Do alternate plans for the Atlantic Rail Yards exist?

escap

muteflute wrote: escap, you always complain of being the only "rational" person on this board, but you've got two friends right here!

Sorry, I was busy for a couple of days, but believe me, I'm delighted. The funny thing is that this argument is not controversial. Economists disagree on almost every issue under the sun, from globalization to the proper role of the state to entitlement reform and so on. But one issue they all agree on is price controls, and the whole supply/demand thing is just plain fundamental. As was said above, good intentions don't equal good policy.

As to the growing population point, that only further strengthens the pro-development argument. If newcomers are perpetually increasing demand, we shouldn't be restricting development. Also, by "affordable" housing, what you really mean is low-cost construction. It seems intuitive that if the construction is cheap then prices will be cheap, but the vast majority of housing sales are in the secondary market, so construction costs are irrelevant. Therefore in the long run there's no benefit to favoring cheap quality buildings over high quality ones.

Finally, two things that neighborhood activists commonly oppose are intended to address affordability. 1) tall buildings; and 2) subsidies. Tall buildings are "efficient" in that they provide more units per area. I also oppose subsidies, but we should be clear that many of Ratner's subsidies are to encourage him to sell at below market rates. We should just let him sell at whatever price he can, and get rid of all those subsidies.

friendlypitbull

WhyFi wrote:
Coney Island is pretty conducive...

Yeah pretty conducive to more car trafiic, more sprawl, and more polution - CI is the end of the line for 3 subway lines - D,F and Q - which al run through essentially the same neighborhoods - So it is totally impractical for most o use public transit to Nets games and puts the thousands of potential residents as from the jobs that are located in downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan as physically possible.

But people love to suggest CI (no matter how impractical) b/c it is Not In Their BackYard.

whyfi

friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=WhyFi]
Coney Island is pretty conducive...

Yeah pretty conducive to more car trafiic, more sprawl, and more polution - CI is the end of the line for 3 subway lines - D,F and Q - which al run through essentially the same neighborhoods - So it is totally impractical for most o use public transit to Nets games and puts the thousands of potential residents as from the jobs that are located in downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan as physically possible.

But people love to suggest CI (no matter how impractical) b/c it is Not In Their BackYard.
That little staduim in the Bronx seems to get by with just a couple subway lines.

friendlypitbull

WhyFi wrote: [quote=friendlypitbull][quote=WhyFi]
Coney Island is pretty conducive...

Yeah pretty conducive to more car trafiic, more sprawl, and more polution - CI is the end of the line for 3 subway lines - D,F and Q - which al run through essentially the same neighborhoods - So it is totally impractical for most o use public transit to Nets games and puts the thousands of potential residents as from the jobs that are located in downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan as physically possible.

But people love to suggest CI (no matter how impractical) b/c it is Not In Their BackYard.
That little staduim in the Bronx seems to get by with just a couple subway lines.

Yankee Stadium is probably 400 yards from Manhattan (not 10 miles like CI) , it is reachable by short ride on 2 subway lines that service entirely different parts of Manhattan (IND-on Westside and Lexington IRT on Eastside) and even with those relative advantages to CI, it is still a nightmare with huge #'s of people driving, which results in massive traffic, people parking all over the sidewalks, parkland and everywhere else and tons of pollution. Which is exactly why the city demanded the new Yankee Stadium have a new MetroNorth station installed.

pensodyssey

friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=WhyFi]
Coney Island is pretty conducive...

Yeah pretty conducive to more car trafiic, more sprawl, and more polution - CI is the end of the line for 3 subway lines - D,F and Q - which al run through essentially the same neighborhoods - So it is totally impractical for most o use public transit to Nets games and puts the thousands of potential residents as from the jobs that are located in downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan as physically possible.

But people love to suggest CI (no matter how impractical) b/c it is Not In Their BackYard.

I always thought Red Hook would be the best place for it. Acres of unused space, a needed boost to a dying dockyard economy, and if I'm not mistaken there are already disused trolley or subway lines there that could be put to some use. Besides which, all of Brooklyn would benefit with a line running to the a Red Hook stadium from Atlantic.

ratnerville4ever

Subject: CI

The Stillwell terminal is the largest subway terminal in the city. It is newly redesigned and rebuilt, as you know, and is built for crowds. Also terminals are far better to speed people out of arenas than subway hubs are.

there is city owned land in CI that could be used for the arena, instead of private property used for the arena.

CI needs to become a destination during the off season. an arena would do that.

if the community in CI doesn't want an arena there, then there should be no arena there. same as in P. Heights.

alex

Subject: Re: CI

ratnerville4ever wrote: The Stillwell terminal is the largest subway terminal in the city. It is newly redesigned and rebuilt, as you know, and is built for crowds. Also terminals are far better to speed people out of arenas than subway hubs are.

It's the last stop on the line and would take forever to get there from anywhere in the city or Long Island. How is that better?

carnivore

Subject: Re: CI

Alex wrote: [quote=ratnerville4ever]The Stillwell terminal is the largest subway terminal in the city. It is newly redesigned and rebuilt, as you know, and is built for crowds. Also terminals are far better to speed people out of arenas than subway hubs are.

It's the last stop on the line and would take forever to get there from anywhere in the city or Long Island. How is that better?
Because the train starts out empty, unlike at Atlantic Avenue, where most trains are already full most of the time.

friendlypitbull

pensodyssey wrote:
I always thought Red Hook would be the best place for it. Acres of unused space, a needed boost to a dying dockyard economy, and if I'm not mistaken there are already disused trolley or subway lines there that could be put to some use. Besides which, all of Brooklyn would benefit with a line running to the a Red Hook stadium from Atlantic.

Red Hook has ZERO mass transit - about 10yrs ago Bob Diamond build about 100ft of trolly track as a demonstration - it has since been torn up.

Putting thousands of new residences and an arena in Red Hook would be a total disaster, the only way to RH is by surface transportation, which will ensure maximum use of cars,massive gridlock and pollution for all nearby communities.

ratnerville4ever wrote:
The Stillwell terminal is the largest subway terminal in the city. It is newly redesigned and rebuilt, as you know, and is built for crowds. Also terminals are far better to speed people out of arenas than subway hubs are.
there is city owned land in CI that could be used for the arena, instead of private property used for the arena.
CI needs to become a destination during the off season. an arena would do that.
if the community in CI doesn't want an arena there, then there should be no arena there. same as in P. Heights.

Could you please explain how all the people in NYC who dont live near the 3 BMT lines going to CI would get to CI given our current mass transit system?

Opponents of AY have to realize that AY sits at one of the most accessible locations in NYC (if not the most) for public transportation, and therefore if you want to have legitimate claim to being in favor of enviromentally conscious development and/or trying to improve the quality of our air (for all NYC) then you have to accept that AY must be developed for high density and high useage.

friendlypitbull

Subject: Re: CI

Carnivore wrote:
Because the train starts out empty, unlike at Atlantic Avenue, where most trains are already full most of the time.

That is only true leaving the event - going to the event, being at the end of the line only exacerbates the (crowding) problem for more stops; and considering (for Net games) the problem of overcrowding is only really relevant going to the games (around 7pm), this hardly seems like a justification to push the arena so far away from where everyone lives and work (not to mention no where near 80% of NYC's population that doesnt live anywhere near a BMT train).

I'd also disagree with the notion that the majority of trains going to Brooklyn at 6-7 are full (crowded maybe but not full; morning rush has much more concentration of people travelling at the same time) and totally disagree that trains at 10-11pm (end of game) in any direction are even close to full.

whyfi

friendlypitbull wrote: Could you please explain how all the people in NYC who dont live near the 3 BMT lines going to CI would get to CI given our current mass transit system?

By your own admission, AY is one of the most accessible areas in NYC... well, all of the lines that go to CI run through Atlantic/Pacific, so getting to CI shouldn't be too tough, right?

friendlypitbull

WhyFi wrote: By your own admission, AY is one of the most accessible areas in NYC... well, all of the lines that go to CI run through Atlantic/Pacific, so getting to CI shouldn't be too tough, right?

I guess if you think it isnt too tough for a Nets fan from East NY to take a 3 train local to AY (20+ min) THEN transfer and take the BMT 40 minutes to CI; or from a Bronx concert goer from Castle Hill to take a 50 minute IRT subway ride to AY and then travel ANOTHER 40 minutes to CI... nope not to tough at all, and the trip back should be equally 'easy'

carnivore

friendlypitbull wrote: I guess if you think it isnt too tough for a Nets fan from East NY to take a 3 train local to AY (20+ min) THEN transfer and take the BMT 40 minutes to CI; or from a Bronx concert goer from Castle Hill to take a 50 minute IRT subway ride to AY and then travel ANOTHER 40 minutes to CI... nope not to tough at all, and the trip back should be equally 'easy'

By that logic, every team should play in stadiums located in midtown Manhattan. Yankee and Shea stadiums do quite well being located at the outer edges of the subway system.

muteflute

escap wrote: [quote=muteflute]escap, you always complain of being the only "rational" person on this board, but you've got two friends right here!

Sorry, I was busy for a couple of days, but believe me, I'm delighted. The funny thing is that this argument is not controversial. Economists disagree on almost every issue under the sun, from globalization to the proper role of the state to entitlement reform and so on. But one issue they all agree on is price controls, and the whole supply/demand thing is just plain fundamental. As was said above, good intentions don't equal good policy.

As to the growing population point, that only further strengthens the pro-development argument. If newcomers are perpetually increasing demand, we shouldn't be restricting development. Also, by "affordable" housing, what you really mean is low-cost construction. It seems intuitive that if the construction is cheap then prices will be cheap, but the vast majority of housing sales are in the secondary market, so construction costs are irrelevant. Therefore in the long run there's no benefit to favoring cheap quality buildings over high quality ones.

Finally, two things that neighborhood activists commonly oppose are intended to address affordability. 1) tall buildings; and 2) subsidies. Tall buildings are "efficient" in that they provide more units per area. I also oppose subsidies, but we should be clear that many of Ratner's subsidies are to encourage him to sell at below market rates. We should just let him sell at whatever price he can, and get rid of all those subsidies.

(sigh) economists...

I'll respond to this soon. For now, I have to take the subway to the Upper West Side.

friendlypitbull

Carnivore wrote: By that logic, every team should play in stadiums located in midtown Manhattan. Yankee and Shea stadiums do quite well being located at the outer edges of the subway system.

Not necissarily in Midtown (since AY for example is virtually as good in terms of public transportation), but yes, to reduce automobile traffic and corresponding pollution the best place to locate facilities that attract large masses of people is in the 'center' of public transport - is this really revolutionary?
Yankee Stadium is not at the outer edge of the subway system but Shea is and you might notice that Shea Stadium (with only 1 line servicing) requires massive amounts of parking lots to acomodate the cars that bring the majority of the customers.

raulism

I wish I had more time to be more involved in this conversation, but I'm a little disappointed at how removed this conversation is from expert opinion. Why has no one mentioned Naparsek's blog, specifically http://www.naparstek.com/2006/04/bad-news-nets.php ?

Density can be a good thing, but it also has its limits. The density of the Ratner proposal is seven times that of Manhattan. That might be a good thing, or it might clog all traffic throughout Brooklyn. I still stand by my original statement: What we need is a full planning discussion, with traffic experts offering independent analysis of the various proposals.

-Raul

friendlypitbull

raulism wrote: Density can be a good thing, but it also has its limits. The density of the Ratner proposal is seven times that of Manhattan.

DDDB red herring - what part of Manhattan?? Denser than Midtown - nope; This "statistic" takes into consideration Central Park. The point is that AY sits next to a huge transportation hub so in that relatively small area density is appropriate(unless you dont mind more sprawl, since the future residents have to live somewhere)

I do agree with Naparsek that creating parking lots is a huge mistake - but street widening is not neceissarily wrong - if it is done to eliminate design bottlenecks (such as 4th Ave turning onto Flatbush) as oppossed to designed to allow for tons more auto traffic - at this point it isnt clear (or set in stone)

pensodyssey

friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=pensodyssey]
I always thought Red Hook would be the best place for it. Acres of unused space, a needed boost to a dying dockyard economy, and if I'm not mistaken there are already disused trolley or subway lines there that could be put to some use. Besides which, all of Brooklyn would benefit with a line running to the a Red Hook stadium from Atlantic.

Red Hook has ZERO mass transit - about 10yrs ago Bob Diamond build about 100ft of trolly track as a demonstration - it has since been torn up.

Putting thousands of new residences and an arena in Red Hook would be a total disaster, the only way to RH is by surface transportation, which will ensure maximum use of cars,massive gridlock and pollution for all nearby communities.



So let me get this straight... rather than develop an area that quite clearly could use it (no subway lines, dying economy, acres of unused buildings) it would be better to totally fuck up a relatively thriving area?

Besides, I never said anything about putting residences in Red Hook. I said I thought it would be a good idea to build a stadium there. I'm not suggesting the blueprint be lifted from AY and superimposed on RH.

Then again, the AY development could never be accused of being well-thought-out, anyway.

friendlypitbull

pensodyssey wrote: So let me get this straight... rather than develop an area that quite clearly could use it (no subway lines, dying economy, acres of unused buildings) it would be better to totally fuck up a relatively thriving area?

Besides, I never said anything about putting residences in Red Hook. I said I thought it would be a good idea to build a stadium there. I'm not suggesting the blueprint be lifted from AY and superimposed on RH.

Then again, the AY development could never be accused of being well-thought-out, anyway.

Well if you are advocating putting subway lines in Red Hook I'm right beside you - but as currently situated for the next few generations Red Hook is not an appropriate place for development like an arena unless you do want to create a traffic and pollution nightmare for all nearby residences.

Nor would putting the arena elsewhere resolve the question of where to build the 7000 housing units slated for AY.

pensodyssey

friendlypitbull wrote:

Well if you are advocating putting subway lines in Red Hook I'm right beside you - but as currently situated for the next few generations Red Hook is not an appropriate place for development like an arena unless you do want to create a traffic and pollution nightmare for all nearby residences.

Nor would putting the arena elsewhere resolve the question of where to build the 7000 housing units slated for AY.

Yeah, I would have liked to have seen a long-term development plan for RH that included subway/elevated public transport, combined with an arena (or better yet, baseball stadium... the Florida Marlins are going to need a new home sometime soon). I don't think it'd take a "few generations", but it would take longer than Ratner's timetable.

My resolution to the housing units? Scrap the current plan, go back to the drawing board, and have an open and fair competition to award the site.


*puts down pipe*

friendlypitbull

pensodyssey wrote:
Yeah, I would have liked to have seen a long-term development plan for RH that included subway/elevated public transport, combined with an arena (or better yet, baseball stadium... the Florida Marlins are going to need a new home sometime soon). I don't think it'd take a "few generations", but it would take longer than Ratner's timetable.

Considering the 2nd Ave Subway has been in planning for close to 90 years I think a "few generations" was optimistic

pensodyssey

friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=pensodyssey]
Yeah, I would have liked to have seen a long-term development plan for RH that included subway/elevated public transport, combined with an arena (or better yet, baseball stadium... the Florida Marlins are going to need a new home sometime soon). I don't think it'd take a "few generations", but it would take longer than Ratner's timetable.

Considering the 2nd Ave Subway has been in planning for close to 90 years I think a "few generations" was optimistic


Oh, I know about the 2nd Ave subway. But the problems would not be the same in RH (after all, it is not a comparable density of population/businesses/facilities). We're not talking nearly the same scale of project, even with the stadium. A driven Mayor and developer could get it done in 15 years, IMO. And I think that's a high estimate.

Not that it matters.

carnivore

pensodyssey wrote: A driven Mayor and developer could get it done in 15 years, IMO. And I think that's a high estimate.

Meaning an estimate you came up with while high?

pensodyssey

Carnivore wrote: [quote=pensodyssey]A driven Mayor and developer could get it done in 15 years, IMO. And I think that's a high estimate.

Meaning an estimate you came up with while high?

Ganjaconfrontation (tm)!!!!!!!!