Not Too Late For AY to Go Through ULURP?
Although Dan Doctoroff signed an agreement with the state and Forest City Ratner in ’05 that allowed the developer to sidestep ULURP for Atlantic Yards, thus substantially weakening the community’s say in the mega-project, the outgoing deputy mayor is now singing a different tune. If it happened again, and the state were to ask if…
Although Dan Doctoroff signed an agreement with the state and Forest City Ratner in ’05 that allowed the developer to sidestep ULURP for Atlantic Yards, thus substantially weakening the community’s say in the mega-project, the outgoing deputy mayor is now singing a different tune. If it happened again, and the state were to ask if I would encourage them to take Atlantic Yards through the ULURP process, I would say yes, Doctoroff tells the Observer in an interview. But is it really too late for Atlantic Yards to go through the public-review planning process? In a press release, Develop Don’t Destroy spokesman Daniel Goldstein argues that it’s not. As the project has not begun construction—and can’t while it faces two court challenges—Mayor Bloomberg can get it right and send the development of the Vanderbilt Yards through ULURP; it’s what his soon-to-be former, highly praised and trusted right hand man thinks is appropriate,” says Goldstein. We agree: Better late than never for Brooklyn’s largest development, a project that is going to receive substantial public financing and forever alter the borough.
Doctoroff Looks Back on Atlantic Yards [NY Observer]
Doctoroff: Atlantic Yards Should Have Gone Through ULURP [DDDB]
Photo by pencer T. Tucker for nyc.gov.
I can’t wait until AY is built so you all can go find something else to dwell on. (And you will because it is why you exist. Your life is void of all esle). Guess what, not everyone agrees with you and you are not the majority. I will be on line for season tickets.
Even if every single subway line was at current capacity 24/7 (which they arent even close) it is still imperetive that new developments can be built in a manner that it is realistic to eventually service them by mass transit.
You have 4 choices
1. No new development = escalating housing/office/retail costs to a point of non-sustainability and then economic decline
2.New development spread out, away from center, which adds stress to mass transit and private transport (cars) and makes additional mass transit prohibitively more expensive – resulting in more pollution, more traffic and lower social and economic prospects
3. Development in high density near city center and near mass transit to make pedestrian and mass transit most attractive AND (addressing your point) make additional mass transit more practical b/c of centralization, existing infrastructure and economies of scale.
4. Build more mass transit rapidly and then build high density at central points along these transit lines.
It seems clear that everyone would want number 4 – but that just isnt going to happen (Governments are rarely that proactive- how are you going to sell BILLIONS of capital costs that wont be ready or needed for years?)
The only viable option left then is #3; Of course all NIMBYs will say it HAS to be #4 – but in reality that is simply a vote for #1 under our current political system (and the rising waters of the Atlantic Ocean arent waiting for that to change)
Ratner’s other daughter is cool, fwiw. But I agree this kind of info has no place in this discourse. Nor does the name-calling, now that we’re on the topic.
The “let’s create density near a transit hub” argument is, as currently conceived, deeply inadequate as a description of what of AY. The current plans include NO provisions for added subway capacity, new bus routes, new schools, new sewer lines and waste treatment stations, health clinics, fire stations, etc etc. All of this will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. And all of it will come much later than it is needed because none of it is in the current plans. After all a recent MTA study declared that service on the 2/3 and (unbearably crowded) 4/5 lines cannot be expanded beyond what it is now because of practical limitations like the minimum length of time between trains arriving in stations.
12:24 – 1st of all AY opponents have suggested at least 3 different locations for an arena at various times (Red Hook, Navy Yark and Coney Island) – which is irrellevant already since the Nets currently play in an arena virtually inaccessible by mass transit.
Andd it isnt just NIMBY to the arena, its also no tall buildings and no large retail component
FSRG, your NIMBY charge makes no sense. i don’t hear opponents to AY talking about building an arena anywhere else. if you’re going to use a stupid acronym to reduce a complex argument to a ridiculous insult, at least use one that bears some relation to the actual argument.
“Secret Stuff: does it matter that Ratner’s daughter is an anorexic/mixed-up human being? It shows what kind of prick he is in his own personal life and how he treats his ‘loved’ ones.”
You don’t have to be Bruce ratner to have something like that happen in your family. Better be careful throwing stones, poster.
12:03 – yeah b/c only people who are ‘pricks’ have kids with mental problems
But thank you for demonstrating the depths that NIMBYs will go
11:58 – no infrastructure? – 10 subway lines and LIRR isnt infrastructure?
The divide btwn PH and FG if anything will be smaller as compared to the ‘hole’ that is there now.