Gothamist: Gehry Redesigns the Atlantic Yards

Celtics J. Fan

Fri, 12 May 2006 15:24:47 -0500

The Knicks suck so bad, how about we just give them to NJ and have the Nets play at MSG? Stadium problem solved.

Andrew J. Lederer

Fri, 12 May 2006 15:14:27 -0500

"and what i've heard of the so-called "middele-income housing" is the usual "oh well a certain percentage will be put aside". which means the same apartment complex, even the same building, would need to have vastly different rents and thus types of people living together. do you think either side of that coin will stand for that deal for long?" [16] Posted by: boerum hill *********************************** Yes. It's done all the time.

robin.g

Fri, 12 May 2006 15:13:31 -0500

I don't get the whole NIMBY thing; no one is taking that stance. They don't mind development "in their backyard" - just not THIS project. That particular acronym is a non-issue.

boerum hill

Fri, 12 May 2006 14:48:52 -0500

trying to predict what people will do once a situation totally changes is futile. even given the examples of other cities, there's no guarantee people will take public transportation. same thing with assuming the ball park will only bring a manageable amount of people. the complex will likely attract others, hoping to benefit from the business or just rubbernecking, and no matter how they get there, they will be there, slowing down both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. i don't care about rich people moving anywhere, even to my neighborhood. it's their right to move where they want and i can ignore them. to complain about that would be selfish. but to create this artificial demand for those people by building "luxury condos" all over the place is just developer greed. as for the arena, if you build a stadium in an undeveloped area, and then apartments spring up around it because of natural demand, then fine. but there's no reason to screw up a neighborhood that already exists with an ill-thought-out plan. every complaint the community has come up with is either ignored, or some half-assed patch is tacked over the gaping hole by the big players, the politicians, and people who don't live here. these issues are only being argued about now, in forums like these (which, let's face it, will never change anything either way, so there's no use getting pissy with each other), because the plan was not thought out well enough in the first place. the bottom line is, ratner and gehry aren't interested in the type of development that would be more appropriate for the area, becuase they probably couldn't make as much money off of it. they went in for the big splash, they want the big payoff. the only reason there is an arena going there is because ratner owns the nets. it's a cross-promotional wet dream for him. it has nothing to do with helping people - if it does that at all, it's a side benefit and mostly done for show and to skirt the rules concerning eminent domain usage. again, i'm not against a development over the atlantic yards, but this is not the one that should go here.

prospect heights

Fri, 12 May 2006 14:25:39 -0500

Bob A Booey

Fri, 12 May 2006 14:10:06 -0500

I just recently came back from a trip to SF to see the Mets play. AT&T Park was built in an underused area with warehouses and such. Do you know what happened when they built the ball park? People started building apartment buildings right across the street and throughout the surrounding area. They also have limited parking and just 1 light rail line going in there and some ferries everything seems to workout just fine. Mind you, the ball park attracts more than twice the amount of people that the arena in Bklyn will. Same thing is going on right now in San Diego—new ballpark, apartments being built right near by, limited parking. Atlantic Yards is sitting right on top of an unbelievable amount of transit lines, people will take mass transit there just as they do at MSG & Yankee Stadium (which is far more underserved with transit) Take your selfish NIMBY arguments and rethink them.

humphrey

Fri, 12 May 2006 14:07:18 -0500

Vinny wrote, "Unfortunately, compromise and concession usually winds up turning into the unmitigated disaster that is Ground Zero. 5 years later and we still have a hole." Sounds like he would advocate developers/the city doing what they want, regardless of the community's wants/needs. Here's the thing about the WTC site though (I refuse to call it "Ground Zero," as I worked there for 4 years up until 9/11): who the hell wants to work there? I wouldn't. I doubt anyone I know would. It's a giant graveyard, and it'll be a new terrorist target to boot. What should go there is a park and a memorial, and nothing else. It's not like vacancy rates for office space in the city are so low that companies are moving to Pennsylvania just to set up their business. There is not a demand for all these new skyscrapers, and the only reason to build them is so multibillionaire Silverstein can make even more billions. Unless you count "we have to show the terrorists they didn't win!" as a reason, but that's just pathetic.

tired rants

Fri, 12 May 2006 14:02:37 -0500

Complaining about rich people moving into your neighborhood is a futile fight. Maybe you should just do away with the rich people altogether. Close down the law schools. And how about a massive windfall profit tax on Goldman Sachs? At least the oil companies privide middle class jobs to engineers. For every millionaire at Goldman there is someone to make his food and clean his office. How progressive. And very progressive to put an arena in the middle of nowhere so everyone has to drive there. Where's my Hummer?

boerum hill

Fri, 12 May 2006 13:12:40 -0500

thank you, "angry", for bringing up the alternate bid. and the other points. very importantly though: "people have been paid wuite nicely" is not the issue. these people would not have chosen to vacate. their lives are being messed with. as usual, they think throwing more money at the situation will solve it. people in the way? just buy them off. it's offensive that this supposedly makes everything okay. sure, some may be glad they were able to hold their ground until their checks had enough zeroes on them, but a one-time buyout isn't going to give those people better jobs to put them in a higher income bracket to afford equivalent or better housing in today's pricey real estate market - unless they move to a shittier neighborhood. as for the annoying NIMBY acronym, well why shouldn't we care about these issues if this is where we live? i'm certainly not suggesting it's okay to do to another neighborhood (the definition of the term includes this), i'm saying an arena should be in NO ONE's neighborhood. it should be its own neighborhood, taking into account the increased traffic and parking issues as other sports complexes have done. housing developments i'm all for, if they're well-planned — and i don't believe this one is.

J

Fri, 12 May 2006 12:34:32 -0500

"The whole thing about middle-income housing is a joke." So true. Plus the city's definition about middle income is totally outdated. there's a HUGE pocket between low- and middle-income that doesn't qualify for either program, and those who make just slightly above "middle income" who pay market rate for an apartment would still have to spend 50% of their income.

reanimator

Fri, 12 May 2006 12:26:08 -0500

White European settler to Native Americans: We'll build our cities where you used to live, slaughter you and give you smallpox. If you complain, you're against progress! British invaders to the people of India: We demand that you learn English, build us houses per our specifications, stick around to scrub the floors and cook us meals, and recognize that this is...progress! Bush to Iraq: Sure your cousin got murdered yesterday by an insurgent, and your children were all blown up by a smart bomb a couple years back, and the building where you work has no working plumbing, and you quake in fear every time you leave the house. But trust me when I tell you: it's progress! Progress is, clearly, in the eye of the beholder. Gehry can take his "progress" and shove it up his ass.

ditka

Fri, 12 May 2006 12:07:45 -0500

Dude, friends of mine live right next to Wrigley in Chicago. I nknow baseball isn't basketball, but fans are fans, and people trash that neihborhood. Trash, pissing on the street, loud noise. Putting a stadium in a mostly residential area is a bad idea, period.

Fan of development, just not this one

Fri, 12 May 2006 12:02:14 -0500

The ridiculous thing about this debate is that proponents use this argument: "New York needs more housing, and the construction would create jobs." How does this translate to "So therefore we must support an idea that puts all that housing and creates all those jobs in one specific location, thereby benefiting one billionaire and a vanity-obsessed architect"? How about spreading development out...did anyone ever think of that? Benefit some millionaire or thousandaire developers instead of just Ratner. Let pockets of "progress" blossom all over the ciy, instead of ramming too much of it all in one place where area residents are overwhelmingly opposed to it. What about the Bronx? That borough could use some serious development and redevelopment. Is the train yard the only parcel of land in the entire city worth building on? Come on, that's just bullshit. Progress doesn't have to come in the form of a huge boot stomping on a neighborhood. It can actually happen organically, through small-scale, common-sense steps that benefit more people than they piss off.

Angry

Fri, 12 May 2006 11:53:28 -0500

Bob: you are an idiot. Like the president does with his NSA program (either follow the law and have another 9/11, or listen to "the terrorists" and prevent it), you frame this as a false choice: "Who needs buildings and jobs and middle income housing when you can have a beautiful view of a big ol' train yard?" There was an alternate bid on the property, which would have included housing, commercial space and green space, and would have created jobs. And it was way higher than Ratner's bid. But it was rejected, because the MTA (and seemingly every area politican) is in his back pocket. Ratner's downtown malls are the ugliest buildings around. That one with Target in it belongs in a suburban office park in Ohio. The guy is only interested in making money, so much so that if unopposed he'll keep putting up eyesores and ruining neighborhoods as long as he knows he'll make a buck in the end. Have you ever driven around Atlantic and Flatbush, any time of day, any day of the week? It's a nightmare, and they obviously have NO plan to address how they'd handle the increase in traffic. They're just ignoring that issue completely. And the whole thing about middle-income housing is a joke. These apartment buildings will be full of millionaires and trust-fund people whose parents pay for their apartments or loan them the money, just like every other high-rise building in NYC. Everyone else--except maybe a few renters who got bribed to vacate--will be left in the shadow of these monstrosities. Not in my back yard: you're damn right. I'll say it loud and proud. I would want buildings and jobs in my back yard, just not more than the neighborhood can handle without being overcrowded and overheighted.

Bob A Booey

Fri, 12 May 2006 11:04:08 -0500

Once upon a time there were no buildings anywhere in this city taller than a few stories. Good thing all these NIMBY morons weren’t around when progress was being made over the past 100 years in this city. These buildings are taller than other ones in the neighborhood, get over it. For the uninformed, there are well over 1000 apartments set aside for middle income residents in this project. As for the Eminent Domain situation, people have been paid QUITE nicely for them to vacate their owned (significantly above market prices) or rented (large pile of cash to vacate) homes. People’s lives have been changed by the amounts of money they have been given (and if they really want to return to the area, they have been offered below market prices in the new buildings). People’s lives will improve by moving into affordable beautiful apartments. Brooklyn will continue to develop a REAL downtown. Everyone wins but the NIMBYs. No one has been kicked to the curb and only fools are fighting for their homes.

robin.g

Fri, 12 May 2006 10:54:17 -0500

I think we all learned from The Simpsons that Frank Gehry's buildings are unattractive and useless. Crumpled up piece of paper indeed.

boerum hill

Fri, 12 May 2006 10:42:56 -0500

neither the article nor anyone's comments have mentioned the controversy about ratner invoking eminent domain to oust a block's worth of residents from their homes. or has the plan changed to exclude that block? that issue is the main reason for DDDB's existence, not elitism. having said that, there are too many giant buildings around already. the mall with target in it has some decent stores, as does ratner's older half of atlantic center, but i was never thrilled with the office building built above it. let's not forget the lovely clock tower (williamsburgh bank) which was recently bought and vacated for conversion into luxury condominiums, or the new apartment building going up in the former parking lot on atlantic and 4th - all within spitting distance of atlantic yards. who is going to live in all these high-rises in brooklyn and manhattan? at some point the influx of rich people has to slow down. and what i've heard of the so-called "middele-income housing" is the usual "oh well a certain percentage will be put aside". which means the same apartment complex, even the same building, would need to have vastly different rents and thus types of people living together. do you think either side of that coin will stand for that deal for long? then there's the proposed arena. anyone who lives in the area knows the traffic nightmare already existing at the triple intersection of atlantic/flatbush/4th avenue. the new mall has already increased this traffic (i've lived here long enough to see it built). and now a sports arena, bringing thousands more vehicles into that area? their response is, "people will take public transportation, because it's all right there." bullshit. people will do what they want, they'll clog up the side streets for blocks, and if there's a parking lot in the complex they'll pay through the nose to park there if they want to bring their cars bad enough. a sports arena plan is the kind of thing that should follow the example of giants stadium or nassau coliseum - build it on its own little complex away from the residents. but no, in this case gehry and ratner want to take a bad idea and make it worse by concentrating a huge amount of people and traffic in one place. not to mention "changing the landscape" against the community's wills, and insulting them and kicking some of them out of their homes in the process. i'm not against something being built at atlantic yards - i don't need it to stay as derelict train tracks and a recently demolished building. but something more on the scale of the rest of the neighborhood, that really benefits everyone involved and not just the developer's pockets and the architect's ego.

Andrew J. Lederer

Fri, 12 May 2006 10:35:56 -0500

Unfortunately, compromise and concession usually winds up turning into the unmitigated disaster that is Ground Zero. 5 years later and we still have a hole. [4] Posted by: Vinny ******************* The situations are not even remotely similar. ______________________________________________ Yeah. Who needs buildings and jobs and middle income housing when you can have a beautiful view of a big ol' train yard???? Who needs progress when you have choo choos? [11] Posted by: Bob A Booey **************************** Nobody's trying to "preserve" the rail yard. It's the massiveness of the project and its incursions via eminent domain into other blocks that offend.

J

Fri, 12 May 2006 09:23:36 -0500

I agree with certain points from both sides of the argument - yes, I think building something other than the railyards is not a bad idea in and of itself, and that more hoousing is sorely needed in the area (especially affordable and middle-income) but that this project is way out of scale. And I do think the people who are worried about increased traffic - of the vehicular and pedestrian kind - have a very valid point. We all know the MTA isn't adding service apace with new residential developments in Brooklyn (just look at Williamsburg) and that is a problem that Ratner et al have not addressed at all.

though police

Thu, 11 May 2006 23:53:57 -0500

How do the liberals expect a society with fewer cars and denser living if you WON"T BUILD MORE APARTMENTS. NIMBYism rears it's ugly head again. You can try to deflect the attention by dissing Ratner, Gehry and Henry Ford but it doesn't mask your elitism. And whether there would be fewer roads in New York if there were no cars? Maybe fewer highways but the Manhattan grid was laid out in the days of horse and buggys.

Brightliner

Thu, 11 May 2006 23:24:42 -0500

Toby, You mention the Westway, but I was thinking of the infinitely more destructive Lower Manhattan Expressway, which would have decimated Soho's historic architecture, even if some aren't terribly thrilled with the neighborhood's residents nowadays. Yup, if "Bob" above had his way, much of Soho would have been torn down in the name of progress and jobs. Who cares about some dirty, old buildings when you could zip from Brooklyn to Jersey without hitting a single stop light?

Bob A Booey

Thu, 11 May 2006 23:01:29 -0500

Yeah. Who needs buildings and jobs and middle income housing when you can have a beautiful view of a big ol' train yard???? Who needs progress when you have choo choos? Fudgepack Mountain and Dawson's Creek skank no whats best from Brooklyn, after all they lived there for a year!

Frank Gehry

Thu, 11 May 2006 22:50:53 -0500

I suck hard! - Frank Gehry

Tim N.

Thu, 11 May 2006 21:18:59 -0500

Thank you, Frank Gehry, for showing the world once and for all what a no-talent complete asshole you are. This is a man who's greatest contribution to world culture is a museum that looks like one of those crumpled up balls of paper paperweights. Dude, take your uber-expensive and preciously hip crooked buildings and drop them in Sheepshead Bay. And make sure you and your yuppie supporters are on the top floor when you do.

Toby

Thu, 11 May 2006 21:05:40 -0500

Gehry is a hack who designs ugly crap who cavalierly dismisses those who oppose him. I'd go picket Henry Ford, but the flux capacitor in the De Lorean seems to be on the fritz. The Atlantic Yards project is not progress, it is greed. I agree 1000% with Brightliner that "all of Gehry's fugly buildings to be torn down and replaced" - however there needs to be a stronger word than "fugly" to describe the crap he builds. Most hack modern art types just give their crap a catchy title to destract you from the fact they have created garbage. Hopefully Ratner and Ghery's viso will wind up in the dust bin of failed New York proposals like the Westway - awful not needed garbage!

Brightliner

Thu, 11 May 2006 19:32:53 -0500

Gehry is really showing his enormous ego here. "There is progress everywhere. There is a constant change. The issue is how to manage it." Isn't that what the opponents are trying to do? The only difference is he just doesn't like the way they want it managed. He sounds like nothing so much as a wannabe Robert Moses, and it's a good thing Moses didn't get his way with the cross-Manhattan highways he wanted. The only "progress" and "constant change" I want is for all of Gehry's fugly buildings to be torn down and replaced. As for picketing Henry Ford, that actually would be a great idea if I had a time machine. Imagine this world if cars weren't the personal playthings of billions. 25% of the land area in American cities wouldn't be given over to streets and parking lots and garages. We wouldn't be beholden to the Middle East. Global warming wouldn't be threatening to swamp the planet. Gee, maybe cars, like Atlantic Yards, weren't such a great idea, eh?

s

Thu, 11 May 2006 18:32:04 -0500

"They should've been picketing Henry Ford." the prolific racist and anti-semite? Not a bad idea, too bad he's dead.

Em

Thu, 11 May 2006 18:24:53 -0500

Maybe Penn and Teller can dedicate an episode of Bullshit to the Atlantic Yards.

Vinny

Thu, 11 May 2006 17:38:11 -0500

Unfortunately, compromise and concession usually winds up turning into the unmitigated disaster that is Ground Zero. 5 years later and we still have a hole.

django`

Thu, 11 May 2006 17:25:39 -0500

you're an idealist.

Andrew J. Lederer

Thu, 11 May 2006 17:21:02 -0500

I like the whimsically crooked version from last year better. It wouldn't kill Ratner and Gehry to talk to the community, make some concessions and scale the thing back. If everyone compromises a little, maybe something good will happen. Call me an idealist.

bubba

Thu, 11 May 2006 17:06:17 -0500

Looks excellent. Build it.