On Last Day of Public Comment, Objections to AY
With the 60-day period for public comment on the Atlantic Yards ending today, final objections are coming in from neighborhood groups in the affected area. Most notably, a report prepared by a team of financial engineers on behalf of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods raises some serious criticisms but falls short of calling for a…
With the 60-day period for public comment on the Atlantic Yards ending today, final objections are coming in from neighborhood groups in the affected area. Most notably, a report prepared by a team of financial engineers on behalf of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods raises some serious criticisms but falls short of calling for a stop to the project. The report finds that the environmental impact study contained errors [that] incorrectly describe the size and location of the proposed project. It also finds serious workmanship and/or methodological errors with FCR’s computer-generated photographic overlays used to sell the vision of what the project would look like built. Meanwhile, the new coalition group, Brooklyn Speaks, called for the project to shrink by between one-third and one-half while increasing the affordable housing component. Another neighborhood group, Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus, calls bullshit on FCR’s estimate of raw sewage flow to the canal from the addition of thousands of toilets.
More Find Fault With Atlantic Yards Review [NY Times]
CBN: Enviro Review Flawed, Should Not Be Approved [AY Report]
Bowing to Bruce [Brooklyn Papers]
I have a very bad feeling about this AY project and most of it is based on my experience with the other Ratner-sponsored developments in Brooklyn, which are not very pleasant to look at or to occupy. And yes, they feel very cut off from the surrounding neighborhoods.
And this is just my opinion, but I think that “Miss Brooklyn” building is very ugly, from the renderings I’ve seen.
Whazza ULURP?
David, it’s amazing how my saying that AY would sit on top of 3 major streets, and would thereby cause massive traffic problems is translated by you into “Bunky opposes development on the roads because it causes traffic.” That’s really stretching it.
You’ve seen so many “red herrings” in everyone’s arguments, your oceanic view is preventing you from seeing the forest for the trees. (My apologies to English speakers everywhere for that one.) There are many, many valid arguments for opposing AY as it stands. Dismissing everything that you know to be wrong with it as merely sour grapes shows me that you know it too.
OK, Instead of bulding the pyramid, why don’t we all reach out to “Governor” Spitzer and see if he can rein in his ESDC at least to the extent that he’ll bring this project through the City’s ULURP.
The whole “TWICE AS DENSE as the densest housing tract in the US” is such a red herring – it only takes into consideration HOUSING. In terms of people most locations in Manhattan are FAR more dense as office buildings have far more people per sq ft then housing. Additionally this site SHOULD be one of the most dense developments in the country b/c you would be hard pressed to find more mass transit concentrated in one place than AY.
Anon @ 12 – I agree Atlantic/4th/Flatbush are major arteries not tertiary roads- but BBunky opposses development on the roads b/c it would create traffic – so I am asking where would you like to put the growth?
the economic efficiency goes well beyond what it costs to build the buildings – the residents need to get to jobs, entertainment as well as the efficiencies in city services which everyone loves to bemoan AY on but it is still cheaper and more efficient to provide police, education, sanitation, sewage, fire etc.. in one centralised location then to provide that all over the place.
If you oppose the parking at AY then protest that- tell me where and when and I’ll be there – but AY isnt a parking plan and oppossing the project b/c of this one small component is silly.
AY had been un-developed for decades and in fact the ONLY development (yes I know you dont like any of it) has been completed by Ratner; and the properties he now owns on the AY site he has only owned for a few years so to blame him for the eyesore that is AY is ridiculous.
No I wouldnt advocate 16 high rise buildings at west 4th -1st of all there are only 2 IND lines at that spot (as compared to 7 lines at AY and the LIRR) 2nd the destruction of historical buildings and displacement of residents would be several 1000x greater than at AY (nice try though)
Anon @ 1205 – no NYC has not always been a vibrant and successful city – w/in my lifetime it was a shrinking, bankrupt city whose longterm viability was considered grim; and please provide an example of an inner city urban enviroment that ‘crashed’ due to density .
CHP – every political process/develoment in history has had some degree of cronyism, payoffs, etc… We would all like a ‘perfect process’ – but it isnt going to happen, especially when you have opposition that will resort to any frivolous claim to sue, obstruct and otherwise derail a project they dont like. Again this “the process wasnt fair” stuff is a also a red herring – if you oppose AY then opposse it for what you dont like about it (subsidies, density etc…) on some of those you might have a good claim (subsidies for example) which can be debated on the merits but ‘community input’, ‘abuse of power’ are simply sour grapes by people who would (if they could) also use any channel; payoff whomever necessary and otherwise abuse any power they had to prevent said development from going through.
David, I agree with you that we need more development in the inner parts of Bklyn. I often complain on this forum that the outer limits of the borough seem to be the only place anyone wants to put affordable housing, and I think that the AY site would be a perfect place for a well planned mixed income building project.
However, I don’t understand why it is so hard for you and other AY proponents to see that most AY opponents do not oppose development in this key site. We just don’t want FCR’s overscaled monstrosity which has been the textbook case for slick examples of cronyism, payoffs, false advertising, misrepresentation and aiding and abetting the race and class differences and problems of this city. Not to mention all of the infrastructure issues, eminent domain abuses, out of scale building, density, and general abuses of power.
There have been several other plans for development which met with the approval of a coalition of different groups with different and varied agendas. But from the very beginning, the deck has been stacked against anyone else being able to win the site, as the MTA virtually gave it to FCR, even though other bids were higher. This whole process has stunk from day 1, and for that reason alone, the laws and lawmakers which are supposed to prevent this sort of thing should have cut FCR off at the knees. But, as we all know, big money knows no law but itself.
No one with a brain wants to see the site remain fallow. We’d just like it to be fair. Fair to the taxpayers, fair to the surrounding areas, fair to people who desperately need housing, and fair to the millions of people who will be affected by the transportation, environmental and quality of living issues that a project like this will bring. That is not the AY we have now.
I hardly think NYC will cave in and crash without the “growth” of the AY project. It’s always been a vibrant and successful city, but those who insist vibrancy and success are only tied to one factor- growth- are short sighted, and miss most of the big picture.
There comes a tipping point in every environment when the stress or strain on an area tips the balance and the area crashes. That’s reality. Packing small areas too tightly ultimately destroys them for a number of reasons, and AY will do just that.
David — point by point
1. “3 tertiary roads” This is how you would describe Atlantic, Flatbush and 4th Ave??? Don’t be ridiculous. These are major arteries.
2. “Growth has to go somewhere…take advantage of the existing infrastructure” I gather by this remark that you would be in favor of placing 16 high rise towers all around the W. 4th Street station in Greenwich village. After all, almost every subway line runs through that station.
3. “economically and environmentally the most efficient” Yes, of course we should build more densely closer to the center, and close to transit hubs. But everything has a limit. A project that is TWICE AS DENSE as the densest housing tract in the US is way beyond that limit. Also, if FCR were serious about addressing environmental issues, they wouldn’t be proposing 5,000 new parking spaces. There would be NO parking for the arean; arena tickets would have the cost of a round trip subway fare built into them; there would be strict zoning regulations banning the development of parking garages.
4. “economically efficient”
FCR claims that the extreme density of the project is necessary because of the costs of building over the railyards. But in fact the extreme size drives the costs of building. Please read up here:
http://brooklynviews.blogspot.com/2006/05/its-scale-stupid.html
5. “Those are your choices people – thats it – nothing else”
Why are those our choices? Why can’t we have both appropriately dense housing at transit hubs and also low-rise development throughout the borough? I work in Bed-Stuy/Bushwick. I could show you a LOT of vacant lots — there are seven just one block over from my facility!
6. “removes horrible eyesores”
The AY footprint is currently undeveloped because Ratner is holding valuable properties vacant in the hopes of building his mega-project. All around the AY footprint, construction is taking place. Ratner is CAUSING blight.
So are you suggesting building more housing (affordable or otherwise) at the intersection of 3 tertiary roads.
What all this NIBYs dont seem to get is that to have a successful and vibrant city you need growth. And that growth has to go somewhere. Your choices – take advantage of the existing infrastructure (roads, subways, railways) and put that growth in the center. Which is economically and enviromentally the most efficient way to develop. The second choice is to push the development away from the center – called sprawl, which is economically inefficient (thereby lowering growth) and enviromentally disasterous.
Those are your choices people – thats it – nothing else – make your choice but please be honest w/ yourself and everyone else. If you call for lower density at a rail/subway and road hub you are calling for higher density (or no growth) at other more economically and enviromentally comprimising locations.
AY may not be perfect but it couldnt be at a more efficient spot, it requires destruction of no historically important buildings, it removes a horrible eyesore and displaces comparitivly few people (2 owners and about 55 renters) considering its prime spot.
No I dont work for Ratner.