Atlantic Yards: Time to Take a Shower
Regardles of whether you’re for, againt or somewhere in the middle on the Atlantic Yards project, it’s hard not to be disgusted by the transparent dog-and-pony show that’s gone on in recent days culminating in FRC “accepting” the city planning commission’s recommendation of a 8% cut in the scale of the project. Kinda makes you…
Regardles of whether you’re for, againt or somewhere in the middle on the Atlantic Yards project, it’s hard not to be disgusted by the transparent dog-and-pony show that’s gone on in recent days culminating in FRC “accepting” the city planning commission’s recommendation of a 8% cut in the scale of the project. Kinda makes you feel like you want to take a shower. Opponents have been warning of this political gamesmanship for a while–ask for the moon and then look like you have compromised when you agree to a smaller size. It’s pretty disgusting stuff and frankly we had thought Amanda Burden (who had always struck us as a pretty straight shooter) was above that. Apparently not.
AY Developer Acepts 8% Reduction [NY Times]
I’m still wondering why brownstoner feels the need to write about his shower fantasies.
also this new trend of multi-paragraph quotes from previous posts is horrible. you don’t have to do that the post is right there above yours.
but in the end, thank you, all you psychos, for coming out today
“We have never really had successful planned growth.”
Josh, what i have learned is that those who talk a free market (i am NOT accusing you) play a very different game…google dean baker ‘the conservative nanny state’ available for free download- the Wall Street Journal, ect talk a good game about free markets but wall street makes a ton of money off the government and regulation.
as for central planning – i agree but what do don’t realize is all the tweaks put out their by our government and various agencies making the very assumption that you need population growth to grow the ecomony.
as for taking a drive…that simply isn’t case we’re losing open land an an alarming rate, again if you don’t value it, it’s a pointless discussion.
“the US just became a net food importer for the first time in its history.”
Who cares?
I think that says it all.
Josh I used to hold and still to some extent hold libertarian values, but I have realized that any sort of fundementalist idealogy leads to irrational thinking and becomes the proverbial hammer that makes every problem a nail.
A country’s ability to feed itself is about as fundemental to its existence as national defense…if england didn’t have an ally in the US in WWII it would have been starved into submission.
Unfortunately any organization with ties to the politics in power can preety much do anything it wants. The City Planning Comission is a joke. In the hearing for the Brooklyn Law School domitory, the dean testified that the block was blighted (a parking lot) and dangerous without anything to substantiate the claim. Those of us who live in the neighborhood cited the police department’s records of a lack of any crime to no avail.
Then when they apprved a change in the zoning — just for the BLS — guess who else benefits? Walentus. He buys 100 Livingston (in the swath rezoned for the BLS) and can build higher than before. It’s all a game for them. They pull the stings and line each other’s pockets.
“would you want to see brooklyn heights razed and built over?”
That’s my point. If the guy who owns the house doesn’t want to sell it, it’s a shame to use eminent domain to take it from him. But, if he wants to turn his nice Brooklyn Heights house into a salvage yard, that really is his choice, not yours or mine. One man’s dump is another man’s paradise.
“Sustainable growth means just that – grow in ways that don’t pass on problems to future generations.”
We have never really had successful planned growth. Most growth came through individuals and companies trying all kinds or things until something panned out.
“the US just became a net food importer for the first time in its history.”
Who cares? We’re net exporters of software. Is that a problem for you?
“b. the population of the US… (went from 250 million in 1975 to 300 million now – the reason america had/has great living conditions is the land to population ratio.
Let’s grow, but lets think of smarter ways to grow.”
I don’t know if we want to get into the whole illegal alien thing how. But, take a drive outside of NYC and you’ll see that most of the US is pretty vacant.
What the hell does that even mean? It sounds like a rationale for some sort of central planning. That works real well.
And I think people are ignoring the fact that places like HK became so dense because people want to live there. If you have so many people wanting to live in a place and you refuse to let developers build, then you are going to have insane prices (as we do today, thank you City Council).
People never want to face this choice:
1. Low density but very high prices
2. Higher density and lower price
josh would you want to see brooklyn heights razed and built over? greenwich village? Park slope? People put housing and zoning laws in for a reason – would you want to live next to toxic dump…if you bought a home and someone wanted to build a toxic waste plant next to you, would you fight it?
Sustainable growth means just that – grow in ways that don’t pass on problems to future generations. We have public parks, trees and such because people were investing in a future they would never see. No one who plants an oak tree is going to enjoy it in their life time – why do they do it?
josh, please just think long term for a moment:
a. the US just became a net food importer for the first time in its history. is this a welcome trend?
b. the population of the US (almost 100% from immigration) went from 250 million in 1975 to 300 million now – the reason america had/has great living conditions is the land to population ratio
Let’s grow, but lets think of smarter ways to grow. Ireland had/has a thriving ecomony without population growth, same goes for switzerland.
Personally I value the open land we have in the US. You obviously don’t. Not knocking you personally just point that out.
“When you succeed in implementing some sort of eugenics program that intelligently manages population reproduction, I’ll be the first to applaud.”
Again, you’re creating strawmen – like ‘rich plantation owners’. the US and Europe and japan all would have negative or stable population patterns but for mass immigration. Japan is the only country that is not trying to solve economic and other problems via population growth – the island is too dense already.
“Human civilization has never existed without population growth, so it’s a safe assumption. ”
simply not true.
“You are in one small way keep down the a lot of people who want a better life. Do you really think the police will protect your “right” to your nice townhouse? Do you really think in the end you will prevail? The anti-development crowd on this board is in a small way paving the road to anarchy.”
anarchy is what you advocate – the very rich and powerful siezing homes and properities from the middle class.
“Rich plantation owner? LOL you have resort to this crap? You sound very, very unstable Eryximachus. ”
The unstable pundits of today lead the revolutionary forces of tomorrow. You are in one small way keep down the a lot of people who want a better life. Do you really think the police will protect your “right” to your nice townhouse? Do you really think in the end you will prevail? The anti-development crowd on this board is in a small way paving the road to anarchy.
Things are far more precarious than you think. If you want stability, solving the housing crisis would be a nice first step.
“shows how out of touch with reality you are…you have it ass-backwards, the US would have a stable or negative population growth but economic planners assume you need population growth to grow an economy, so they encourage it – it is obviously not sustainable, but they dont, like you, care. YOu’re quite short-sighted.”
When you succeed in implementing some sort of eugenics program that intelligently manages population reproduction, I’ll be the first to applaud.
Human civilization has never existed without population growth, so it’s a safe assumption. Thus, the constant need for builders.
“you know this is not a sustainable pattern of development, don’t you…or do you?”
Gag. I hate left wing sound bites. What the hell does that even mean? It sounds like a rationale for some sort of central planning. That works real well.
And I think people are ignoring the fact that places like HK became so dense because people want to live there. If you have so many people wanting to live in a place and you refuse to let developers build, then you are going to have insane prices (as we do today, thank you City Council).
People never want to face this choice:
1. Low density but very high prices
2. Higher density and lower price