Essay: Yards Proponents & Foes Both Overdoing It
Between looking after the kids and trying to work on the house, we never have a second on the weekends to read the paper. Which is why we missed this editorial by John Manbeck, a historian who wrote a couple of pieces for the Brooklyn Standard early on but who professes complete neutrality and is…
Between looking after the kids and trying to work on the house, we never have a second on the weekends to read the paper. Which is why we missed this editorial by John Manbeck, a historian who wrote a couple of pieces for the Brooklyn Standard early on but who professes complete neutrality and is critical of both sides of the Atlantic Yards debate:
Just as we’ll always have developers, community activists and environmentalists will invariably seek to check their greed and broaden their foresight. The tension between these two groups can be a creative one – except when it leads developers to exaggerate their ambitions and activists to simply obstruct them.
That’s where we are with Forest City Ratner Companies’ plan to build a sports arena surrounded by 17 imposing high-rise buildings on the Atlantic Avenue railyards. The plan is overkill, for which public officials are partly to blame. But the community’s response to it – a mix of not-in-my-backyard rejection and idealized nostalgia – is overkill as well.
We suspect that even the project’s most ardent supporters wouldn’t be disappointed to see things scaled back a bit.
The Project That Ate Brooklyn [NY Times]
Re: “Opponents start from the general premise of ‘no to everything'”. On the contrary, I haven’t heard ANYONE say that developement on the site is a bad thing. On the other hand, it is pretty clear to everyone by now, except for those being paid not to think, that this particular vision of closing streets to build at this scale with public subsidies is a poor idea.
As for “no to everything” I have two words: “Extell Plan”.
Is a rebuttal really necessary- except for the one line regarding NIMBY and nostalgia in overkill – the article is more or less a full blown critic of the project (except interestingly the arena).
Brownstoner is right that this supporter wouldnt mind some scaling back – but actually what I would rather is that Govt and Ratner address some of the questions such as traffic at intersection of Flatbush and 4th; public access to the park; and local schools ability to handle the kids.
However I realize that as long as opponents start from the general premise of ‘no to everything’; it would be a big mistake to put forth any real details as it just gives ammunition to the opponents.
Check out http://timesratnerreport.blogspot.com/ and nolandgrab.org for the full rebuttal and details.