Gothamist: Bruce Ratner and the Atlantic Yards vs. THE SUN

Not amused !

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:32:17 -0500

Me thinks you "AY" fans are missing the point here. That would be the end result, Sure it will bring jobs to the area the same way the Atlantic Center did when the talk was centered around Caldor. You all remember "Caldor" right? All the noise the political nutcases made about "Something Big comming to Brooklyn"! I remember because I got a job working for that company. You all know what happened with that right. The corrilation between the two? The answer is Excess,& Location. Excess being well the stated, The location of this farce is what should concern all ! It's not just the people for whom live in the neighborhood but all who live in the surrounding hoods! I grew-up in Fort Greene and the area was never bad and the rent was fair. With this "AY" Project in full swing all of you that are currently living in the area need to start thinking about other parts of Brooklyn to live in . Because now that you knuckleheads have been "Hoodwinked" by this slick talking bitch he's going forward with his masterplan . Will this project bring more jobs to the area and strenghen the local ecconomy? Yes, & maybe, The question is will all of you "AY" supporters be living in those luxury quaters paying that sky high rent? More likely most of you will be living on the outskirts of the Atlantic Yards Condos. Please don't get me started with the Nets, I like the team and all. It's the location that bothers me! Yes the Knickerbockers suck like "Fat hairy, Funky egg-white shell ass"! They will always be New Yorks Basketball team!

Think twice

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 07:24:17 -0500

"This s not Brooklyn's deferred destiny finally realized. This is Brooklyn's realized destiny destroyed." There is no destiny, only change. If you yearn to fight, then fight for positive change rather than change itself.

Andrew J. Lederer

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:45:42 -0500

Andrew: you make zero sense, even when you are trying to be witty. You need to go out and find a job. [10] Posted by: realist | June 23, 2006 01:52 PM I will reply earnestly: I suspect you understood my comparison of the effects of this "development" to rape, using a famous quote which also served to compare you're approach to that of a passive recipient. What you may not have understood (and it says nothing negative about you) was my calling said passivity the "Tex Antoine Method". Tex Antoine was a New York City weatherman who famously lost his job for saying "Confucius Say(s) -- If Rape is Inevitable, Lie Back and Enjoy It," on the eleven o'clock news. I figured a couple of people would get the reference and it would make them smile. (The rest, I figured, would scratch their heads and move on, figuring I meant something.) Sorry for confusing you.

Andrew J. Lederer

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:36:25 -0500

-- What I see happening in Brooklyn, particularly around the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building, is development that's been deferred for 75 years. [17] Posted by: Think twice | June 23, 2006 05:51 PM ****************************************** The difference: 75 years ago, it was a big deal to build such structures. They were expensive and technologically demanding and there was no way, even under ideal circumstances, that they were going to pop up on every block. As a result, when one was undertaken, it was a big deal. There was a certain amount of ego and pride involved. Industrialists and architects tended to design and build such structures as monuments to themselves. As a result, more often than not, you got something like the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building or the great skyscrapers of Manhattan -- beautiful majestic structures which added much more than they took away. Flash forward to today. Tall buildings (why dignify them with the term "skyscraper") are easy to make and can be constructed, pretty much "out of the box" with cheap materials, kind of like Lego structures but not as compelling. They can replace entire blocks, block after block, casting shadows over the city and blighting it with an architectural (again, too lofty a word, really) sameness that makes one neighborhood blend into another and turns us into something like a large Indianapolis, aestethically speaking. Yes, this is more ambitious than some "developments"; Gehry can be a great architect. But we are still face to face with the other blight that separates our era from the era of majestic structures -- greed; the need to fill as many square feet as you can get away with -- and then some. Have you noticed that even in neighborhoods with reasonably good zoning rules and enforcement, a new building always seems to be the tallest on the block, if only by a few feet. Why couldn't it be the same height as the largest one that's already there? Or a few feet shorter? We're talking about an inconsequential amount of additional height. But the "developers" feel they HAVE TO fill EVERY SQUARE INCH. They're pigs. Frankly, people are pigs in general when it comes to this stuff. Go to the nice neighborhoods in the outer boroughs which are not landmarked and you'll see people turning beautiful, already large homes that they own into miniature catering halls, reminiscent of Bar Mitzvah mills like the "Glenwood Terrace". A trip to Manhattan Beach (the neighborhood, not the swimmin' hole) can make you weep. Back to the Ratner gig, most Brooklynites seem to be in favor of it. But that's because it's been presented to them as an arena. They want a basketball team in Brooklyn -- nothing wrong with that, really. Infrastructurally, there's no better place for it. But they've been had. The arena is but a speck within this massive undertaking. I say, go ahead and build the arena, Bruce, if that's what you really want to build. But nothing else. (See how fast Ratner don't wanna build an arena no more.) Of course, as we've seen in this thread, some people don't think the development is too big because it's really small compared to the size of Brooklyn. That's like saying we might as well knock down and replace all of New York City at once -- it wouldn't matter because it's only a small piece of America; an even smaller piece of the world. But these people seem to believe that if "Miss Brooklyn" (or whatever the monolith will be called) doesn't cast a shadow on Marine Park, then everything is okay. The people in Fort Green have nothing to cry about. Don't "think twice", think thrice. This s not Brooklyn's deferred destiny finally realized. This is Brooklyn's realized destiny destroyed. Neglect made Brooklyn desirable even as attention destroyed Manhattan. To Bruce Ratner and the other power players who've turned a greedy, rapacious eye to the borough of homes and churches: Do your city and its most populous borough a favor. Ignore us. Neglect us. Leave us alone.

Think twice

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:51:16 -0500

Whether or not you like AY, consider the fact that the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building (like the Chrysler Building and the Citigroup Building in L.I.C.) was built in proximity to major transit hub as a speculative real estate venture. The builders hoped to encourage high rise/high density development in the area around it, thus increasing the value of the original buildings themselves. Unfortunately for the Williamsburgh Savings Bank company, any speculation on the prospects of high rise development in Brooklyn disapated when the stock market crashed. What I see happening in Brooklyn, particularly around the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building, is development that's been deferred for 75 years.

realist

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:30:59 -0500

This will affect a tiny portion of Brooklyn. It: creates jobs creates much-needed housing sits on a transit hub

s

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:29:07 -0500

5. Still waiting to see that impact on utilities, sewer and traffic. Flatbush/Atlantic is basically a disaster area from 7am-10p. ******************************************* You probably won't see "real" results either in the DEIS. Who knows what kind of outdated survey methods and formulas they are using to determine the carrying capacity of that intersection. Besides, they're not really studying the impacts of pedestrians on the area. Down with Ratner.

Toby

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:28:44 -0500

The fact that the "Rev." Al Sharpton supports the scheme is a big red flag. How much is Ratner paying off the so-called civil rights leader. If Al Sharpton is a civl rights leader George W. Bush is loved by the entire world as a great leader who has brought peace and prosperity to the world.

Tim N.

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:26:05 -0500

Not everyone wants to take a settlement, not everyone wants to leave their home. If the rent is paid, throwing someone out of their home is wrong. Always. Period. The rest of us, myself included, who don't have that stake in this, are just bellyaching. And the buildings are as ugly as the sentiment behidn this project.

Bob A Booey

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:49:57 -0500

***Not to mention the fact that unless you are being thrown out of your home over this project then you really don't have anything legit to say. *** People got compensated QUITE nicely to get out of their homes...life changing money, from what I have read.

roo

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:27:10 -0500

Tiny by geography, but the largest single development in NYC's history. You might have an argument if it was privately funded, and the land purchased from private holders. 1. The current taxpayer - not Ratner - bill by some analysis is $2B. Ratner's own analysis is $1.1B. Public funding is Ratners #1 source of income. 2. As the terms go, Ratner leases the entire arena, and retains the profits, under a 99 year term - all for $1. So, we spend a billion, he gets the profits. Nor will he pay property taxes. 3. The current job count from Ratner is 2300 jobs, but only 700 new ones. For that amount, why not take the $1.1B of public funding and send 'em to college? 4. It does provide housing, that's true. 70% at prevailing market rates. Guess who gets the profits on that. Not sure what living under a tower will do to the surrounding real estate value, either, but one can imagine. 5. Still waiting to see that impact on utilities, sewer and traffic. Flatbush/Atlantic is basically a disaster area from 7am-10p. 6. MTA did not maximize the sale price of the land, which is a violation of public trust. Finally, as someone noted, basically Ratner builds ugly shite buildings in the cheapest possible fashion to maximize profit. That's all well and good - yay, capitalism - but not on my dime, and not at the cost of destroying the net worth of the city.

realist

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:52:21 -0500

Andrew: you make zero sense, even when you are trying to be witty. You need to go out and find a job. Bob a Booey: good point. If you look at a map of Brooklyn, which is about 8 times the size of manhattan, this development is actually tiny.

Toby

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:49:29 -0500

There is a special place in hell for Ratner and his lackeys. And please, someone at Homeland Security please label Frank Gehry a terrorist, strip him of his citizenship and deport him back to Canada. The man has been terrorizing the world with horrid buildings for years and need a new job, like the manager of a Canadian Tire in Moose Jaw.

Andrew J. Lederer

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:42:07 -0500

Andrew: of course you resort to name calling, proving my point that the unemployed, nimby, anti-AYers have few good arguments. AY provides jobs, housing, development where there is little or none, and even Reverend Al is behind it. Get over yourself, you don't own Brooklyn. [6] Posted by: realist | June 23, 2006 01:33 PM *********************************************** Was that really name-calling? Or simply describing what is not "realism' but an "if rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it" approach to things. (Known, of course, as the "Tex Antoine Method".)

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:37:32 -0500

Not to mention the fact that unless you are being thrown out of your home over this project then you really don't have anything legit to say. [5] Posted by: Tim N. | June 23, 2006 01:32 PM *********************************************** The city belongs to all of us.

realist

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:33:31 -0500

Tim N.

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:32:54 -0500

But here's the thing... THE BUILDINGS ARE UGLY! UGLY!! UGLY!!!! Not to mention the fact that unless you are being thrown out of your home over this project then you really don't have anything legit to say.

Bob A booey

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:18:37 -0500

100 years ago there was nothing but buildings less than 5-6 stories in Manhattan. Imagine what it would look like today if we had whining NIMBYs back in the day!

ethos

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:17:43 -0500

^Amen to that. There IS such a thing as moderation. (A genuine realist would understand that.)

Andrew J. Lederer

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:42:04 -0500

Inane? Are you a "Realist" or just a supine bitch? I was not initially against this but it's just too much. Too big. Too ruinous. Too uncaring. Too corporate. Too fraudulent. (Other things "too".) This is a fight to the death. Death of this ridiculous project (at least in its present form -- I'm a realist too) vs. the continuing, slow (but not that slow) death of the city as we've loved it.

realist

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:15:14 -0500

Honestly people...I think Bruce Ratner is against aliens too because his buildings don't have spaceship landing pads! How dare this guy! The nimbys are hard at work (not at real jobs of course) at coming up with more inane arguments against AY.