Egan: Apathy and Resignation To Blame in AY Fight
In her NY Times op-ed piece this weekend, author, Fort Greene resident and DDDB board member Jennifer Egan contrasts the wily public relations machinations of Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner with the relative apathy and inaction of those who claim to oppose the project that would indelibly change the landscape and character of the borough….
In her NY Times op-ed piece this weekend, author, Fort Greene resident and DDDB board member Jennifer Egan contrasts the wily public relations machinations of Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner with the relative apathy and inaction of those who claim to oppose the project that would indelibly change the landscape and character of the borough. The combination of presenting the project as a fait accompli from day one and casting himself as the champion of the working class was, she opines, effective in a race-baiting sort of way. In the end, she laments the passive role it has placed the borough in, to be molded and shaped by profit-seeking developers, not the people who live here.
What was mostly lost in this caustic debate was the biggest question of all: what do we Brooklynites — a diverse and even divided collective — want our borough to be? Do we want it transformed from a sunny, low-lying place into knots of vertical superblocks? Are we content to let our borough’s future be imposed on us by developers and politicians? A strong girding of power and ideas is our best defense against developers who might wish to control the process. And an active and vocal public will send a healthy warning to elected officials who might consider placing these developers’ interests above our own.
What surprised us most was the tone of resignation that underlay the essay, playing right into Ratner “formidable spin machine “.
A Developing Story [NY Times]
I love how 4:49 AM on the one side spews hatred of all of yuppidom, yet longs for a Gehry building. It shows some of the contradictions in the pro-Ratner crowd. They hate the “newcomers” who oppose the Ratner proposal, yet they don’t realize that once built, it will house 15,000+ newer newcomers. Who do they think will live in these luxury apartments with no open windows?
Some could debate whether the project will be the densest residential development on the planet, but there’s no doubt that it will have the highest “Bugaboo pushing, flat and narrow corny Bikram yoga ass” density by far. (quoting 4:49 AM)
Sp’er – brillant development plan – rather then building where people prefer to live and near where they work (Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn) – spread them out over miles all the way out to East New York and down to Bay Ridge. Absolutely brilliant!!!!
So rather then offering these residents the plethora of mass transit options and a short ride into Manhattan (AY), you offer them few choices (causing significantly more car use) and longer trips. Did you ever hear of sprawl? Just b/c you arent building suburban subdivisions doesnt meant you cant have sprawl.
Here is an inconvenient truth – Density is the best way to lower automobile dependency, reduce emissions and protect the enviroment. Put that in your Birkenstocks
Post at 3:45 is mine.
Mr. Brooklyn,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
As regards increasing the housing stock, I invite you to visit any number of areas of New York City where there are vacant lots and where the housing that is being built is of very low density — lower than what existed before those areas got destroyed in the 60s and 70s. How about incentives to create apartment building housing in those areas?
I think we would be much better served in terms of quality of life issues by mid-rise construction on suitable avenues (4th, all the way out to Bay Ridge, Atlantic all the way out to East New York), than by the construction of a new luxury high rise zone. Because the fact is that the reason Ratner wants to build high rises in Prospect Heights is because this area is now extremely desirable and he can charge a premium for living there. That’s what makes the claim that the are is “blighted” and therefore can be claimed by the State of NY via eminent domain such a bald-faced lie.
It may be foolish to attempt to drive in Manhattan, but enough people do it anyway to make the traffic very unpleasant for those of us getting around on foot and on bicycle. One of my favorite things to do is to walk on 5th Ave. between 3rd St. and Flatbush. I’m sad that this lovely shopping street is going to be choked with traffic and no longer a pleasant place to stroll.
Brooklyn had an opportunity to do development at Atlantic Yards that would be pedestrian and bicycle friendly, that would tie together Fort Greene and Prospect Heights, that would encourage walking from one neighborhood to another. But that’s not what we’re going to get.
As for density — you’re right, Stuy Town is great, and a great example of how to privatize open space by the way, just like AY will. Now ask yourself if it would be a nice place with more than twice as many people living in the same space.
Finally, even if you think a 40 story building at the corner of Carlton and Dean is a good idea, I would still question the decision to turn over valuable real estate and to demap streets all for a single developer. If what we want is 40 story buildings in Prospect Heights, then let’s rezone the area and see what happens. If we want 40 story buildings along Atlantic Avenue, then let the City put in a platform and invite competitive bidding. That’s the way it’s going to go with the West Side Rail Yards.
To me, the worst things about this project is not necessarily the extreme density and concommitant reduction in net open space per area resident, nor is it the horrendous congestion that will come with the arena. It’s the corruption of a deal made between Ratner, Bloomberg, and Pataki, and the lack of input afforded the community as to what happens to public land. Yes, the community has had the chance to speak, but nobody is listening and there have been no concessions. That’s because I don’t see anybody with real power looking out for the public interest in all this.
I dont agree with the argument – ‘we need AY so we can get some good steakhouses in Brooklyn (besides Lugers)’ BUT I do agree that there are no good steakhouses in Brooklyn
Ok now back to your regularly scheduled arguments
***
Mr. Brooklyn, and a lot of others, dismiss the density issue — “it’s not a census tract” “it’s not a square mile”.
***
Well, I don’t mean to dismiss the density issue, I’m just pointing out that comparing the density of a residential development to that of a census track is deceptive. The comparisons to other residential developments is fair but let me ask, does it feel really crowded in and around stuyvesant town? That hasn’t been my experience but I haven’t spent much time there. If the population is going to grow by hundreds of thousands (with NYC growing by 900,000 over 15 years, I think, by Bloomberg’s estimate) those people have to live someone. And yes, that will mean that we need more schools, more fire and police stations etc. Why would we assume that those those places won’t be built over the next 15 years as AY builds up? Is there good reason to believe that AY is a bad place for such a massive residential development? I don’t think that anti-AY activists have presented any good reasons.
Polution is certainly a concern and the sewer system needs to be fixed so that it doesn’t overflow into Gowanus but, the long and short of it is that ceteris parabus, more population density = more polution and the increase population density is coming AY or not. I think we should be finding the best ways to cope with the increased population density instead of fighting against it.
***
Mr. Brooklyn above says: “I’d hope that downtown Brooklyn becomes like downtown Manhattan in that people just know better than to drive into it and I’d also hope that Brooklyn becomes even less of a car culture.”
Umm, Mr. Brooklyn, have you ever been to downtown Manhattan? Have you noticed the horrible traffic that people have to live with there? As for Brooklynites giving up their cars, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but public transportation for moving about WITHIN Brooklyn (as opposed to commuting to Manhattan) just isn’t that great. Look at a subway map.
***
What I mean is that it takes a fool to try to navigate around downtown Manhattan in a car instead of taking the subway. I’d see the larger downtown Brooklyn (I’m using a wide definition of downtown to basically refer to everything within a 10 minute walk of an A/C/2/3/4/5/F/R train) would be much the same.
I’m not a basketball fan (I’d be thrilled if AY was getting a baseball team) nor am I a fan big skyscrapers. I just happen to think that this project adds much needed housing and helps develop the commercial area that I think Brooklyn needs. I also happen to think that if project was opened up to a number of nimby community groups who could all hold things up and insist and having their special interests met, it would have turned into a big mess.
In terms of subway/transit lines – AY is the biggest hub in NYC.
If you are for the enviroment (in general not just your own little corner of it) then you cannot argue against putting high density and mass entertainment/shopping venues anywhere else but at convenient points of convergence for mass transit.
People want it both ways – they want to have lower housing costs but they dont want more housing to be built near them; people want to have a cleaner enviroment but they dont want to be near the density necessary to reduce automobile dependency – BTW we have a term for this type of selfish thinking=NIMBY.
Dont worry, I am well aware of the responses…..the subway is already too crowded it cant hold anymore (not true), we dont mind density but it is “unlivable” desity we oppose (not true) etc, etc…
You have to face facts – it is better enviromentally to build dense over/near mass transit then further away because inevitably more people will take mass transit when it is so convenient (even if it is crowded); and it is better enviromentally to have mass entertainment and shopping venues built over/near mass transit for the same reason.
so to you a new stadium = Steak house
what a lard ass.
ANon at 1:05 — of course there are arguments for putting the arena at Flatbush and Atlantic, although some analyses I have read make a good case for the current site of the Ratner malls as much better vis a vis traffic issues. But there are also arguments for putting it in Coney. Indeed, that was where Ratner originally intended to put it. Wall Streeters manage to get to Yankee Stadium and out to Shea, don’t they? I don’t see why putting the arena at a traffic choke point is somehow some sort of obvious and good idea, as you seem to think.
You point to bus transfers at Atlantic and Flatbush. These will be pretty much useless if traffic is as bad as predictions have it. As for the subway, of course many lines terminate at Coney.
Even Ratner doesn’t think this arena is a money maker. It’s a loss leader for a luxury housing development — a way to claim that he’s providing a public good.
But thanks for pointing out that the target audience for this arena is millionaires. I love those in-pocket African-American “leaders” who claimed that bringing the Nets to Brooklyn is some kind of great thing for black people. As if the typical Bed Stuy resident can afford NBA tix. That was one of the most cynical playing of the race card I’ve ever seen.
As for “embarassingly stupid” — doesn’t that apply to your kind of silly listing of all the streets and highways that people could drive on to get to AY? Yes, you have shown that there are lots of streets that all converge at the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic. Then what? I think you’ve made the point as eloquently as anybody could that there is going to be horrible traffic congestion radiating out from this arena.