Nets Arena By 2010? Not Bloody Likely
Over at Atlantic Yards Report, Norman Oder maintains that we should take the Nets’ pledge to move to Brooklyn in 2010 with a grain of salt: Arena construction takes 24 months and can’t begin until the pending lawsuits are cleared…Even if the legal challenges end soon, it still would take a scheduled three years to…
Over at Atlantic Yards Report, Norman Oder maintains that we should take the Nets’ pledge to move to Brooklyn in 2010 with a grain of salt:
Arena construction takes 24 months and can’t begin until the pending lawsuits are cleared…Even if the legal challenges end soon, it still would take a scheduled three years to reconstruct bridges on Carlton Avenue and Sixth Avenue, and it would be a very unwise move to open the arena with a major traffic bottleneck next to it. The Carlton Avenue bridge won’t close until January 16. Three years from then would be mid-January, 2011.
Given that the Nets originally intended to be playing in Brooklyn by 2006, Oder’s skepticism about the current target date doesn’t seem far-fetched.
On the Nets Arena, the Real Story is 2011, Not 2010 [AY Report]
Nets Say Brooklyn Move May Be Delayed Further [NY Times]
Rendering from barclayscenter.com.
1:24 – While I agree with your entire summary of the facts – you have ignored the most worrying factor – TIME. It has taken us years to reach this point and while surely the pro-AY politicians/citizens plus Ratner have the ‘facts’ on our side, costs continue to escalate and the economic outlook is no longer so bright, therefore there is the possibility that this project could be receive the death of a thousand (baseless) cuts.
I will only feel confident that I wont have an open pit and weed grown lots in my neighborhood for another generation when I can actually see the steel rising.
FSRG
Please, folks, don’t worry. All of the opponents’ legal battles have failed so far. The eminent domain and environmental review cases are on appeal and will surely be rejected. Most of the candidates they championed lost miserably at the polls. Demolition is proceeding at a brisk pace. Ratner owns and controls most of the land in the footprint. Thanks to leadership steeped in extremist views, the opposition has dwindled to a small band of hysterical computer geeks masquerading as community activists. Really, they have accomplished very little and this thing is indeed a done deal.
12:29 – Thank you for a utterly far-fetched story. Glad also to hear that you would just stand by while somebody gets beat up. Not that I believe your idiotic tale one bit.
Sorry, 12:22pm, but I’m not following your enviromental argument. The issues people are concerned about have to do with the already over-taxed sewer system (raw sewage in the Gowanus Canal and back-ups into people’s homes after major rain storms), traffic gridlock, air pollution, construction impacts (incl noise) etc. I do agree with you that it’s a great site for development and, as someone who lives in Prospect Heights, I’ve never a single one of my neighbors dispute that. It’s just that we want something less dense, with fewer taxpayer subsidies and handouts (subway fares are about to increase yet the MTA sold the site to Ratner for under their own valuation), and with more public involvement. As it currently stands, AY is the worse urban planning fiasco to come down the pike in decades.
Does anyone know if the Carlton Ave bridge will still be open to pedestrians during the construction?
This was in the summer when I saw a nimby at a bar on atlanitc ave harassing a guy because he bought a condo in a “tall” building and calling him names and just going on and on. Finally, after he stopped bit*hing to smoke a cig outside outside, he starts complaining again to someone else. They ended up arguing and one thing led to another and the nimby got his ass beat up bad.
I ended up seeing the end of it, it was very entertaining. I suggested they should do this more often, beat a nimby to the ground festival. Aw, good times.
(What does NIMBY mean? Sorry, ESL student here.)
Not in my back yard.
As in there should be a place for 20,000 people to gather for sports and other things in a city, but not at the junction of almost every major subway line in Brooklyn plus the LIRR if I live near there and need a place to park my SUV.
And there should be housing for more people to live, but not near me if it might mean people who are different than me might move in (richer, poorer, whatever).
I have sympathy for those whose housing is being condemned for more housing. That doesn’t seem right. And I worry about the public costs of the project, especially given that the housing cross-subsidy isn’t going to happen.
The “environmental” arguments are bogus, however — the Nets currently play at an arena off a highway surrounded by parking with no rail access. And as for the “character issue,” that’s just another way of saying people like us are worth more than people like them.
Brooklyn, like any municipality, needs more well paid people living in it. Not less. People who earn more, pay more everything. More taxes, more fees, more bills.
People who depend on subsidies dip their hands into the pockets of the people who pay the taxes.
The answer to all urban problems is based in attracting and providing attractions for people with money.
The worst outcome for Brooklyn is the Ebbet’s Field Scenario, where a sports facility is converted into public housing which creates a local nightmare that lasts 50 years.
AY will be irrelevant once AY is built. THERE! I said it!