimate and rational. The process should be able to discriminate between the two extremes.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at June 11, 2009 4:44 PM
"-one can examine the constraints and drivers they face, be they economic, regulatory, whatever, so that postive changes can be made."
Why don't you answer the call. If you're so convinced, show us why it's impossible to do better.
Actions not words!
Posted by: TownhouseLady at June 11, 2009 4:45 PM
Benson,
You're conflating two issues. One is moral outrage at people like Scarano and Ratner who cut corners or otherwise try to beat the system; the other is a mix of aesthetics and concern for safety, which drives the broad disdain for Fedders buildings. We have had plenty of nice things to say about some developments--Toren and Schermerhorn House both leap to mind, and there have been countless others (Third and Bond certainly appears to be on its way to being a nice project)--but it is true that in the majority of cases poor taste and a lack of creativity conspire with budget short-cuts to create eye sores and financial disaster for anyone ignorant enough to buy into them. It may seem to you to be a bit of a snobby view, but the developers who are doing this hit-and-run slap jobs are worthy of our and everyone else's derision. Have you driven through parts of Bed Stuy and Bushwick lately and seen the crap that's been built in the last five years that's either abandoned, half-finished or looks twenty years old already? These communities don't deserve it. There has to be room for criticism in your angry world of free market populism, doesn't there?
Posted by: brownstoner at June 11, 2009 4:53 PM
Maly,
Which politicians exactly do you plan to vote out of office? Pataki -- the main culprit -- is long gone. And most of the other officials responsible for approving Atlantic Yards -- the members of the ESDC -- are not elected. In fact, not one elected official in Brooklyn had anything to do with Atlantic Yards (unless you count Marty Markowitz, who is a proponent, but doesn't have any actual power concerning this project). That's one of the biggest problems with AY. The people of Brooklyn are totally disenfranchised when it comes to development like this.
Posted by: Lesloaf at June 11, 2009 4:54 PM
THL;
If you go through my posts, you will see that I have done PRECISELY that. Here are just a couple:
-one of the biggest constraints these builders face is the requirement for on-site parking. Given that these buildings cannot pull in enough dollars to justify an underground garage, they driveways are put out front.
-these buildings are not at a price point to justify central A/C. Hence, through-the-wall AC "Fedder" sleeves are required.
-their price points require that they use materials from the derided "Home depot" stock.
-the city's building code is the toughest in the nation, and doesn't discriminate between low-cost or higher-end housing.
I am not an architect or designer, so I don't know a solution. What I am suggesting is that the appropriate folks be invited to discuss possible solutions, instead of armchair generals engaging in a combination of snark, derision and holier-than-thou "developers are greedy" preaching. I'd like to learn something from this site again. The conversation is becoming trite.
Posted by: benson at June 11, 2009 4:54 PM
There's absolutely no reason that the facade of a fedders building needs to look as out of context as it always does. If you believe that then you know nothing about windows, bricks, etc. A little architectural though goes a long way.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 11, 2009 4:55 PM
Granted these are in Jersey City but they're new construction:
http://www.hhrealtycorp.com/jerseycityrealestateforsale/index.php?option=com_cmsrealty&Itemid=26&action=listingview&listingID=40&cmsrealty=user
and this...
http://www.libertyharbor.com/townhouses.php#
Posted by: TownhouseLady at June 11, 2009 4:57 PM
"There has to be room for criticism in your angry world of free market populism, doesn't there?"
My, my ,my we are getting a bit touchy there.
Posted by: benson at June 11, 2009 4:58 PM
"The outrage was not commesurate with the quality of the proposal. But the public does not differentiate between good and bad; they just want nothing built anywhere at any time. This is a knee-jerk reaction that is not in the best interests of the future of the Borough. .... Public input is fine as far as it goes but it can be as often hysterical and ridiculous as it can be legitimate and rational. The process should be able to discriminate between the two extremes."
I think you're saying two conflicting things. If the public does not discriminate between good and bad, and only respond with kneww-jerk reactions, how do you explain all the public support Ratner did get? And if we can't discriminate, how is it you say we can be legitimate and rational as often as hysterical and ridiculous?
It has always been AY supporters' method to ignore what anti-AY people are complaining about. Knee-jerk response: NIMBYISM! I have yet to hear and pro AYer address the many legitimate complaints and concerns the public has. The reaction runs from patriarchical condescension to name-calling to blame, but never to considering the very real concerns of the public regarding density, infrastructure, cost, size, etc. And please don't try to use the community agreements signed with Acorn and other activists as an idication of Ratners concern for the community. It was a cynical attempt to manipulate and divide the community.
So while "public input may be fine as far as it goes," if the public is putting money into it, it has a right to input.
Posted by: bxgrl at June 11, 2009 5:00 PM
THL;
Do you really want to compare Cadillac's with Chevy's?
Posted by: benson at June 11, 2009 5:05 PM
THL- those are great! Wow- we New Yorkers should hang our heads in shame. So explain to us, benson why Jersey can do that and we can't?
Posted by: bxgrl at June 11, 2009 5:06 PM
I agree with Minard Lafever. This is the logical place for a project of this sort, and although some of their concerns are legitimate, the anti-AY, DDDB forces have, in my view, undermined their argument with unnecessary personal attacks on Ratner, along with their insistence that the project will somehow "destroy" Brooklyn or the immediate area. Ludicrous.
I also agree with Benson. Rather than simply lampoon individual buildings that don't meet his aesthetic vision, it would be interesting to instead see Mr. Brownstoner interview one or two of these developers to provide some insight into how/why they chose to build in this manner. Maybe we can all learn something. Posting pictures of these homes simply to invite derisive commentary is childish and counter-productive.
Posted by: East New York at June 11, 2009 5:06 PM
Benson,
You are absolutely right that it would be a valuable exercise to get a couple of the Fedders developers around a table with a couple of fancy architects and someone who writes the code at DOB.
Posted by: brownstoner at June 11, 2009 5:10 PM
Winning price is tour of the construction site - that sounds like lame gimmick marketing ploy (regardless if that was their intent or not). Put out content on a blog, you get a reaction. Some good. Some neutral. Some bad. I highly doubt there would be NO marketing pitch thrown out during the tour. lame mktg + snarky comments = understandable
Posted by: more4less at June 11, 2009 5:12 PM
Nope, I'll let them speak for themselves.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at June 11, 2009 5:15 PM
I haven't followed all the ins and outs of AY, but bxgrl makes an excellent point at the end of her post. Public money should not be subsidizing private developments. If developments are good enough they should stand on their own economically.
Also, of course developers are trying to maximize profit. I don't have a problem with this, but their motives are always going to be economic more than philanthropic. Thus it is reasonable to hold their feet to the fire on any public amenity aspects they promise, as their natural inclination will be to cut corners or renege on them.
I'm not anti new development either - love the Meier building and Toren, think Forte is OK, can't stand Oro..
Posted by: etson at June 11, 2009 5:25 PM
"Petunia lists all the reasons against development and progress." Uh, no, I listed concerns that should be addressed esp. by a project of this magnitude - once the developer makes his money and leaves, let's make sure the actual residents of his development as well as those in existing ones nearby don't have to struggle with overburdened schools, streets, etc. Sorry to be fashionable about that.
Are you saying none of the things people were worried about would have been an issue if the project went up as planned? Ratner had it all figured out, so he figured he may as well skip the review process? There was no public input - hysterical or otherwise - that was the problem. It seems as though you're saying just let him build, give him all the tax breaks and forget the oversight because that's the only way something spectacular will happen - that seems a little knee-jerk to me.
There has been decent new development in the borough, but obviously the scale of AY, not to mention the wheelie-dealing behind it, puts this discussion in whole other category. Some, like Minard above, are untroubled by the scale of the original design - even so, I don't see how you can brush off questions about impact and context as irrational negativity. I think a good, well-thought out design can stand up to these questions and take its surroundings into consideration. It still wouldn't appease everyone of course, but FCR spent far more effort on behind-the-scenes nonsense and hiring people to disrupt meetings, than doing the least little thing to address these questions.
Posted by: petunia at June 11, 2009 5:25 PM
"It has always been AY supporters' method to ignore what anti-AY people are complaining about. Knee-jerk response: NIMBYISM! I have yet to hear a pro AYer address the many legitimate complaints and concerns the public has."
-bxgrl just made the point I was trying to, and did it more concisely.
Posted by: petunia at June 11, 2009 5:29 PM
> these buildings are not at a price point to justify central A/C
Why is that?
Every new building everywhere else in this country is built with central A/C.
Seriously, how difficult or expensive can it be?
Posted by: SnarkSlope at June 11, 2009 5:30 PM
East New York,
What you don't understand is that we've been trying nicely for 4 years to get FCR to answer our legitimate questions and concerns. We've gotten nothing. I personally have no problem with a development over the rail yards, but why do they need the 2 extra blocks of peoples homes and businesses. The project is just too dense. Instead of office space for 10,000, how about 5,000; Instead of housing for 15,000 how about 7,000. The arena I have no problem with. As it is, the population would would be the densest in the country. There aren't enough schools, transportation or grocery stores in the area to support 15,000 extra people in 22 acres. The electricity grid is at capacity. I live 1 block away and spent last summer with only one outlet and a fridge running, due to brown outs. We have manhole covers exploding all the time. There's no plans to fix this except for in the actual footprint.
The 4 train is packed to the gills during rush hour, sometimes you have to wait for 2 or 3 trains to get on one. These concerns have not been addressed.
Posted by: soundfreak at June 11, 2009 5:42 PM
As I mentioned, soundfreak, there are legitimate concerns, and I agree that some of the ones you mention above are in that category. Perhaps you have been "trying nicely" but much of the commentary from the DDDB side has been vitriolic and personal. There's nothing "nice" about it. I lived at 521 Dean for several years so I'm aware of the potential challenges, but I happen to believe they could all be addressed. However I feel that the anti-AY forces aren't interested in negotiating these aspects, they just want Ratner out and the faster the better. No developer has been interested in this area for more than 40 years. I know, I've been in Brooklyn all of that time and that lot doesn't look much different than it did then. I'm not saying Ratner's motives are 100% altruistic or that we shouldn't have independent review of his plans, particularly since it involves public funds. But based on what I've read, I believe DDDB simply considers the project something of a personal affront, and as a result want it ended on that basis. I'd prefer if they were a bit more pragmatic in their approach and spent their energy on ensuring this project addresses the concerns you mention above. Instead, in my view, they have chose to simply demonize the Ratner and describe project as one that will "destroy" Brooklyn. Again, that's a ridiculous notion.
Posted by: East New York at June 11, 2009 6:06 PM
Here's a question for the no public money crowd:
Should public money subsidize the (eventual) private development of Gowanus, either as a Superfund site or not? As is, there is no project there that stands on its own economically, yet Brooklyn would be far better off and as a city reap far greater long term benefits by cleaning that thing up.
AY isn't exactly a Superfund site, but there can be little doubt that Brooklyn would be better off if there was something there.
If you think Gowanus should be left until there's some magical, economically free-standing option there, then cool, shout about the evils of public subsidy all you want. But if you think that government subsidy, whether Gowanus, or everything currently being done by the Obama admin, has a place... then we're just talking about a difference of degree and relative benefit, which is a very different convo-- and one you cannot be so indignant about as an AY opponent.
Posted by: havelc at June 11, 2009 6:20 PM
I actually respect DDDB post - it finally includes some long missing honesty -
You see DDDB is simply a NIMBY organization and today's post comes closest to admitting it.
It doesnt matter that people (in Brooklyn and NYC) like seeing professional basketball and other mass entertainment events like concerts, circuses, comedians, etc....Just dont put it in my backyard - We dont care if the best place in NYC and maybe in the country is at AY (b/c of the convergence of so many train lines), we dont care that in the alternative that people will be driving all over the city and inner suburbs to these kind of places , creating pollution and traffic - as long as our little neighborhood (if you want to call that $hithole a neighborhood) is preserved just as we liked it when we moved here (2yrs ago) we dont care about anyone else.
And it doesnt matter that if you build large residential bldsgs and offices at AY, you can maximize the mass transit and pedestrian options, reducing sprawl, traffic, pollution etc.... We want things the way we want them - to hell with the general good!
When I read DDDB post I have to say AMEN - finally a bit of clarity about what they are really about.....
As for AY - there was no bait and switch - it was simply a case of stall, mislead, exaggerate and sue - that plus a financial meltdown and the NIMBYs won a big victory - but the real tragedy isnt that Gehery is out (I frankly thought his stuff was ugly anyway - and I werent all the NIMBYs screaming how ugly it all was too?) - no the real tragedy is that all the delay and frivolous litigation will result in, is years more with a ugly hole at Atlantic & Flatbush and then we will have years of an arena surrounded by parking lots and it will probably be another 50 years before we have anything to be proud of in the heart of our city.
As usual - lies, exaggerations and general F-U-D results in the worst outcome possible - it isnt that there wasnt anything to yell about or demand when it came to AY - its that NIMBY egomaniacs couldnt see the real issues through the lenses of their selfish agenda - and btw go back and look at my posts even 3 years ago on this - I always predicted this was a destinct possibility.
For me Minard Lafever gets the QOTD with his post and Soundfreak please read about DDDB b/c the one thing they are/were and insist on - is no arena.
Posted by: fsrg at June 11, 2009 6:23 PM
Havelc,
Not sure if you are asking if public money should be used to clean up health hazards (in which case my answer is 'yes') or to further develop Gowanus with apartments etc(in which case it is 'no'). The money is better used to lower the overall tax burden in my opinion, which would increase investment across the city rather than in just one area.
(Also I am very likely in the minority on this site that thinks that most things currently being done by the Obama administration are wrong. But the couple that I know would agree with that statement tend to be AY supporters, and many that would strongly disagree are AY opponents).
So we disagree but at least I am consistent in the terms you set out.
Posted by: etson at June 11, 2009 6:41 PM
Of course, DDDB is against the arena because their main concern at the beginning was the use of eminent domain. The arena sits right on top of homes and businesses that have been or will be seized in this manner.
I can't speak for DDDB, but when you try to go through the proper channels and hit nothing but brick walls, you get a little frustrated and angry. There is no working with FCR when they won't even respond.
Isn't Adam Goldstein founder of DDDB fighting for his home? How is that being a NIMBY?
Posted by: soundfreak at June 11, 2009 7:00 PM
Benson, I'm right there with you.
Brownstones were built for an upper-middle class. Today, not all brownstones are inhabited by upper-middle class. "Fedders" buildings are NOT found on PPW for a reason--THAT IS AN UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS STRIP! "Fedders" buildings were mostly built on formerly VACANT lots in poorer neighborhoods/blocks. Until those blocks become FULLY upper-middle class, there are heavy constraints on what building materials can be afforded for the rent/resale that those buildings can command.
I'D LOVE TO SEE SOMEONE ON HERE TRY TO BUILD/PLAN A BUILDING IN A POOR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS TO EVERYONE'S AESTHETIC SATISFACTION AND HAVE IT BE PROFITABLE. BRING IT!!!
Posted by: JPD at June 11, 2009 8:38 PM
JDP, you are grossly misinformed in most of your points. First of all, ALL row houses were NOT built for the upper middle classes. Even a casual perusal of building materials, styles, interior materials and trim, size and location show that they were built for different income levels, different markets. If what you said were to be true, then the entirety of brownstoner Brooklyn, which is a lot of territory, was inhabited by an enormous upper middle class. Obviously, that was never the case. Apartment buildings, which began as upper class housing, before trickling down to the lower classes, are a rather later development, and there just aren't enough tenement buildings, or even shacks in any part of Brownstone Bklyn that would have housed all the people needed to support this enormous upper middle class. That would be way too many chiefs, not enough Indians.
Secondly, I hope many of these formerly empty blocks NEVER become "fully upper middle class". That's what's wrong with a lot of thinking in Brooklyn now. Regardless, lack of money is no excuse for poor architecture. One need only look at the row of townhouses on Greene Ave between Wash and St James, or the Ratner built houses along Fulton St, in Clinton Hill/Ft. Greene. Contextural design, real brick bricks, classic detailing, yet still 3 family. Why is it so hard to do now?
If I had any money whatsoever, I'd take you up on your challenge. I am sure I could do it.
On another note, I also don't see why central air is so much more expensive when you are doing new construction. The ductwork goes in with the plumbing and the electricity, while the walls are still open. What's the big deal?
Lastly, I am so tired of the argument that a stadium is perfect at the AY site because of the intersection of subway lines. Only having one or two lines available never dissuaded anyone from going to Yankee Stadium or Shea. More importantly, these lines are already overcrowded now. The MTA has no plans of extending the platforms, which is the only way to get more passengers on what would have to be longer trains. Is it possible or safe to even have longer trains. They say they can't run more trains than they do now, that the tracks are full to capacity, and runner more trains runs a higher risk in safety concerns. If people already have to let 2 or 3 trains go by, as I often have to do when I'm there during rush hour, how is adding thousands upon thousands more going to work? NO ONE from FCR, the MTA or the city has ever decently answered that question.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 12, 2009 12:29 AM
JPD-
1. Brownstones were not only built for the upper middle class. If you look at different brownstone and/or rowhouse nieghborhoods you will see those that were built for richer families and those built for lower middle and working class families. The fact that they seem more luxurious in their details is because they were built with a different aesthetic, and they had the trained labor. What you're actually saying is- gosh- even the cheap buildings for working class families looks a hell of a lot better than the crap they put up today.
2. We have touted how much better our technology is today- that we can build cheaper, bigger and better than previous generations. And yet- quite obviously we can't. Even going back as late as the 1930's- it's obvious. The Empire State Building was built in a year and 4 months- with out the technology or equipment we use today. That building is a marvel of great construction. But today you claim we can't afford to put up a better looking profitable building in a working class neighborhood? So much for our modern improvements.
3. Fedders buildings are for the most part put up on empty lots- of course they're empty. The previous building has been torn down to make room for the new one. Why else do you think preservationists are fighting so hard to get landmarked? Because beautiful, well built structures that could be saved are being torn down to make way for ugly fedders sh*t.
4. Many people have pointed out the truth about design. It doesn't have to be overly expensive. It just has to have forethought- ask any architect. There is a difference between making a profit and maximizing profit to the point of undermining the quality of your product. Stories abound about the quality of new construction- it's poor. I have a friend who is a contractor- most of her work is repairing new construction.
5. If your point about how much a developer can reasonably spend in a poorer neighborhood is true, then why do most of them try to market their poorly made crap as "luxury" apartments? A little truth in advertising please.
Posted by: bxgrl at June 12, 2009 12:45 AM
MM - "Lastly, I am so tired of the argument that a stadium is perfect at the AY site because of the intersection of subway lines. Only having one or two lines available never dissuaded anyone from going to Yankee Stadium or Shea."
Really? How would you know THAT? Have you polled the entire city? or even just the thousands of people who choose to drive to Yankee Sta and Citi/Shea Field?????
"More importantly, these lines are already overcrowded now."
And again you base this on what??? Which lines are you talking?; at what time?? Which would add more overcrowding - a 20K seat stadium along 1 or 2 subway lines or along 10 subway lines?
"The MTA has no plans of extending the platforms, which is the only way to get more passengers on what would have to be longer trains. Is it possible or safe to even have longer trains. They say they can't run more trains than they do now, that the tracks are full to capacity, and runner more trains runs a higher risk in safety concerns.""
You think the tracks have the maximum trains during off-hours & weekends???? (many games/events are at least partially starting or ending during off-hours and weekends).
How about more frequent trains even during rush hour -possible with better signaling - (which is planned) or faster trains (also possible with eventual upgrades) - point is - if you build stuff far from most mass transit then these changes/upgrades wont help relieve congestion & traffic - if you plan ahead you can take advantage of mass transit now AND in the future....BTW are they planning more roads in the Tri-state region? because while the subways may seem crowded - so do the roads
MM - sorry but you are just WRONG - there is no logical argument that says placing development next to Mass transit is not more efficient than far away - no matter the current capacity or usage.
Posted by: fsrg at June 12, 2009 1:45 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
La Mancha
added March 19, 2010 12:00 PM in Brooklyn Heights -
John's Bakery & Pastry Shop
added March 18, 2010 12:00 PM in Ditmas Park -
Amarin
added March 17, 2010 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Kimchee
added March 16, 2010 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge -
Magda Int'l Cafe
added March 15, 2010 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Villa Rustica
added March 12, 2010 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Happy End
added March 11, 2010 12:00 PM in Greenpoint -
The Blue Stove
added March 10, 2010 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Madina
added March 9, 2010 12:00 PM in Kensington -
Cataldo's
added March 8, 2010 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.