Today the New York Post reports that Atlantic Yards critics commissioned renderings showing it’s impossible for Forest City Ratner to fill the 1,100-spot parking lot mandated by the state next to the Barclays Center without using stacked parking. This doesn’t sit well with some in the area: “The concern, neighborhood residents say, is that hydraulic systems and valet service associated with stack parking slow the entry and exit of cars from the lot, potentially creating bumper-to-bumper traffic on surrounding streets and sending antsy drivers to seek the area’s few remaining curbside spaces.” A rep for Forest City says the developer is “conducting an analysis that we hope will allow” the firm to avoid using stack parking. Atlantic Yards Report takes this “analysis” to mean that Forest City is considering using “a modular system that’s never been tested. And that was discussed more than eight months ago, though no formal plans have never been announced.” The surface-lot block is bounded by Carlton, Vanderbilt, Dean and Pacific; the Post notes that it’s “expected to exist at least a decade” because of the delays with the other Atlantic Yards buildings that have also held up plans for a permanent, underground lot. Meanwhile, Atlantic Yards Watch runs the rendering shown above, depicting how the stack parking could look, and contrasts it with another rendering, reproduced on the jump, that shows how the lot might look if it had to comply with New York City design standards for surface lots. The lot doesn’t have to comply with those standards—which would require landscaping and reduce the number of cars the lot could hold to around 500—because it will be considered temporary, rather than permanent, parking.
Barclays Center in Brooklyn Will Create Parking and Traffic Problems [NY Post]
What if the Barclays Center Parking Lot Was Required to Meet NYC Design Standards? [AY Watch]
The Peril of Car Stackers on the Arena Parking Lot [AY Report]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

      • Moynihan Station – unfunded and inadequate, nothing related to AY has impacted this development. – if I am wrong please tell me SPECIFICALLY how AY set any precedent for this (as it stands now)
        Hudson Yards – Almost the exact same situation as AY – sold to a single developer for ‘below market’ with hundreds of millions of tax subsidies and billions more in infrastructure expenses for the city, to ultimatley build 26M sq ft of residential and office space all owned by a single developer – please tell me how DDDB set a precedent that “changed large scale development in this city forever???”
        Willets Point – mired in years of expensive litigation with property owners claiming abuse of Eminent Domain. So far no funding or plan brought forth. again how did DDDB have a positive effect?

  1. MM it may be arguable how much DDDBs agenda was controlled by Dan Goldstein and how much was dictated by the “community” but the idea that DDDB and AY had any affect on how RE deals get done in this city is ludicrous.
    How can you explain Coney Island or Willets Point or the tax dollars backing up Hudson Yards or Kingsbridge. Please point to one project that in your estimation has been affected by what went on at AY?

  2. MM DDDB was the main litigant in virtually all the (ultimately dismissed) litigation. From the (ridiculous) ED lawsuit to the attack on the Environmental Impact Statement, DDDB and Dan Goldstein were the main protagonists.
    I am not blaming Dan Goldstein personally for every delay and development, but it is undeniable that DDDB was essential in delaying this project for a few critical years….and in the end (which is the most important part), got no positive change that I can see.

    Compare that to what happened at Dock Street for example or the rezoning of Park Slope or Hudson River Park, etc…

    • It is precisely because of DDDB that the other developments you cite actually had more positive outcomes.

      AY may have been to corrupt from the beginning, but, like MM says, the opposition to it (thanks mostly to DDDB) has ensured that the city and developers don’t try the same underhanded tactics on the same scale.

      Or, at least, it has made the impacted communities more aware — either way, same effect.

  3. MM DDDB was the main litigant in virtually all the (ultimately dismissed) litigation. From the (ridiculous) ED lawsuit to the attack on the Environmental Impact Statement, DDDB and Dan Goldstein were the main protagonists.
    I am not blaming Dan Goldstein personally for every delay and development, but it is undeniable that DDDB was essential in delaying this project for a few critical years….and in the end (which is the most important part), got no positive change that I can see.

    Compare that to what happened at Dock Street for example or the rezoning of Park Slope or Hudson River Park, etc…

1 2 3 5