I need a financial relief. My father's business is in that area its not the best area but he owns the building and its in my name. I hope that build that stadium, so I can sell the building, get some cash, and let him go back home to Jamaica to live as he so wishes. Build the stadium!

Frank Gehry is probably the worlds most renowned and respect architect, meaning his final result is going to be incredible despite what all of you idiots can tell from one angle of a preliminary model. Secondly, the entire project is going up in a dump of a train yard, on an uninteresting part of Atlantic Ave., is anyone seriously in favor of saving the train yard? Finally Brooklyn will have its own sports team again, and we can stop going to other crappy boroughs for work and entertainment, the only two fundamentals still slightly lacking in lets face it the most rounded and interesting place in NYC possibly the U.S.

All I have to say is fuck yeah! The Nets coming to Brooklyn and the city looking like a sci-fi movie, now that's bad ass.

Living on Pacific St in Boerum Hill, I long for the day that 6,000 apartments are plopped down along Atlantic Avenue. That's 6,000 more people who will support local restaurants and stores, demand better city services, and improve the neighborhood. There is so much capacity for public transportation here, and there is so much derelict and underused space. You nay-sayers are fighting for a U-haul station? WTF? Density is our destiny.

"when you imply that this style of building would be forced into anyone's daily life and that it would cause hardship only because of it's appearance, then i would consider that an attempt to mandate against a particular style."

Alright, if you insist that a negative critique of Gehry's style is a mandate against, so be it.

Back to a point you made earlier. If we are truly free (as you've said twice), then why am I not entitled to speak out against a style of architecture I find unsavory.

"if it's painful, you can always take a train to jersey with your last $2."

First my education, now my income? Let's be mature about this, shall we.

"That's your opinion; I see it as otherwise."

as i understand it, it's not an opinion, but the definition of post-modernism.

and to be clear, i'm no proponent of modernism. more often than not, it has failed to achieve its goals. i'm also totally against the stadium plan even though i like the way it looks. obviously, we're both expressing our opinions but when you imply that this style of building would be forced into anyone's daily life and that it would cause hardship only because of it's appearance, then i would consider that an attempt to mandate against a particular style. again, thanks to our freedom, you will never be forced into it. there will always be other options. if it's painful, you can always take a train to jersey with your last $2.

"they are references to or an acknowledgement of the past, not a denial, just as i said."

That's your opinion; I see it as otherwise.

"you will never be forced into one of these buildings."

Never say never. In real estate, especially in this market, beggers can't be choosers.

"i don't think you should mandate your philosophy, style, or desire to others."

My friend, I'm only defending my opinions, nothing more. I'm sorry if you feel I'm trying to change yours. Truth be told, I'm hoping others who might follow our dialogue will come away with a willingess to question the conventions of modern design.

While we're at it; folks, these two sites sum my opinion best, take from them what you will:

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Mission/mission1.asp

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_2_urbanities-how_to_build.html

seems like you're jumping all over here. if you're going to gloss over modernism as 'rejecting the past and having issues with ornament' then it's just as acceptable to point out obvious pomo references to the past. no, you're not going to see every intricacy of art nouveau or baroque nor every aspect of those philosophies in gehry's work. parody or not, they are references to or an acknowledgement of the past, not a denial, just as i said.

the forms are definitely not coincidental and obviously not a mere tool to differentiate from old modernism. as i already said, they are expressive, sculptural, and inspiring to many. they have just as much of a right to live in them as you have a right to live in a 'pedestrian' structure. you can love classicism all you want and you can visit or live in thousands of those buildings in nyc anytime you like. you will never be forced into one of these buildings. i don't think you should mandate your philosophy, style, or desire to others. this is precisely what diversity, and brooklyn, is about.

Baroque in Post-Modernism? Not without a vast oversimplification.

The use of curvilinear forms on Post-Modern architecture is coincidental. An end result of it's furious attempt to differentiate itself from the rectilinear forms of "Old" Modernism.

It's curvilinear forms are enormous, indelicate and distort the very structure of the building. Art-nouveau employed curvilinear forms as ornamentaion upon a tried and true template of building form. Gaudi's work at his most extreme still retained the look of a classic apartment house. To me gehry's work is brutal with none of the delicacy, sensuality, lavishness, and humanism of Art-Nouveau.

If Post-Modern architects are making any reference to the past, in my opinion, it's either lip service or a parody.

To be inspired by a visit to the Bilbao Guggenheim is one thing but to try to incorporate it into one's daily life for decades (whether one wants to or not) is another matter. Modernist and futurist painting, sculpture, and performance art was not designed to plop in the middle of a city and impose itself on the inhabitants the way architecture does.

For me, modern architecture works best when it's an extension of strutures of a Classic style, like Scarano & Associates' headquarters, or the Brooklyn Museum, or proposed Moynihan Station. The new Yankee Stadium is almost a reverse of this principal; an entirely new, state of the art, building that's anchored to the community around it, thanks to it's classic, timeless facade encasing it's modern interiors.

As pedestrian as it may sound nowadays, architecture should be more humanist because, as you said, it shelters. That is, of course, entirely up to the designer and most of all, the client.

I wish Santiago Calavatra was chosen as the lead architect on this project. I think Gehry's design looks like a Las Vegas hotel. Brooklyn needs outstanding modern architecture to complement its turn of the century (Victorian/Queen Anne) architecture.

post-modernism often embraces the past. it's not hard to see baroque and art nouveau (the past) in gehry. at their cores, the philosophies aren't very similar at all... as you pointed out with your rationality vs irrationality thought. the commonality is that they both reflect today's cultural values and technologies. which leads to your next point...

like it or not, the social significance of gehry's work couldn't be more obvious. bilbao has inspired many every day people in ways that haven't been seen since gothic cathedrals. obviously it's not for you but that does not make the work 'pure formal exercises'.

but to finish carrying your point to the next level of simplification, classicism and modernism are both guided by one philosophy: to shelter.

While "Old" Modernism is guided mostly by rationality and Post-Modernism mostly by irationality. Both are just two generations of the same philosophy: "The past is for losers, the future is now". To me all these attempts to interpret the future however are purely formal exercises with little social significance.

I'm not quite up to speed on architectural history, but I think one might be able to debate whether Gehry's a lower-case-m modernist. "He rejects the past" to some extent as xandervaliya notes, but then again that doesn't necessarily make him a capital-M Modernist.

On the new Atlantic Yards: I agree with the comments by Lumi and some of the others above. This wood and cardboard model just doesn't matter that much. The massive scale, questionable urban design, huge public subsidy, use of eminent domain, and displacement of existing residents and business -- all these are more cause for concern than the architectural style(s) of the buildings themselves.

As an aside, does anyone know what the story is behind that building on the south side of Atlantic between Sixth and Carlton (which would be destroyed under the Ratner plan)? How old about is it? I ask because the LIRR tracks curve around it, as can be seen on the NYT map (they had a good photo of it on their website, but I can't find it now).

if you must pin a label on him, you could call him a deconstructivist... but i'm guessing that's probably too 'ironic' for you too. an essential part of modernism is the premise that 'form follows function'. that is obviously not the case with gehry's work.

you could argue that's still modernism in simplistic terms (dividing all of architecture into two categories), but if your goal is to insult his work, calling it modernist isn't very accurate and puts gehry in the company of some very succesful architects which doesn't cut very deep.

"gehry is not a modernist."

What is he then? And don't just say Post-Modernist. If I wanted irony and surrealism just for the sake of it, I could just as easily find it at the UN or Brasilia.

oops, I only meant to say that once.

Right on Sh-k - It's an unfortunate fact of life that when a large group of people see something as desirable, a small percentage with money will see even more money.

For the record, I live in the North Slope.

If I remember correctly, the Atlantic Center was fought vigorously by brooklyn citizens for a decade or so with the same arguments (scale, displacement, etc) before it was eventually built. I think the AC is annoying and ugly, but it hasn't destroyed the neighborhood. In fact, it's arguably made it safer/nicer.

Now, should we fight this? Probably. Mainly because I'm always frightened when so much development is proposed at once - neighborhoods are meant to evolve slowly. But I also think such development is inevitable and again, not the end of the world - I would just like to see something better done with it.

I think the bottom line is that we're all a little uncomfortable with its insensitivity, regardless of our individual perspective.

Right on Sh-k - It's an unfortunate fact of life that when a large group of people see something as desirable, a small percentage with money will see even more money.

For the record, I live in the North Slope.

If I remember correctly, the Atlantic Center was fought vigorously by brooklyn citizens for a decade or so with the same arguments (scale, displacement, etc) before it was eventually built. I think the AC is annoying and ugly, but it hasn't destroyed the neighborhood. In fact, it's arguably made it safer/nicer.

Now, should we fight this? Probably. Mainly because I'm always frightened when so much development is proposed at once - neighborhoods are meant to evolve slowly. But I also think such development is inevitable and again, not the end of the world - I would just like to see something better done with it.

This is surprising to me, most of you guys must not live in the area immediately surrounding these proposed buildings, because all I hear is critique of the architect, and not much regarding Ratner.

I live in that area, and as at least one person said, it is already too congested with traffic (car and foot). Ratner is forcing this area to become metropolitan, when the very reason so many people have moved here and started paying high rents is "because" it is not metropolitan. Right now, it still looks like a neighborhood. Ratner wants to make it a mini-manhattan.

Ironically, to me the ONLY bright spot of this is Gehry. As someone who will have to live under the new 'skyscrapers', I would much rather live near some interesting looking buildings rather than more rectangle boxes slapped next to each other. If Ratner has his way (and I hope SOMETHING stops this plan), the only saving grace will be the Gehry designs.

This project will ruin fort greene. I never thought I'd see the day when I would have to actually leave fort greene and move to manhattan for cheaper rent. F--k!

xandervaliya, modernism has been pretty well defined at this point. gehry is not a modernist. skim any 101-level text for help.

i actually like it... but i'm a fan of dr.seuss. he's becoming a one-trick pony. it feels like elitist homgenization. is it really just another form of suburbanization/mcstripmalling for the urban crowd? it's the same idea that he sells to every city rich enough to bear his jewels. compare him to khan, le corbusier, saarinen, wright... they didn't plagiarize themselves like this. they designed unique buildings to solve individual problems for specific locations.