AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
When we derided the bait-and-switch redesign of developer Bruce Ratner's Nets arena as "a banal homage to any number of unremarkable field house arenas across America," some readers accused us of snobbery. But isn't that the same anti-elitist attitude that gave America eight years with a simian president just because the knuckle draggers found him folksy? That's not to say Gehry's scrapped design was the Obama of arenas, but you can certainly imagine, say, Sarah Palin feeling right at home watching some arena football in this eyesore (above). And Nicolai Ouroussoff at the Times gets it:
Whatever you may have felt about Mr. Gehry’s design — too big, too flamboyant — there is little doubt that it was thoughtful architecture. His arena complex, in which the stadium was embedded in a matrix of towers resembling falling shards of glass, was a striking addition to the Brooklyn skyline; it was also a fervent effort to engage the life of the city below.A new design by the firm Ellerbe Becket has no such ambitions. A colossal, spiritless box, it would fit more comfortably in a cornfield than at one of the busiest intersections of a vibrant metropolis. Its low-budget, no-frills design embodies the crass, bottom-line mentality that puts personal profit above the public good. If it is ever built, it will create a black hole in the heart of a vital neighborhood.
But what’s most offensive about the design is the message it sends to New Yorkers. Architecture, we are being told, is something decorative and expendable, a luxury we can afford only in good times, or if we happen to be very rich. What’s most important is to build, no matter how thoughtless or dehumanizing the results. It is the kind of logic that kills cities — and that has been poisoning this one for decades.
And on and on he goes, calling the new design "as glamorous as a storage warehouse"... "a monstrosity" and "a shameful betrayal of the public trust, one that should enrage all those who care about this city." The article is one of those fun, scathing indictments that come around now and then to warm your heart. But what matters now are the hearts and minds of the Empire State Development Corporation, which will now decide whether to approve this boondoggle.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Great, replacing a vital and historical community with an airplane hangar for sports.
Great, replacing a rat infested vacant expanse of nothing with an airplane hangar for sports.
Fixed that for you.
Actually, you're both partly right.
This surprises you how? This is the same man who built Metrotech.
and Atlantic Center.
They are still trying to front that this will actually get built?
It looks just like the Devils new arena in Newark, which is where the Nets should actually be playing.
it looks nothing like the prudential center. do an image search, you have the internet.
Nicolai Ouroussoff at the Times does NOT get it: the Gehry design was a piece of shit, too. It would have aged as well as your average Long Island strip mall. All Ratner did was trade an one piece of post-modern shit for another, less-pretentious piece of shit.
There's no accounting for taste, apparently.
Agreed. Architecture critics often have the worst taste of all.
ratner the rat should have hired a competent new york architect that everyone likes and respects like bob stern.
Barack Obama should feel right at home there. He is black, so he likes basketball. Its in Brooklyn, and he claims to be black. And maybe by building the arena it will 'save some jobs'. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton can get his dick sucked but some 22 year old hoodrat in the bathroom.
Great post, John. Once again, you are the editorial savior of Chung's slipshod word circus.
"But isn't that the same anti-elitist attitude that gave America eight years with a simian president just because the knuckle draggers found him folksy?"
That sentence alone should qualify Gothamist.com for a Pulitzer Prize.
So many liberals have the disturbing habit of bringing politics into conversations where they don't belong and are truly inappropriate. Essentially they believe that their audience must consist only of people who think like themselves. Anyone else is, nby their definition, irrelevant and can be insulted or disrespected without a second thought.
Many times during the election, there were instances where someone went to a cultural event, such as a concert at Carnegie Hall, and the host showed his or her rudeness towards a sizable portion of the guests by bringing up politics where only art and beauty had been expected.
But that says it all, a great many liberals are just rude. Not surprisingly, they'll come up with a thousand rationalizations to explain their rudeness towards those with whom they disagree but will twist themselves into knots should they be the recipients of such behavior.
Again, a conversation on architecture should not have been the place to bring up demeaning political caricatures. I was ready to discuss the architectural shortcomings of the new arena and the similar bait switch that happened with Liebeskind's design at Ground Zero but I see that the subject has been hijacked.
That's OK, at least I learned that Del Signore is a total boor.
A project of this magnitude is inherently political. Conservatives are all about personal freedom and privacy, unless they disagree with you, in which case they burn you house down, bomb your place of business or assassinate you in the name of their values.
re: post #16
So many conservatives have the disturbing habit of bringing their personal religious beliefs into conversations where they don't belong and are truly inappropriate.
The bigest difference is that we Liberals admit that they are our opinions, while you conservatives claim that your opinions are moral truths, or the will of God.
The New York Time should take a long look at that piece of shit building they now call home. Will anyone bother to see the New Jersey Nets if they came to Brooklyn?
If the Knicks continue to be a joke there will definitely be a market for the Nets.
I would depending on who they're up against. I'm actually very excited about this project because I can watch both teams at my convenience. They both suck about the same anyway so at least I can save money on travel expenses.
Ouroussoff should be asking the same questions of Frank Gehry. Why, for example does this aged prima donna think that clients would pay anything to build his ideas, even if they carry an unbelievable pricetag? Why design an instant Times Square for Brooklyn without bothering to ask the residents if they wanted that? When it became clear that they didn't, Gehry simply allowed Ratner to pull chunks off the table rather than develop a comprehensive alternative that would meet with the locals' approval. The bullying all-or-nothing approach has left nothing but scorched earth and a crude arena proposal. Maybe it was Ratner all along, getting just one design out of Gehry and then tearing it apart on his own but this was a high profile and very public discussion and Gehry said little, and didn't fight for any of his ideas. He was an absentee architect allowed to die on the vine by a menacing and obnoxious developer...all at taxpayers' expense. Atlantic Yards is total pop-up FAIL.
Ouroussoff should be asking the same questions of Frank Gehry. Why, for example does this aged prima donna think that clients would pay anything to build his ideas, even if they carry an unbelievable pricetag?
Because, sadly enough, they have in the past and they will continue to do so. Egotistical developers will always flock to a "hot" architect just so they can boast that they built something that person designed. "It's a Gehry!" The only way Gehry will be passed by on a project is if money dries up, like it has for Nets Arena.
Ghery's designs have died with the economy.
Ouroussoff delivers a serious uppercut to Atlantic Yards, to cover the fact that he started by taking a dive, are we supposed to be impressed? Is it good enough to make us forget?
I can appreciate the value in taking his new position for all the attention it's worth and using that attention to push for something better, but fuck it, he screwed brooklyn in the first place ">so I'm not inclined to let it go... (http://umbrooklynborn.blogspot.com/2009/06/open-letter-to-nicolai-ouroussoff.html)
hmm. Im just going to post a copy of my comment on the NT Times article (since this is in response to it)
The new rendering is undoubtedly a disappointment for anyone who is enjoys architecture.
However, what did New Yorkers think was going to happen, this was easily predictable.
For years, the members of Develop, Don't Destroy and a handful of community members have been fighting Ratner tooth and nail (launching failed lawsuit, after failed lawsuit) in an attempt to beat the developer by waging a war of attrition, and it worked. Initially proposed in late 2003, Ranter was ready to break ground in early 2005, but instead of breaking ground, he was spending millions in litigation fees, and the cost of the overall project was skyrocketing.
The activist that reside within the community certainly have a right to protest and to stall mega-projects through the courts, but the posters on this forum must be able to distinguish between the bait and switch and a victim of attrition. Its fairly easy to blame the developer in this circumstance, (people tend to enjoy criticizing those with power.)
Its a bit harder to take a critical look at ourselves however. I would like to pose to the NY Times community the following questions:
1. When this project was proposed, (the times heralded it a "new Rockefeller Center" did the enthusiasm among citizens match the outrage that is present now?
2. This project was ready to break ground in late 2004, 2005, why has nothing happened since?
3. While nothing was taking place on the site, how much did the total cost increase (to both the city and the developer
4. How representative were the attitudes of Develop Don't Destroy and community activist of the entire borough of Brooklyn, (a community of 2.6 million people)
5. How much was Ratner forced to spend in litigation and site maintenance during the 4 years between 2005 and 2009
6. What were the strategies employed by Develop Don't Destroy?
5. Why does it cost so much to develop in New York in the first place? 850 million is still a great deal of money, and could certainly build a world-class arena (and then some) in any other city
I pose these questions not to advocate for one side over the other, but to suggest a more nuanced view of the entire situation. Surely the developer shares some of the blame, but community activist who successfully delayed the project through a long war of attrition through the courts, with the expressed intent of bleeding Ratner's pockets until he could no longer afford to build the project, also should share some of the blame. In this war between two parties, Brooklyn came out as the clear loser.
In the future (hopefully a better design can be created) New York needs to explore finding ways to streamline large projects like Atlantic Yards, so that we can quickly reach a consensus, and move forward.
The comments expressed by the Times editorial and by many of the commentators have claimed that this new design is an affront to architecture in New York.. while this is true, few seem to realize that this city receives dull and bland architecture because most developers are afraid to propose bold and compelling visions in a city in which few things ever seem to actually happen. At the very least, at least Ratner tried.
Initially proposed in 2003, this redesign and controversy sends a clear warning to visionaries and developers to avoid work in New York. Unless we find a way to come to a consensus, and build, the little competitive edge that we have left in the architecture and design department will erode completely... and that is the true tragedy
The new rendering is undoubtedly a disappointment for anyone who is enjoys architecture.
However, what did New Yorkers think was going to happen, this was easily predictable.
For years, the members of Develop, Don't Destroy and a handful of community members have been fighting Ratner tooth and nail (launching failed lawsuit, after failed lawsuit) in an attempt to beat the developer by waging a war of attrition, and it worked. Initially proposed in late 2003, Ranter was ready to break ground in early 2005, but instead of breaking ground, he was spending millions in litigation fees, and the cost of the overall project was skyrocketing.
The activist that reside within the community certainly have a right to protest and to stall mega-projects through the courts, but the posters on this forum must be able to distinguish between the bait and switch and a victim of attrition. Its fairly easy to blame the developer in this circumstance, (people tend to enjoy criticizing those with power.)
Its a bit harder to take a critical look at ourselves however. I would like to pose to the NY Times community the following questions:
1. When this project was proposed, (the times heralded it a "new Rockefeller Center" did the enthusiasm among citizens match the outrage that is present now?
2. This project was ready to break ground in late 2004, 2005, why has nothing happened since?
3. While nothing was taking place on the site, how much did the total cost increase (to both the city and the developer
4. How representative were the attitudes of Develop Don't Destroy and community activist of the entire borough of Brooklyn, (a community of 2.6 million people)
5. How much was Ratner forced to spend in litigation and site maintenance during the 4 years between 2005 and 2009
6. What were the strategies employed by Develop Don't Destroy?
5. Why does it cost so much to develop in New York in the first place? 850 million is still a great deal of money, and could certainly build a world-class arena (and then some) in any other city
I am posing these questions not to advocate for one side over the other, but to suggest a more nuanced view of the entire situation. Surely the developer shares some of the blame, but community activist who successfully delayed the project through a long war of attrition through the courts, with the expressed intent of bleeding Ratner's pockets until he could no longer afford to build the project, also should share some of the blame. In this war between two parties, Brooklyn came out as the clear loser.
In the future (hopefully a better design can be created) New York needs to explore finding ways to streamline large projects like Atlantic Yards, so that we can quickly reach a consensus, and move forward.
The comments expressed by this editorial and by many of the commentators have claimed that this new design is an affront to architecture in New York.. while this is true, few seem to realize that this city receives dull and bland architecture because most developers are afraid to propose bold and compelling visions in a city in which few things ever seem to actually happen. At the very least, at least Ratner tried. Initially proposed in 2003, this redesign and controversy sends a clear warning to visionaries and developers to avoid work in New York. Unless we find a way to come to a consensus, and build, the little competitive edge that we have left in the architecture and design department will erode completely... and that is the true tragedy
windbag
How so? Are you upset because I tried to actually think seriously about the situation?
Maybe they should turn it into the world's largest American Apparel.
You're going back to Gehry's big see-thru walls!
If it's not the time to build a decent development, when is it time to build a terrible one? Never. The stadium isn't just going to be with us through the hard times, it'll be there for 50 years. Got to make it worth the sacrifice of good land and a community's vibe.
I know the article is really about the change of architect, but in my opinion, this point is moot. Personally, I wouldn't want this thing anywhere near my home no matter who designed it. Design, or at least good design, is really about problem solving, and neither proposal has succeeded by that standard. If you read the entire Times article, it points out that the areas around sports arenas tend to turn into wastelands - a pretty scary fact considering the site is within blocks of some of the oldest and most beautiful neighborhoods in nyc.
And how on earth does it make any g*ddamn sense to put the arena of a NEW JERSEY team in Brooklyn ? Yes it may be on 10 train lines, but these are nyc subway lines and the LIRR. So, if you are a Nets fan, and are therefore likely coming from Jersey, it actually fails to be accessible by public transportation.
Worth adding that anyone who uses the Atlantic LIRR station can tell you it's a joke. Service to Brooklyn is the red-headed bastard stepchild of the LIRR. You don't take it unless standing on a platform in Jamaica for 15-20 minutes is your idea of a fun time.
It's going to be quickly discovered if this ill-considered project ever gets built, that there may be a lot of rails nearby, but there is no extra capacity.
It looks like it could be a hanger at Floyd Bennett Field
Who cares