« Development Watch: 510 Waverly Gets Glassy Monday Blogwrap »

September 14, 2009

Closing Bell: DDDB's Letter to SHoP

armory_090909.jpg
After Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner released the new design renderings for the Barclays Center arena, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn took the opportunity to write an open letter to the arena's co-architects, SHoP. The gist of the letter is that SHoP, by accepting the Barclays Center commission, is also attaching the firm's reputation to the Atlantic Yards and condoning the actions of Forest City Ratner: "We think that as responsible professionals, you must be aware that your designs are being used in an attempt to mask the political, planning, economic and aesthetic failures of Forest City Ratner's corrupt Atlantic Yards development proposal ... On these grounds, we urge you to reconsider your involvement. And we will be pleased to meet with you and discuss these issues."
An Open Letter to SHoP Architects Regarding Atlantic Yards [DDDB]




Posted by jscheff at 4:00 PM | Comments (29)
Categories: Closing Bell

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11419

Comments

A chance to step away and meet with the DDDB

or

A hip up and coming firm to add "World class stadium" to their growing portfolio.

What would you pick?

Posted by: ReMiXxd at September 14, 2009 4:18 PM

A chance to be used by an unscrupulous developer for his own ends while tying up their personal and material resources that could be better directed to more immediately productive projects and then most likely being tossed aside in the end as he goes with his usual cheap suburban aesthetic (see Metrotech)

or

A chance to walk away and salvage their professional reputation and go on to more immediately productive projects keeping their firm's integrity and resources intact.

What would you pick?

Posted by: babs at September 14, 2009 4:25 PM

Precisely the problem.

Justin Davidson says the same thing as we do, just more colorfully and succinctly.

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/59004/

Posted by: DDDB at September 14, 2009 4:26 PM


A chance to step away and meet with the DDDB

or

A chance to do what architecture firms and professionals do - build buildings and earn money.

What would you pick?

Posted by: East New York at September 14, 2009 4:30 PM

Professionals are free from the burden of ethics? Not in most professional fields.

Posted by: DDDB at September 14, 2009 4:36 PM

lord the DDDB are heinous blow hards

Posted by: wine lover at September 14, 2009 4:37 PM

lord the DDDB are heinous blow hards

Posted by: wine lover at September 14, 2009 4:37 PM

But the problem here is that they won't be building any buildings or earning any money for a long, long time -- look how long Ratner kept Frank Gehry hanging on and eventually tossed him aside as well. I wouldn't believe a thing this guy promises.

Posted by: babs at September 14, 2009 4:41 PM

lord the DDDB are heinous blow hards

Posted by: Ahh beer at September 14, 2009 4:42 PM

What a really nasty group of people. DDDB that is. Funny, they didn't send that letter to the last architect for his hideous rendering. Now that this one is meeting positive reviews (as architecture) they are stooping to this. Sad little people.

Posted by: denton at September 14, 2009 4:50 PM

Why don't we just agree. They are blow hards!

Posted by: ou812 at September 14, 2009 4:52 PM

I very much enjoyed reading the letter! It was well written and succinct--although it might seem long to the casual observer. Just to lightly touch on the many issues requires a long letter.

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at September 14, 2009 4:54 PM


"Professionals are free from the burden of ethics?"

One man's "ethics" are another's grandstanding. Not impressed in the least.

Posted by: East New York at September 14, 2009 4:57 PM

I don't think anyone at SHoP contemplated this work in black and white way. Even a firm like SHoP is impacted by this economy - in fact, since a substantial part of their practice is for private sector clients, I'd bet that they have been more impacted than most. If I had to speculate, (and I can't resist, so I must,) I'd say that SHoP's decision may have included factors such as staff retention, opportunity for design research, the opportunity to learn a new building type, and exposure to a much broader (and richer) client base, and perhaps most importantly, the opportunity to one-up Frank Gehry.

The other thing that I'm sure SHoP considered was that despite the Ratner Atrocities in downtown Brooklyn, the NY Times building is a good building - one of the best new tall buildings in the City this decade, I'd say.

So all that said, Right on ENY on "ethics." I think that the now non-existent Ratner plan for Atlantic Yards is doo-doo, and an abuse of the public trust. Hopefully it will be changed for the better, and maybe SHoP will get to build their arena somewhere else.

Posted by: architect66 at September 14, 2009 5:03 PM

I think it's just bad business for SHoP. This is a young firm, without the financial resources that allowed Frank Gehry to devote years (and considerable staff members) to this project only to be dumped in the end. SHoP can't really afford all that -- they really need to look more closely at how much and when they can expect to get paid and should consider things like FCR's past record of "re-negotiating" deals for far less money, not making timely payments, etc. Really not a good idea.

Posted by: babs at September 14, 2009 5:03 PM

Really? not in most professions where professionals think of themselves as professionals.

Posted by: brokeland at September 14, 2009 5:04 PM

"they really need to look more closely at how much and when they can expect to get paid and should consider things like FCR's past record of "re-negotiating" deals for far less money, not making timely payments, etc."

I never had a problem getting paid from anything related to Ratner...

Posted by: denton at September 14, 2009 5:09 PM

DDDB, go away - you've ruined things as is.

Posted by: bupe at September 14, 2009 5:18 PM

Easy for Goldstein to say...he's independently wealthy - and a total a$$

Posted by: fsrg at September 14, 2009 5:24 PM

When we say 'lord the DDDB are heinous blow hards', or any reference DDDB, we're basically talking about one guy living with his wife in an entire building all by themselves because, yup, he really is that obtuse.

ONE PHOCKING GUY WHO DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A JOB (unless you count the salary he pays himself from DDDB).

One obstinate azz is more important than the tens of thousands who are and have always been for this project moving forward.

Did I miss anything?

Posted by: BoerumHill at September 14, 2009 5:41 PM

"This is a young firm, without the financial resources that allowed Frank Gehry to devote years (and considerable staff members) to this project only to be dumped in the end. SHoP can't really afford all that -- they really need to look more closely at how much and when they can expect to get paid..."

I'm sure they greatly appreciate the condescending business advice...a building doesn't have to be built in order for the firm to get paid, you realize that, correct? It's a boon for a young firm to have this kind of project and money flow through the office, built or not.

While I'm not insensitive to DDDB's arguments, they are barking up the wrong tree. While it's nice to be high-minded, architects in the city are suffering. If the project is successful it exposes SHoP to more arena work in the future, long after this debate is over. In my view, leaving the job would give them an enormous black eye to other developers and potential clients.

DDDB would be better off lobbying SHoP to improve the proposal. Architects can't control whether or not a project happens, but they can make it better.

Posted by: squaredrive at September 14, 2009 5:56 PM

> One obstinate azz is more important than the tens of thousands

Uh, so you really believe he is the only person against AY?

> Did I miss anything?

Apparently the the tens of thousands who are - and have always been - against this project moving forward.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 14, 2009 6:01 PM

lord the DDDB are heinous blow hards

Posted by: Ahh beer at September 14, 2009 6:14 PM

ahh beer- takes one to know one, I guess.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 14, 2009 6:33 PM

The big payments for architecture jobs come once construction is in process and at completion. Anybody know how much Ratner actually paid Frank Gehry? And denton you're luckier than the MTA in that respect -- but they've willingly gone along with his crap so I guess they get what they deserve.

Posted by: babs at September 14, 2009 7:02 PM

babs, that's not how standard architecture contracts work. Architects are paid progressively based on work completed. Many building projects die off or don't come to fruition; architects are not THAT stupid.

Posted by: squaredrive at September 14, 2009 7:59 PM

you know I posted something against the new design when I first saw it. I went to the presentation tonight and saw the model. I must say I was impressed that they had transformed what I thought would be horrible to much less so. I thought they toned down the light pollution very well.
As for DDDb letter...its a nice well written letter. those who are opposed to the project will see many things they like in the letter. Those that support it will see it as meddling and grandstanding...yet its the same letter.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 14, 2009 8:35 PM

you know, maybe DDDB are blow hards, but you know who the BIG blow hards are:

Bruce, Gregg and Frank.


how pathetic is that whole Ratner crew and hangers on if "one guy and his wife" are brining them to their knees? get real.

Posted by: brokeland at September 14, 2009 9:34 PM

DDDB---go away--your time to move out is NOW!---It's going to get built

Posted by: bobbyd at September 15, 2009 8:34 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions