Gehry & Ratner Show Their Cards
July 5, 2005, NY Times — The massive building plan surrounding a new Nets arena east of Downtown Brooklyn will include a ridge of a half-dozen skyscrapers as high as 60 stories sweeping down Atlantic Avenue, along with four towers circling the basketball arena, according to new designs completed by the developer Bruce C. Ratner…
July 5, 2005, NY Times — The massive building plan surrounding a new Nets arena east of Downtown Brooklyn will include a ridge of a half-dozen skyscrapers as high as 60 stories sweeping down Atlantic Avenue, along with four towers circling the basketball arena, according to new designs completed by the developer Bruce C. Ratner and the architect Frank Gehry. The project, the largest proposed outside Manhattan in decades, would include much more housing than originally announced in 2003, growing to about 6,000 units from 4,500, according to a plan made available to The New York Times. But the real impact would be in the size and density of the buildings, which are taller and bulkier than once envisioned. With 17 buildings, many of them soaring 40 to 50 stories, the project would forever transform the borough and its often-intimate landscape, creating a dense urban skyline reminiscent of Houston or Dallas. The project would be built in phases, starting with the blocks around the arena, then the apartment complexes along Dean Street at the Vanderbilt Avenue end, and finally the northern stretch of housing along Atlantic Avenue. The arena is planned to open for the 2008-9 basketball season, said James P. Stuckey, an executive vice president at Forest City Ratner Companies, with the entire project completed as soon as 2011. The project will come before the Metropolitan Transportation Authority tomorrow as Mr. Ratner makes a formal proposal to buy and develop the Atlantic Avenue railyards.
Comment: We have to admit that these renderings are pretty exciting. Over the past several months, as the debate over the project has intensified, we found our sympathies leaning towards the anti-Ratner camp. We’re extremely uncomfortable with the concept of eminent domain and if our brownstone happened to be directly affected by the plan we’re sure we wouldn’t be pleased. But it’s hard to look at Gehry’s renderings and not get swept up. We couldn’t give a rat’s ass about having a local basketball team, but being at the center of arguably the most significant urban development effort in a generation (or more) is starting to outweigh our earlier reservations. Let’s hope that it’s more than a giant P.R. stunt to close the deal. Enough people’s lives are being uprooted that this better end up being something special. From the looks of it, it just may be.
Instant Skyline Added to Brooklyn Arena Plan [NY Times]
An Appraisal [NY Times]
The affordable housing in this plan is only a ploy. Ratner is saying whatever he can for PR purposes. In any case the affordable housing component is only temporary. This is not a community-minded endeavor. It is massive money-maker and affordable housing doesn’t fit in that equation.
So stop touting it — it’s just a ruse.
wow, i didn’t realize there was already something planned along the Atlantic Avenue side — that’s a lot of development for one area. 6,000 apts from Ratner, plus Atlantic Terraces, plus who knows what else!! silly question, but where are all these people going to come from? sort of seems like the market is going to be flooded with excess supply for awhile…
i’m a little confused from the maps as to where the houses are being taken by eminent domain. it looks like between atlantic and pacific, up to vanderbilt. that the area with the old NY Daily News condos, the police precinct, and a lot of old row houses, right? why not build the project on the other side of atlantic, toward fort greene instead of prospect heights? there are a still a lot of empty lots there, and really bad ugly 1970s apt buildings. can anyone who has been following this explain?
Though I disagree with Dan Goldstein on almost every point I’ve ever heard him make, and his depiction of Ratner as a greed-crazed maniacal monster who takes twisted delight out of “grabbing” other people’s land is in line with his usual over-the-top style, his point below about it being preferable for Ratner to build on undeveloped land is indisputable. The most controversial element of this whole plan, by far, is the use of eminent domain, and if Ratner had the opportunity to use his own land but instead chose to use political connections to further maximize profit, that would definitely constitute eminent domain abuse.
That being said, Dan, does this mean that you would have actually supported the plan if your own property wasn’t involved? I can understand your opposition given your position, but clearly you would still be opposed anyway, so pretending to reasonably support a middle-ground rings false. I am a lifelong resident of the neighborhood who lives just a few blocks away from the Atlantic yards, and I support the project, because I have seen too many proposals quashed over the years. I don’t doubt the good intentions of community activists, nor do I dispute many of their criticisms of this particular plan, but these good intentions have never produced anything constructive, and in reality have done nothing more than preserve the status quo of desolation, decade after decade after decade.
I don’t really like the sketches, though I’m not against the development of the whole area per se — i actually think the Target, as ugly as it is, is an improvement for the area for example, much better than the mall with the Old Navy that was built in the mid-90s, for example.
Some caution about eminent domain and Brooklyn development, however. In the mid-50s, brownstones in the area surrounding the LIRR railyards at Atlantic Ave were condemned and knocked down to make way for a stadium development, just as Ratner is proposing today. Then the Dodgers got a better offer in CA, and that was that — the lots sat empty until the mid-90s, when some affordable housing was built (around Atlantic and South Oxford) and the ugly Old Navy mall went up. There were scattered proposals for developments in the 80s, but community opposition was too strong.
I think Ratner often does a nice job — I’ve always been a fan of Metrotech, which was much better than the Fulton Mall development of a decade earlier, and a big improvement for downtown. But I’m wary of using eminent domain to condemn all of the residential properties around the railyards — it seems like there’s enough empty space as it is to build the stadium. If he wants to build housing, there are still a lot of empty lots and industrial spaces surrounding 3rd and 4th Avenue, leading up to the Atlantic terminal area. Small in-fill housing would be more appropriate for the community than an enormous Gerhy plan, in my opinion.
i was for the project before today.plopping 20, 40 story buildings in the middle of brooklyns largest commercial artery asks the question,where do all the cars go? from the trucks and commuters who take atlantic and 4th avenue to escape the bqe to the traffic that goes to the manhattan bridge. and lets not forget the nets game and all the workers and apartments adding to congestion. oh a traffic disaster the likes of herald square awaits and those with cars and trucks will not escape. except me, if this turns out to be as bad as i think it will i’m out of here!!!!
this debate is so typical of the brownstoner demographic– we tend to be overwhelmingly privileged, in a borough that just isn’t. brooklyn’s amazing energy doesn’t just come from acres of beautiful housing stock; it also comes from diversity and generations of people living in poverty and struggling their way out of it. the wasteland at the prosposed site (yes, i know there’s some housing nestled in there, but shockingly little given the scope of the project) presents a great opportunity– one that, realistically, can only be exploited by somebody who is extremely rich, ballsy, and politcally astute. ratner, for all his ugliness, fits the bill (and apparently nobody else has presented a viable solution since the area was razed 50 years ago). he’s played his cards very well- offering what look to me like pretty fair deals to current owners and tenants. most importantly, he is bringing tons of desperately needed jobs to our borough. and the fact that we get a basketball team to boot is a great bonus, imho. sure, the buildings, like most huge modern structures, are kind of ugly, but if they bring the growth and propserity that non-brownstoner brooklynites need right now, i’ll take them.
David
1. Union Sq didnt develop with community input
union square has self controlling mechanism in the form of small lots develop by different developers in different times.
2. Union Sq isnt at the center of one of the largest mass transit hubs in the country
Do you have any data comparing union square to Atlantic ?
3. NY City doesnt need 2 Union Sqs, it needs more affordable housing and more jobs like those that are going to Jersey City.
Union square is just an example of successful urban fabric.
One million apartments is off the free market because there are rent stab. Not surprise it is expensive
Downtown Brooklyn has a lot of not rented office space.
4. No one is proposing Union Sq type development and if they did you could be sure many of your compatriots would oppose that b/c it isnt brownstones….
How do you know that?
Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues is hardly an appropiate “existing road network” and I’m not so sure how much busier you want that subway/LIRR station to get.
An arena for the New Jersey Nets that primarily benefits a private entity is not at the high end of what I believe as a public good. The New Jersey Nets already have a perfectly good arena in the swamp on the NJ turnpike.