« Tuesday Links Open Thread »

September 15, 2009

Atlantic Yards Arena: Subject to Change

The architecture team of Ellerbe Becket and SHoP, which designed the Barclays Center arena for the Atlantic Yards development, held a public meeting Monday evening to discuss the new renderings of the arena that were released last week. The biggest news from the meeting was that the current renderings will drastically change: more buildings will be added, such as the "Miss Brooklyn Tower" at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic, which, in Frank Gehry's scrapped design, was a gateway to the rest of the project. Other open plazas in the current rendering could become residential towers, but all of this is contingent on the economy. If the economy improves, Forest City Ratner will incorporate these addenda.
Bait and Switch? Designer Admits Rendering Will Change [Brooklyn Paper]
Closing Bell: DDDB's Letter to SHoP [Brownstoner]
IBO Reports Net Loss from Atlantic Yards Arena [Brownstoner]
Ourousoff Weighs In on Barclay's Center Design [Brownstoner]
New Barclay's Center Design Revealed [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11427

Comments

For some reason, that particular rendering makes the arena look like a structure that should be at some midwestern airport. Either that or a thatched-roof tiki-themed souvenir stand from Disneyland.

Posted by: Beau Guest at September 15, 2009 9:18 AM

New rule:

If you're going to knock the architecture of this development you must first provide your own superior rendering. I don't give a damn about the AY project any more, or if it happens, but all the chatter on Brownstoner about "reflecting the neighborhood," "built to scale," "looks like a barn/airport/Disneyland/37th century cold fusion plant" every time a new design is released is getting really irritating.

Really though-- with regards to this project and the architectural whines of this crowd, many of you are verging on self parody.

Posted by: havelc at September 15, 2009 9:36 AM

Beau- do you think they'll serve Mai Tai's with little paper umbrellas?

Posted by: bxgrl at September 15, 2009 9:37 AM

havelc- considering how much taxpayer money is going into this project I certainly think the community has a right, even an obligation to comment and hold their feet to the fire.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 15, 2009 9:38 AM

bxgirl-- absolutely not my point. I'm not talking about the money, I'm talking about the architecture.

Here is my point: every time they release a new rendering of what this stadium will look like, people on these boards go completely nuts with why the building is incredibly ugly, coming up with some hackneyed analogy. It's gotten to the point now, where they could resurrect Frank Lloyd Wright, Daniel Burnham, and William Van Alen, have them design an arena and everyone would say it's the ugliest building ever.

So, given that the people on this board are starting to sound like Republicans before Obama gives a speech on anything-- I'm merely asking for the architectural giants on this board to suggest something that wouldn't suck...

Posted by: havelc at September 15, 2009 9:46 AM

I see your point Havelc but respectfully disagree. It's my money that's building this. I get an opinion.

Posted by: Johnny at September 15, 2009 9:48 AM

So, as a thought experiment-- and maybe we should kick this out to Mr. B as some sort of Brownstoner heals Brooklyn contest-- what would (hypothetically) a stadium that didn't destroy all of Brooklyn for all time look like?

Totally detach the idea from the specific example of Atlantic Yards-- but I'd be interested to see what sort of ideas the Brownstoner community could come up with. Maybe they'll be superior to what they have, and the developers would incorporate our suggestions.

Either way, it would negate the completely crazy and unfounded notion held by some that the DDD people are just anti the idea of a stadium project for its own sake

Posted by: havelc at September 15, 2009 9:50 AM

If/when we get this arena and attend rock and roll festivals, Chicago Bulls games and political meetings we'll forget the whole hassle and rejoice in having a new BADLY needed venue BK.

Posted by: chrishavens at September 15, 2009 10:01 AM

havelc - maybe people are inclined to throw darts at the architecture because Ratner cynically used star architects to sell a deeply flawed project to the public while circumventing the public process that all other developers must endure. The other thing is that AY has always been about the arena - I don't think it takes a sophisticated observer to see that buildings and projects like this one will always be lightning rods. Personally, I see amusement and curiosity in the comments, and doubt that the architects would be offended by them.

I have to say that the recent parade of revised renderings suggests desperation on the part of the developer. The GPP right now - sucks. Maybe we can all hope that we'll eventually get something that doesn't suck someday.

Posted by: architect66 at September 15, 2009 10:01 AM

havelc- we are a tough crowd, no doubt. But then, NYC has plenty of world class architecture that we see every single day. I am not an architect, but I am a fan of great architecture and I read about it and learn as much as I can about it.As much of an improvement this design is over the last one, this is not world class and in fact, it rather pedestrian. Gehry's arena design was anything but- and while I hated the other part of his design for AY, the arena was world class. I'm not impressed with SHop. The building at South St. Seaport is awful.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 15, 2009 10:12 AM

havelc, if you will go back and read my post you will notice how I used the word "particular" when I commented. In fact, a few posts down there is a different rendering where the arena looks quite different and more striking. I'm not attacking the architecture, just the rendering. As for the architecture, I prefer the original but this is WAY better than the shed that they proposed initially to replace the first design.

Posted by: Beau Guest at September 15, 2009 10:12 AM

I would rather have an arena than to wait for another 10 years to discuss which design is better. I think people are getting impatient by this project.

Posted by: seahawk at September 15, 2009 10:14 AM

A stadium built with private funds, on private land acquired without the (mis)use of eminent domain, would be OK with me. I don't happen to think spectator sports arenas are a good land use in terms of how they interact with their surroundings, but if the developer were doing it on his own dime, I would gladly keep my opinion to myself.

Posted by: Sparafucile at September 15, 2009 10:24 AM

Let's build this bad boy!

Posted by: Ahh beer at September 15, 2009 10:34 AM

The architecture is a diversion. The central problem with the project is not how the arena 'looks.' We all have our varying opinions about the aesthetics, but the real issue is the process (corrupt), the overall planning (terrible), the lack of proper infrastructure and traffic planning (minimal), and the giveaways to the developer.

I like the building but I am just an architect!

Posted by: jmcg at September 15, 2009 10:47 AM

jmcg- what is it that you like about it? What is it that you are looking for in the design aesthetic for a building?

architect66?

Posted by: bxgrl at September 15, 2009 11:14 AM

@havelc - Look at the three blank sides facing the streets. Look at the blank plaza which will be mostly a bus and valet drop off. Architects after years of suburban stadiums can't seem to do urban. I hate the process that has brought us Atlantic Yards, but if we're going to get it, then put retail around the base, create moments of surprise, make connections to existing and future projects so that it's not an isolated wicker basket of a building. My $.02

Posted by: gagneur at September 15, 2009 11:46 AM

bxgirl - I don't believe I have ever commented on the aesthetics of either the Gehry images or the SHoP images. The thing for me about AY is that some people want an arena there so badly that they are willing to sacrifice just about anything to get it. I think that the General Project Plan is unwise, and does not give enough back to the public, and that the costs of the project as planned will outweigh the public benefits, especially when one considers the potential for the site. But obviously not everyone agrees.

Since you asked about a design aesthetic, I like buildings that serve their purpose well, and express that service through their structure. In the case of the arena, I think both the SHoP proposal and the Gehry proposal serve their master well in that they both aspire to be notable works of civic architecture - you only need to look at the Ellerbe Becket response to see how a mediocre building would utterly fail at that location. But on the other hand, both projects are like beautifully designed and crafted dresses - they can be gorgeous as ideas, but they cannot succeed unless they fit the model perfectly.

In this case, the stadium (both the Gehry and the SHoP version) is forced to stand pretty much alone due to the planning priorities of the developer. That may be OK in the suburbs, but it is not the cure for what ails our Brooklyn.

Posted by: architect66 at September 15, 2009 11:51 AM

architect66- thank you. I agreed with everything you said. I know as an artist I liked the Gehry Design. The Shop design feels to me like a throwaway.The Ellerbe-Becket design was so pedestrian that the bar wasn't set very high for anything after that. And I think that's what annoys me so much about SHop- they really didn't try very hard.

And maybe the other problem is that stadiums and arenas maybe aren't urban by nature and that's why they are so difficult to fit. Perhaps that's why most of the more successful stadiums in NYC are more on the outskirts or in less dense areas. Yankee Stadium is in a dense area but in the Bronx and close to the river, Keyspan is i Coney Island, Shea out in Queens. But the Ratner arena would be smack dab in the middle of a true urban center.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 15, 2009 12:23 PM

Gehry is the emperor with no clothes. Overrated and applauded because he's different. Different is not enough. Undulations are a waste of potential useful space. Have to wear a hard hat when walking by and dodge the falling pieces. Please, almost anyone else but Gehry. As long as the stadium looks better than the detention centers-- sorry, I meant malls-- across the street, we'll be able to live with it.

Posted by: FiredUpReadyToGo at September 15, 2009 12:25 PM

Welcome to the FantasyDome

Posted by: brokeland at September 15, 2009 12:45 PM

FiredUp:
When this project was first proposed, many people couldn't figure out where exactly it was going to be sited - that triangle between Flatbush and Atlantic didn't seem big enough for an arena. More than one person said to me "Oh I see where they'll put it - Ratner is going to tear down the failed mall for his stadium."

Posted by: jmcg at September 15, 2009 2:58 PM

Bxgrl - "stadiums and arenas maybe aren't urban by nature"

Fenway Park, Wrigly Field, Shibe Park( Philly), Washington Park (brooklyn), Camden Yards Original Boston garden, Chicago Center, Madison Sq Garden 1, 2 & 3, Prudential Center

I dont know that is a pretty attractive list of Urban Stadiums and Arenas just off the top of my head.....

Posted by: fsrg at September 15, 2009 3:04 PM

havelc - not a new rule - I've calling for it for years, but glad to have you join me....too bad most of the people here will not oblige - since they are too focused on their ridiculous demonization of Ratner (and all developers) and their fetish for everything pre-war to objectively look at any architechture or even acknowledge their own (unsustainable) biases

Posted by: fsrg at September 15, 2009 3:11 PM

fsrg- That wasn't the point I was making. My feeling has always been that arenas and stadiums aren't urban spaces- and I actually don't mean it in a bad way. My feeling is that they aren't meant to be, but are a means of bringing what some think is a plus of suburbs- big open playing field spaces into densely populated ones.

As for Ratner- there's nothing ridiculous about criticizing the guy who wants to run roughshod over everyone and everything in his greed.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 15, 2009 4:04 PM

fsrq - so glad you don't get to make the rules. We can all demonize whomsoever we please, whether it is rapacious developers or knee-jerk preservationists. Isn't it more fun that way?

Posted by: architect66 at September 15, 2009 4:15 PM

Bxgirl - arens and stadia aren't big open playing spaces. They're big commercial uses, and the commodity that is offered there is watching sporting events.

Keyspan Park was supposed to enliven Coney Island. Hasn't happened. Richmond County Bank Ballpark was supposed to enliven St. George. Hasn't happened. Other than one bar that derives most of its revenue from checking bags that aren't allowed into the stadium, Yankee Stadium hasn't exactly enlivened that section of the Bronx. There is precious little evidence that these projects deliver anything like the benefits that are promised by their proponents.

Posted by: Sparafucile at September 15, 2009 5:17 PM

Sparafucile- they are supposed to be both but the problem is that a stadium or arena isn't in use 365 days a year so in most cases its not doing much of anything. And 365 days a year would make it hell on the surrounding community.

Keyspan Park is making a difference but thanks to Joe Sitt and the City, nothing much can happen until things get ironed out but there is stuff in the works that involve Keyspan and in a good way.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 15, 2009 6:34 PM

Keyspan Park opened in June 2001. Joe Sitt wasn't even on the scene until much later, so to say that the current impasse is why Keyspan hasn't fulfilled its backers' claims for the last eight years is disingenuous. These stadiums are an exceptionally bad use of public economic development dollars. They create very few jobs on site, and only part time ones, and do essentially nothing to stimulate surrounding development.

Posted by: Sparafucile at September 15, 2009 7:09 PM

Sparafucile- I'm not arguing over whether or not they are a bad use of public funds- I happen to think they are. But Keyspan and the Cyclones have done a lot in the community and I am involved in some things there so I can say, in my estimation, Keyspan was a plus for the area but it will take time. Coney Island has always been a seasonal place- something that is not the KeySpan's fault. And it was the first sign of life in Coney Island in a long time- had Sitt not opted to kick out Dreamland and now screw around with the other long time operators, momentum would have built up. Now everything is in a holding pattern and much of Coney Island is gone, thanks in part to the City/Sitt dispute.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 15, 2009 7:22 PM

« Tuesday Links Open Thread »

September 15, 2009

Atlantic Yards Arena: Subject to Change

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions