Gothamist: Ratner to Put Miss Brooklyn on a Diet?

nick

Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:40:59 -0500

re: s.d. im not publishing what im writing. and i sure as hell am not getting paid for it. so suuuckk itttt.

tommyill

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:35:25 -0500

"There's a public forum about the Atlantic Yards project next Tuesday, September 12 - we wonder how the supposed reduction will be explained, if at all" Why bother explaining shit when you can just pay people to show up and shout down the opposition?

S.D.

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:17:07 -0500

At least you spelled "lean" correctly, But you need to capitalize "I" when you refer to yourself, don't you think?

nick

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:11:56 -0500

and i obviously support the "irony of a grammatical error when pointing out other's errors" party.

nick

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:11:00 -0500

the only political lean chung has seems to have towards the "bad grammar and spelling" party...

S.D.

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:52:47 -0500

"Gothamist, your political leanings are blatant and appalling." Yes, Shame on you for having Independent Thought! Fie on thee!! (ahem) "SouthSide", Just What ARE you talking about? Jen's post doesn't seem to "lean" one way or the Other. What's appalling to me is "Correct Thinkers" (A stretch, I know!) like yourself.

SouthSide

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:34:52 -0500

Gothamist, your political leanings are blatant and appalling.

homey

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:41:28 -0500

One man's 'monster' makes for 2250 units of affordable housing to those who are getting priced out of the city.

planetb

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:07:08 -0500

whoops, sorry. screwed up that link to Atlantic Yards Report. HERE IT IS

planetb

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:05:14 -0500

You call it a "scaleback" to the same (or larger) oversized monster it was when announced in December 2003. " target=new>From Atlantic Yards Report: This is the lead story for the entire newspaper. They should have done better. Unmentioned is the sequence of proposals, which show that the project could still be bigger than originally announced: December 2003: 8 million square feet September 2005: 9.132 million square feet March 2006: 8.659 million square feet A reduction of 500,000 square feet would make the project 8.159 million square feet, while a cut of 700,000 square feet would mean 7.959 million square feet. And even a reduction in bulk would leave Miss Brooklyn and the building at Site 5 quite large. Right now, the former would be about three times the bulk of the Williamsburgh bank, in square footage, and the latter would be nearly twice the size of the bank. In fact, a cut of 700,000 square feet from Miss Brooklyn alone would still leave it bulkier than the bank.

Tim N.

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:00:26 -0500

What do you call an 8% cut in this behemoth? A good start.