Gehry Officially Off Yards Project
The writing’s been on the wall for some time, but The Times delivered the official death blow in an online article yesterday afternoon: “Frank Gehry is out as the architect for the Barclays Center arena, the centerpiece of the long-delayed and financially challenged Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn, according to government officials and real estate…
The writing’s been on the wall for some time, but The Times delivered the official death blow in an online article yesterday afternoon: “Frank Gehry is out as the architect for the Barclays Center arena, the centerpiece of the long-delayed and financially challenged Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn, according to government officials and real estate executives who have been briefed on the plans.” Taking the reins post-bait-and-switch will be a Kansas City-based architecture firm called Ellerbe Becket. Unfortunately for all of us, The Times describes the new design as bearing a resemblance to Conseco Field as well as an “airplane hangar.” Meanwhile, Atlantic Yards Report notes that Forbes is putting the odds of the Nets making it to Brooklyn at 50-50.
Developer Drops Gehry’s Design for Brooklyn Arena [NY Times]
FCR Names New Architect for Brooklyn Arena [Reuters]
Starchitect Dumped from Atlantic Yards for Cheaper Option [NY Daily News]
Star Architect Out of Arena Project [NY Post]
This thing is hideous and badly located. Can we kill it already?
MM, I am sure you are correct about Bed Stuy incomes being up in recent years, but wouldn’t you think that has more to do with richer residents moving in than those who are already there making more? I only say this because it seems that nationally our incomes seem to have been stagnant over the last few years. My point was only that this entire city is comprised of people on opposite ends of the income spectrum living side by side one another.
I generally agree with you though, and wish I could put together a more thoughtful response to equal yours, but I’m running all over the place today getting ready to leave for vacation tomorrow for 10 days. The debate is a good one to have though, no doubt.
Thanks MM- I just erased my post saying that very thing re the affordable housing.
MM – the “cap” you cite refers to a relatively large family. No childless couple making 110K is going to come anywhere near qualifying for the affordable component. And while I appreciate your concern for the truly poor, the fact that a teacher (for example), with kids could still live in a brand new apartment in our boros center – is frankly not “bogus”
RE
but I really don’t see the comparison to the area we are speaking about to probably one of the top 3 most densely populated areas in the United States (midtown Manhattan).
Wasn’t AY going to be THE densest census track in the country!?
11217, a quick internet search found that Bed Stuy statistic you cited(incomes in the 20’s), and it seems to come from the 2004 census, which was years ago. I’m pretty sure the numbers have come up since then, although still below the city average. That is also due to the enormous size of Bed Stuy, and the fact that the lowest income groups figures skew the entire average down. Most people in the parts of Bed Stuy found desireable to new home owners are moving into places with neighbors who are doing much better than the average. It is not kings bedding down with peasants, but more like varying degrees in the middle coming together.
Taking that back to AY, the so-called affordable housing had a cap of over $100K per annum income. There is a large difference in everything making $38K and living “affordably” at AY, and supposedly being on a par with someone coming in on the same program at $120K. This part of the original AY proposal made no sense to me then, and still doesn’t. The truly low income housing that ACORN and housing advocates wanted was always going to be built dead last, was contingent upon sales of the rest of the apartments, and probably off site. (11217, this is not necessarily directed to anything you said, I’m just tossing it out there.) Point being, the affordable housing argument for this development’s continued existence always was bogus.
grip100692 – The luxury apartments that Ratner plans for AY by in large were not aimed at people who make north of 400K a year, nor would virtually ANYONE making 20K or less qualify for affordable housing under the guidelines currently in place. A 1M apartment (the high end of Ratners plans from what I understand) is affordable at current interest rates to a family making significantly less than 400K (round numbers a 1M apartment, financed should have a carry charge of around 5500 a mo give or take)
As for the aesthetics -the past and continued (albeit slower) sales of fedder apartments and the virtually universally decried 4th Ave Condos belies you assertion that people wont buy in (generally considered) “ugly” buildings.
shockingly, fsrg I do agree with most of your positions above. My opposition to AY was not about anything more than the size and scale. I’m also within an area that will be affected and yes- I would love to see something there that benefits everyone. I was just not convinced AY as it was designed would benefit anyone but Ratner.
I would like your opinion on the alternative plan that was presented. Was that ever realistic?
grip – your 12:13 post is exactly the point. In order to be able to afford to live in an apt that cost $650/SF. You con’t have to make $400K a year. A professional couple that brings in about $200K a year can afford that pretty well. And those people live in close contact with the teachers and social workers who likely populate the “affordable” units all over the place.
You are acting like there aren’t already tons of “80/20” projects all over manhattan that have people paying for high end units in buildings that also contain “affordable units”. You are acting like this has never happened before and never could happen, when as a point of fact this is a well-used program that has been pretty succesful.