Atlantic Yards: Beneficiary or Victim of Economy?
Reason number 14 to love New York: “Because sometimes immense, gratuitous, noncontextual acts of real-estate ego don’t pan out.” Those adjectives belong to New York magazine, pointing out that Ratner’s “$4.2 billion, 22-acre combination of residential towers and office buildings, anchored by a basketball arena for the Nets, was supposed to completely transform downtown Brooklyn—with…
Reason number 14 to love New York: “Because sometimes immense, gratuitous, noncontextual acts of real-estate ego don’t pan out.” Those adjectives belong to New York magazine, pointing out that Ratner’s “$4.2 billion, 22-acre combination of residential towers and office buildings, anchored by a basketball arena for the Nets, was supposed to completely transform downtown Brooklyn—with seemingly little thought given to what it might do to the already paralyzed intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues.” Though the lawsuits against the project “never got any real traction,” they did indeed delay the project, they write, until the market changed. “At the moment, the old neighborhood is winning. Score two points for entropy.” Is this a victory for opponents? A pit-stop on the way to development? Construction may be a while off, but demolition is long underway.
Because Sometimes Immense, Gratuitous, Noncontextual Acts Of Real-estate Ego Don’t Pan Out [New York]
“Also, it’s debatable whether or not the afforable housing in that plan would have ever been built. But the present state of things ensures there won’t be any affordabe housing there in the forseeable future.”
Why make that a point in your argument? affordable housing is really important, but everyone pretty much acknowledges that Ratner was playing fast and loose on that one.
It wasn’t that Ratner’s plan was far from perfect- it was unworkable in so many ways. Why put up something that causes more problems, more crowding and more strain on the infrastructure, when a little more forethought and site consideration would make it a real asset?
“At the moment, the old neighborhood is winning.”
How, exactly? The funny thing is, there isn’t any “affordable housing” in the immediate area presently, unless you’re talking rent control. I lived in an two-bedroom apartment at 521 Dean Street for four years in the late 1990s and paid up to $1,650 per month, which I thought was relatively cheap. The Ratner plan was far from perfect. I agree, some of the buildings looked ridiculous, and I’m also aware of the difficulties with some of the architect’s buildings. Also, it’s debatable whether or not the afforable housing in that plan would have ever been built. But the present state of things ensures there won’t be any affordabe housing there in the forseeable future. I really don’t see a “winner.” Just the same hole in the ground I’ve been looking at since I was a kid.
brokeland = sheep.
knowledge > brokeland.
Brooklyn Chicken, you are not missing out anything other than thinking our elected leaders act responsibly.
btw, the parceling you are referring to is the principle behind the UNITY PLan to develop the yards.
see: http://unityplan.org/process.html
i agree with dddb,
railyards iffy, outside, including streets, not so iffy. and i love the carve out of the daily news plant. just begs to be a part of the process.
even so, that zoning doesnt apply to the state should be a good one in court. win, lose or draw, the fireworks will be delightful. and dddb, lets just say that there are a few people whom the existing lawsuits do not represent who havent had their day in court. just because you filed, doesnt make everyone in the city a party in interest.
fwiw, i may be using odd terminology as IANALAIDWTBO (I am not a lawyer and i dont want to be one).
Globabl Fiscal Crisis >>>>>> FCR
slow pain instead of quick pain. antiAY=antiSensibility
FCR > lisa
Big Daddy Kane >> Kanye
If the City invests in prepping that land for substantial development, isn’t it likely that they can then auction it off whole or in pieces for more reasonable development? As a business proposition it doesn’t seem that risky for the City. Waiting around for a big developer to promise (lightly) to develop the whole parcel before investing in remediating the land seems silly to me. What am I missing?
maybe next time marty markowitz, bloomberg and the MTA decide to give valuable public land and a boatload of subsidies to their pal Bruce Ratner or some other random crony, they should insist on an ironclad schedule for him to actually build whatever white elephant they have in mind.
just a suggestion. . .
PS– if you’re mad about paying $2.50 or $3 to ride the subway, think about whether the MTA should try to cut a better deal with Ratner or the next big-bucks con man who wants to get public land on the cheap.