Yards Scale-Back: Token or Meaningful Move?
Big news on Atlantic Yards on Friday. First, Ratner announced that he was axing 440 market-rate condominiums for a total of 475,000 square feet. According to James P. Stuckey, the new plan “allows for more open space, narrows the scale of the buildings and reduces overall bulk and density, but it also gives us the…
Big news on Atlantic Yards on Friday. First, Ratner announced that he was axing 440 market-rate condominiums for a total of 475,000 square feet. According to James P. Stuckey, the new plan “allows for more open space, narrows the scale of the buildings and reduces overall bulk and density, but it also gives us the flexibility to maintain our commitment to affordable housing.” While the overall number of floors would shrink, some buildings would be even taller than originally planned. (Hmmmm.) Separately, the Empire State Development Corporation said it would expand the main geographic area under study and increase the number of intersections where the traffic impact will be examined. Marty says he’s “delighted” by the changes but not so Dan Goldstein: “The whole thing is still bigger than it was when it was announced.”
Arena Complex Shrink by 5% [NY Times]
Final Scope Document [DDDB]
jps, isn’t protecting ‘selfish’ interests what drives the Landmarks. Would you recommend doing away with Landmarks and Historical preservation.
Aren’t they concerned about preserving views, etc.
Aren’t zoning rules also designed for ‘selfish’ reasons:
* to protect resources,
* to prevent over-crowded schools, loss of parking,
* to reduce noice, reduce traffic congestions
* to help ensure adequate street cleaning/garbage collection.
Would you also support doing away with zoning laws.
Why do we need to label those with an alternate viewpoint as obstructionists or selfish. I think they’re raising valid points. I don’t think you can lump all the objecters or questioners into one category.
They’re just trying to make the developers, architects, city planners, gov’t officials more accountable. Most of us, regardless of where we stand on the subject, is just hoping for the best possible outcome.
It’s just strange to me how the real hardcore supporters of this project bristle everytime a simple question is asked.
Given the history of many developers to quickly throw up a project, collect their earnings and run for the hills, it seems plausible for many of us to say ‘hey, wait a minute’ let’s make sure this thing gets done correctly.
“Why is it David that you avoid the real issues- the environmental impact.”
Whose enviromental impact? The Regions, the States, the Nations and the planets enviroment would greatly benefit if people moved into high density communites (like AY) with nearby mass transit (like AY) – this is a fact that NO enviromentalist would disagree with. But maybe you are only interested in you own personal enviroment – if so then so be it, just admit it.
“The jobs, after analysis by experts (neither you nor I) will be mostly temporary, part time and/or low paying.”
“mostly”? very vague term but even if true – so…vs. no jobs….
“Yea for mass transit- how is it you never answer the question, how are they going to beef up the system to handle the massive influx of people?”
Dont know…but if you are protesting for more mass transit then sign me up I’ll be there; but here are a couple of facts to keep in mind:
1. The people are coming, NYC population is estimated to be increasing to over 9M by 2025 – ‘enviromentally’ where do you want to put these people? next to a transit hub or in some outer inaccesible place?
2. Somehow the 2/3 and A/C/E line along with LIRR manage to handle Madison Sq Garden crowds along with HUGE # of tourists and commuters – is it crowded -yup, but it works – AY has 2,3,4,5,B,D,Q,M,N,R and LIRR. Yankee Stadium handles 55,000+ 80 games a year (albeit with many more drivers) w/ only B,D and 4 trains. We are far from capacity on our subways
“Try not hiding behind the disingenuous idea that people will leave their cars behind. (I take mass transit – don’t have a car) If you really believe that you are far more naive than we know.”
Actually you are naive – people arent stupid, if they are going to a game and the roads are packed and there is no parking then people are going to take convenient mass transit. Get on the 4 train going toward Yankee Stadium at 6pm on game day or even the LIRR toward Penn b/4 a Knick game – you’lll see plenty of jerseys proving people take mass transit – will everyone – nope, but “enviromentally” it is far better to make it a viable then put an arena in a place where NO ONE can take mass transit i.e. Medowlands
“Infrastructure, fyi, also includes NYPD and FDNY services as well. And when the mostly residential surrounding streets are packed with 1000’s of sports or music fans just think how much fun that will be.It’s an idiotic idea to put a stadium smack in the middle of a major residential/business area.”
So instead divert Fire, NYPD, Sanitation etc… to an unpopulated area where they are ordinarily unneeded?? – Thanks for proving my point
“Let me repeat- idiotic. And it won’t be one night a month. For that arena to break evenm a financial organization figured out it would have to be filled 319 days of the year. Do you think the area can handle that kind of traffic, along with thousands of new residents?”
Yes…will everyone like the traffic, denstity etc – nope; but again the people are coming – AY or not. And people also like entertainment, so the real ‘enviromental’ question is if not here then where – and you’ll be hard pressed to find a better spot.
“Sure, if you like living in a sardine can. Will you move there David? (yeah- I just bet.)”
I already live here and I’ll be staying and hopefully walking over to my season ticket Nets seats
“As someone else posted, I’ll believe the mixed use plan when I see it because people who buy luxury housing want to live in a luxury housing neighborhood with luxury housing neighbors. And that’s a fact.”
And all the mixed income developments in Manhattan built for 421a tax breaks – they arent a fact?
” Ratner by the way is not bound to build that afforable or moderate housing in the project. Under his contract he can build it elsewhere -”
Which you should like since it will reduce density
“so if I’m wrong about him actually building mixed income housing I’ll be happy to say so then.”
Well then stop complaining about it now, since he cant build it b/4 its built
What a waste of time to post in these discussions. It always comes down to the pro-Ratner people asking “why not?” and the anti-Ratner people saying “because”. And then the pro-Ratner people fall back to: “This thing may be crap, but it’s better than anything else that can ever be built there.” Adios, muchachos.
Can someone tell me why the stadium is supposed to be the anchor for the development, and from what I read, the catalyst for the whole thing in the first place? Studies have shown that large arenas don’t generate the kind of funds that compensate for all of the tax breaks, city perks, and other give backs that they get from cities. Look at Yankee Stadium. The Yankees are the wealthiest team in baseball, and their box office draw is one of the best in all of sports. Ask anyone who lives around the stadium what having it there has done for them. Aside from a few bars and related businesses, not a whole lot. The executives and office staff of the Yankees don’t work near there, they certainly don’t live near there, and most of the jobs related to the stadium are service staff – groundskeepers, janitorial, food, etc. These are the same kinds of jobs that will be created by a Nets stadium, and while any creation of jobs is a good thing, these aren’t the kind of jobs that are going to lift the masses into middle class, and will certainly not allow anyone the income to be able to afford to get an apartment or condo in AY.
I think the site should be developed for residential and commercial use, I’m not an anti-building Luddite, but I don’t see why everyone, is expecting the stadium to be a shining beacon on the hill, generating so much money that it supercedes all of the problems that come along with it. What else, besides concerts and maybe the circus, can you do with it? Come on – you have to come up with at least 319 days worth of use.
Besides, the Nets ain’t the Yankees.
Puckish — I ultimately support getting something built over not getting something built, even if it is, more or less, the development as proposed. I really hope the street grids in particular can be improved. But I think the density of the project is necessary for it ever to get done. My sense of the opponents — and frankly what I read of your post — says that they would rather nothing be built than a dense structure of high-rises.
In NYC real estate, it is far easier for a project covering this much area not to get built than to get built. So, I am willing to support a big build over nothing, even if it means I have a more congested subway ride, harder parking, slower traffic near my home, etc.
I’m not sure if AY will be better for me personally or not. I do believe — and a reasonable person can totally disagree — that it will generally be better for NYC.
So those are my priorities — whereas, it seems to me, the priorities of the bulk of the opponents (or at least those most publicly vocal) is preserving their own status quo first (views, parking, commute, etc.), getting something built second. (I.e., “Don’t Destroy,” as they define it, really comes before “Develop.”) I would rather not wait decades for some generational change in which a theoretical, more enlightened NYC society will build a perfect low-rise development that won’t make somebody like ratner a ton of money.
And by the way, voting one’s self-interest is totally understandable, I just don’t think it makes for good public policy.
Iro,
Please note that the comments made by someone appear ABOVE the line with their names. I did not make the comment about living 12 blocks south, I made the snarky comment to driver about smelling the fumes. I’M ON YOUR SIDE!
I don’t mind being jumped on for my opinions, but only if they are actually mine! 🙂
First of all let me say that I’ve supported the AY development from its inception.
I felt sorry for the homeowners who were losing their properties to eminent domain but felt happier about the ‘glossier’ lifestyle that the AY promises to bring to the city.
But now I’m beginning to wonder if its benefits will outweigh its drawbacks.
Maybe I just need to hear about plans that are on the drawing board to ease traffic congestion, etc. I believe this is called ‘environmental impact’ or something close to that.
Jimmy, no one said that we should design transportation based on a transit strike. The transit strike was just used as an example of what happens in brooklyn when traffic isn’t moving smoothly. Other examples, driving on flatbush (north off atlantic) during St. Patrick’s day celebrations, West Indian day Parade, etc.
Flatbush and Atlantic arteries are often clogged nowadays. What will it be like in the future. There’s no doubt in my mind that the traffic will overflow to other nearby streets as some of the other posters have suggested. And the fact that some roadways are being narrowed or eliminated will only make matters worse.
I think this project has so much support for it that no one is really taking a good look at the potential quality of life impact that it will have.
Why is it David that you avoid the real issues- the environmental impact. The jobs, after analysis by experts (neither you nor I) will be mostly temporary, part time and/or low paying.Yea for mass transit- how is it you never answer the question, how are they going to beef up the system to handle the massive influx of people? Try not hiding behind the disingenuous idea that people will leave their cars behind. (I take mass transit – don’t have a car) If you really believe that you are far more naive than we know.
Infrastructure, fyi, also includes NYPD and FDNY services as well. And when the mostly residential surrounding streets are packed with 1000’s of sports or music fans just think how much fun that will be.It’s an idiotic idea to put a stadium smack in the middle of a major residential/business area. Let me repeat- idiotic. And it won’t be one night a month. For that arena to break evenm a financial organization figured out it would have to be filled 319 days of the year. Do you think the area can handle that kind of traffic, along with thousands of new residents? Sure, if you like living in a sardine can. Will you move there David? (yeah- I just bet.)
As someone else posted, I’ll believe the mixed use plan when I see it because people who buy luxury housing want to live in a luxury housing neighborhood with luxury housing neighbors. And that’s a fact. Ratner by the way is not bound to build that afforable or moderate housing in the project. Under his contract he can build it elsewhere – so if I’m wrong about him actually building mixed income housing I’ll be happy to say so then.
And jps- you need to get priorities straight. Environmental impact is far more important than how much sunlight you’re getting- but why use that as your excuse to not support the opponents? Because you don’t like they way they state things, you’re going to give up demanding better subways, better street grids, better design. Boy, are your priorities mixed up.
BxBklyn – there was only 1 other legitimate proposal for the site -Extell and that proposal didnt include the centerpiece fot the development – an arena.
On a macro level “packing” people into an area especially next to a transit hub is actually very healthy since it will inevitably decrease sprawl, reduce emissions and allows for economies of scale in many govt services that free up additional $ for other things like heathcare.