When I think about Atlantic Yards, I keep coming back to traffic. Aesthetic objections are impossible. Most infrastructure objections (sewer, schools, etc.) are manageable. The problem with the traffic objection is that any development creates traffic. The more successful the development is in terms of people served, the more traffic the project creats. If the project was a shopping mall, a museum, an opera house, an industrial park, or an exclusively office complex, there would be increased traffic.

High density cities are increasingly seen as the solution rather than the cause of many environmental problems if not for the traffic.

We have to deal with traffic as a problem in its own right, not as an objection to high-density development. Congestion pricing, east-river tolls, higher gas taxes, higher parking taxes and fees, etc. is what we should focus on. The low cost of using cars to reach new developments is the cause of traffic, not the development itself.

I think the AY debate is an opportunity to negotiate for traffic solutions, rather than development "solutions."

Posted by: MrLomez at July 28, 2006 12:07 PM in response to The War For Brooklyn

I think some of the wars for Brooklyn's soul are very well defined. Red Hook, Greenpoint, Gowanus changing from industrial areas to residential areas have very understandable outcomes. Businesses will necessarily close, while people will move in. These people will need schools and subway cars and garbage collection, etc.

The problem with alot of the other debates is that they center around much squishier ideas about ambience and aesthetics. Dreadnaught just used the word "scale" 4-times in his last post, without ever defining it. The notion that any two people could agree to the appropriate scale of any development is absurd.

We need to stop talkng about "scale," "context" and "historic character" because they really don't resonate enough to matter.

Posted by: MrLomez at July 28, 2006 2:00 PM in response to The War For Brooklyn

Stay strong Arsenic.

I was raised by a single mom in Park Slope sans car. We traveled, went camping, even had a country house all without a car. B-man: Your car is all about you, not your kids.

Cars are simply bad for this, and most other large cities, and otherwise enlightened people who think about "context" and "scale" when it comes to development projects, have a huge blindspot for how out of "context" and "scale" cars are in Brooklyn.

Posted by: MrLomez at August 8, 2006 11:56 AM in response to Learning to Oppose the Atlantic Yards Project

There seems to be a alot of conflation here.

Arena traffic.
Let's be clear. We're talking about maybe 5,000 incremental cars 75-100 nights per year. To put that in perspective, there are something like 70,000 cars that cross into lower manhattan over the 4 east river crossings during rush hour. Adding 5,000 cars at the end of the Brooklyn-bound rush hour isn't going to be that drastic.

Even if there is an impact on traffic, as others have mentioned, this is self correcting. More traffic delays really do lead to fewer cars.

Schools.
This is only really an elementary school issue. NYC junior high and high schools are not strictly districted. I see the new residents generating a single school of new pupils at most. This seems pretty manageable. These new residents are paying taxes and the Board of Ed should make sure there are enough resources. There are big swings in population around the city all the time. This is a B of E problem, not a development problem.

Subway traffic.
There are 4-5 subway stations and 5 distinct lines that will serve the residents of AY. Atlantic/Pacific, Bergen, 7th Ave, Lafayette and Clinton-Washington. Once again, the new residents pay taxes and fares, so the MTA can add train cars if necessary.

Let's all be honest. This isn't about race, economics or democracy. This is about stuff like "context," "scale," "character" and "shadows." (Should I really care that your $2-million brownstone is going to get less light?) These objections are way too ill-defined and impossibly subjective. The current residents don't want to share their piece of heaven with new (and more) people.

There is a way to stop development. Get state legislation passed. I don't see any bills.

Posted by: MrLomez at August 8, 2006 5:40 PM in response to Learning to Oppose the Atlantic Yards Project

Chuck:

This isn't responsive.

Traffic is a self-correcting problem. This is not conjecture at this stage, this is science. I have stated that I am not particularly troubled by traffic arguments anyway, since I do not consider private automobiles to be a reliable form of transportation for residents anyway.

What are the consequences of not building an additional school? A 10% increase in class sizes at surrounding schools? 3 more kids in each class? I'm not losing sleep over this.

You seem to acknowledge that the subway capacity is neither fully utilized nor has hard constraints. The MTA deals with shifting population all of the time. AY would seem like a particularly resilient place in the system for a big jump in ridership (as opposed to Williamsburg which is served by one line.)

There are numerous elected officials that have supported this project including, the governor, the mayor, several assembly people and state senators in and out of NYC. Many of these have stood for election during this debate and won handily.

Development of state lands is not governed by referendum. There are plenty of people in the Adirondacks who resent the strictures of the "Forever Wild" designation as supported by many New York City legislators. Fortunately, they don't get to develop wilderness that belongs to all of us. If you want to place state land use decisions in the hands of the people who happen to live closest to the project, get your elected officials to introduce legislation. I don't think it's a good idea.

Posted by: MrLomez at August 8, 2006 6:42 PM in response to Learning to Oppose the Atlantic Yards Project

As mentioned above, this house has been pink forever. Certainly well before this block was landmarked. Ironically, the underlying brownstone is much better preserved than the other houses on the block that have been exposed to the elements all these years.

This house has always rocked. If you don't see that, you don't.

Posted by: MrLomez at August 9, 2006 11:43 AM in response to Brown-stone? Not Exactly

No need to get personal CHPu.

I'm not carrying anyone's water. I'm just trying to cut through the hysteria and the hyperbole.

As a product of NYC public schools of the 70s and 80s, please don't lecture me on class size. I'm aware of the perils, but believe these can be dealt with effectively in the medium term.

I framed the additional vehicular traffic in terms of current levels. My figures showed a 7% increase in east river bridge and tunnel traffic on game nights. I don't see a parking lot. Sorry.

As for mass transit, Williamsburg is actually an excellent example of what happens when the projects are diffuse and not centrally planned. All the medium sized developments in the 'burg have created this problem because there hasn't been planning. The AY project has long lead time and an exhaustive review process. This is how planning is supposed to work.

I can't help but hear alot of the arguments in the AY debate that one hears about zoning ordinances in leafy suburbs that ban multifamily developments. The arguments always seem to center around traffic and schools. I don't think it's an accident that the most visible leader of the anti-AY forces is from a wealthy suburban background. I'd go even farther and suggest that the most committed opposition comes from folks who didn't grow up in Brooklyn. This doesn't make their views less valid, but it tells me a bit about what has instructed their opinion.

Maybe I missed some new thinking in the urban planning world, but I always understood density to be a good thing. While there are adjustments that must be made, high density urban development is good for regional traffic, mass transit, the environment, etc.

Much of the opposition has a very suburban tone. I believe that more energy should be focused on planning, instead of opposition. Let's push for a new school. Let's push for a mass transit plan. Let's push for a traffic mitigation plan. I think we cede authority by becoming zealots.

Posted by: MrLomez at August 9, 2006 12:19 PM in response to Learning to Oppose the Atlantic Yards Project

I've said my piece on impact, but the anti-AYers seem to want to wrap this project in scandal. Ultimately this is a decision that was made by state and city government. If you haven't noticed, we have duly elected republican governor and mayor. That these elected officials would have a pro-development view should come as no surprise. If Freddy Ferrar had one last year, this might be a very different project, but he didn't win. The city voted overwhelmingly to reelect Bloomberg in spite of his pro-AY view. Was Bloomberg, who can buy and sell Ratner ten-times over, "bullied" into this view? Where is the failure of democracy here? There seems to be a lot of focus on the arm-twisting (which has been happening on both sides, I note), but no acknowledgement that our most powerful elected officials support the project.

I will state again, that state land use is not subject to referendum. It is subject to the executive and legislative process. You can very visibly and unambiguously block this project by passing legislation.

Posted by: MrLomez at August 9, 2006 1:47 PM in response to Learning to Oppose the Atlantic Yards Project

The stats for 70k east river crossings come from wikipeda daily crossings into manahattan between 5am and 11am.

1. Queensboro Bridge: 31,000
2. Lincoln Tunnel: 25,944
3. Brooklyn Bridge: 22,241
4. Williamsburg Bridge: 18,339
5. Queens-Midtown Tunnel: 17,968
6. Holland Tunnel: 16,257
7. Brooklyn Battery Tunnel: 14,496
8. Manhattan Bridge: 13,818

I simply add the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, Battery Tunnel and Willamsburg Bridge numbers. Arguably you could include the Queensboro and the Midtown Tunnel which I have not.

5000 is my estimate of incremental vehicle traffic based on 20,000 attendees and workers per event, 65% of whom take personal vehicles to the event and 2.5 people per car (these data are conservatively rounded figure from the FEIS report on the Yankee stadium project).

So 0.65*20,000/2.5=5,200. Some of these will be people who already drive home from manhattan through this area, so they are not incremental.

With respect to schools and mass transit, it should be acknowledged that supply of these resources is dynamic. Arguing that there aren't enough schools is like arguing there aren't enough supermarkets. There is no structural limit to supermarket capacity or school capacity. Some mass transit resources are limited, but the utilization system-wide hasn't reached historical highs. Ridership has nearly doubled in the last 10-years. Cities grow.

Posted by: MrLomez at August 9, 2006 5:07 PM in response to Learning to Oppose the Atlantic Yards Project

I'm comfortable with my numbers. The whole debate is inherently speculative and requires estimation. I don't have an econometric model up (yet), but I've tried to be conservative in my assumptions.

Much of the debate looks at infrastructure as static and fixed, which it is neither. That's addition.

Calculus acknowledges that there is adjustment. For example, the more parking you build the more traffic you will generate. I've heard plenty of hand wringing about parking shortages at AY followed by moans about traffic.

The more high income housing you build, the less strain on public schools. So complaints about a lack of affordable housing in the plan and a shortage of classrooms rings false to me.

I am trying to raise this debate to a level that acknowledges the complexity and the plannning challenges. I'm sick of the shreiks about "scale" and "context" and "Brooklyn's character" as if we could ever agree about any of that stuff.

Posted by: MrLomez at August 9, 2006 7:57 PM in response to Learning to Oppose the Atlantic Yards Project