carlton-bridge-0109.jpg
A week after the (not surprising) news that Forest City was “value engineering” its development plans for Atlantic Yards in an effort to cut costs, word comes that the developer is also trying to restructure the $100 million payment it committed to make to the MTA for the right to develop over its railyards that run, sunken, between Atlantic and Pacific Avenues. (Atlantic Yards Report points out that there’s never been a hard deadline for the payment, only the following language in the ESDC’s Modified General Project Plan: “FCRC shall be required to consummate such purchase prior to or contemporaneously with the first acquisition by ESDC of a parcel within the Project Site not owned by the MTA.”) In regards to Ratner’s wishes to renegotiate, the MTA’s Lee Sander said, “we will apply…intelligence, thoughtfulness, to the exercise.” The announcement of Ratner’s intention to renege was particularly galling to project opponents, reports The Post, in light of the higher offer of $150 million for the development rights originally made by Extell Development. Opposing group Develop Don’t Destroy has called for the MTA to put the project back out to bids.
Atlantic Yards Looks to Slash Transit Upgrade [NY Post]
MTA Is ‘Flexible and Thoughtful’ [AY Report]
Photo by Tracy Collins


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. Comparing Atlantic Yards to Ground Zero doesn’t cheapen the argument – it’s comparing apples to apples construction-wise and time-wise, and accurately captures what happens to neighborhoods when politics get in the way of building/rebuilding.

    I work in sightline view of Ground Zero and live near enough to AY that I have to pass by it twice day commuting to and from work both by car and train. Having to see the state of both of these developments is sad and disheartening. It burns me up. Unfortunately, the similarities are endless.

  2. AY is hardly Brooklyn’s Ground Zero- please don’t use comparisons like this. It just cheapens the argument.

    I never liked the project- too big. Way too big. Ratner didn’t offer near what he should have for the air rights- he got a sweetheart deal on it. All it was for him was a vast ego trip- it was out of context, destructive of neighborhoods that were coming back, destructive of pre-existing homes and businesses. the scale of it was completely unrealistic and all of us who said that got shouted down.

    there are much better things that could be done in that area. Hopefully now they will be when the economy gets better.