Do alternate plans for the Atlantic Rail Yards exist?

YES.

The community’s alternative plan–The UNITY Community Development Plan–for the rail yards, led to a plan submitted to the MTA by the Extell Development Company which was guided by the principles underlying the UNITY Plan. (See: Yard Fight, by Peter Slatin. July 8, 2005 in The Slatin Report. ). Extell bid $150 million for the rail yards, versus Ratner’s low-ball bid of $50 million. Despite the MTA’s own appraisal of $214.5 million, the clearly fixed and deficient bidding process led to a decision by the MTA board to negotiate exclusively with Ratner–whom they had been working with and negotiating with for over two years–over an extended 45 day period.

When that period ended, to nobody’s surprise, Ratner upped his offer to $100 million and, still well below the Extell bid and well below the appraisal, the MTA approved the sale of the yards to Ratner. But that sale will not close unless “Atlantic Yards” is approved. MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow, when challenged by the only dissenting board member Mitchell Pally, said, “I’m not going to be beholden by that appraisal, it’s just some guy’s idea of what those yards are worth.”

But Extell's plan (a fully funded, viable plan over the rail yards, with the same affordable housing percentage as Ratner, no eminent domain, going through ULURP, no superblocks, much smaller impact and cost) and the UNITY plan are both alternatives that must be studied in contrast to Ratner's plan through the environmental review process. we are at the very beginning of that process.

Subject: Re: Do alternate plans for the Atlantic Rail Yards exist?

Boygabriel wrote:
If you were in charge what would you do?

Turn it into a park. With a contemporary flavour and world-class features not provided elsewhere; something new and unique to complement the 19th century gardens we've been blessed with. Exactly what to put in would be a matter for artists, architects, and the community. The way I see it, business, retail, employment, affordable housing, etc., can be tackled incrementally and over the entire city, but a contiguous centrally located zone like this only comes up once a century or so.

Subject: Re: Do alternate plans for the Atlantic Rail Yards exist?

doctorj wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]
If you were in charge what would you do?

Turn it into a park. With a contemporary flavour and world-class features not provided elsewhere; something new and unique to complement the 19th century gardens we've been blessed with. Exactly what to put in would be a matter for artists, architects, and the community. The way I see it, business, retail, employment, affordable housing, etc., can be tackled incrementally and over the entire city, but a contiguous centrally located zone like this only comes up once a century or so.

Magnificent idea Doctor J. Why not add a dozen 18 year old virgins for every man that enters this wonderful utopia?

Subject: Re: Do alternate plans for the Atlantic Rail Yards exist?

muteflute wrote: [quote=Jamzer][quote=doctorj][quote=Boygabriel]
If you were in charge what would you do?

Turn it into a park. With a contemporary flavour and world-class features not provided elsewhere; something new and unique to complement the 19th century gardens we've been blessed with. Exactly what to put in would be a matter for artists, architects, and the community. The way I see it, business, retail, employment, affordable housing, etc., can be tackled incrementally and over the entire city, but a contiguous centrally located zone like this only comes up once a century or so.

Magnificent idea Doctor J. Why not add a dozen 18 year old virgins for every man that enters this wonderful utopia?

only a dozen? that's paltry.
You're 23% queer- you get four 18 year old boys as well... :twisted:

Subject: Re: Do alternate plans for the Atlantic Rail Yards exist?

Jamzer wrote: [quote=doctorj][quote=Boygabriel]
If you were in charge what would you do?

Turn it into a park. With a contemporary flavour and world-class features not provided elsewhere; something new and unique to complement the 19th century gardens we've been blessed with. Exactly what to put in would be a matter for artists, architects, and the community. The way I see it, business, retail, employment, affordable housing, etc., can be tackled incrementally and over the entire city, but a contiguous centrally located zone like this only comes up once a century or so.

Magnificent idea Doctor J. Why not add a dozen 18 year old virgins for every man that enters this wonderful utopia?

Ask a utopian question, get a utopian answer. On the other hand, if I were actually in charge I might turn into the kind of person who wanted to make as quick and as large a buck as possible.

When I think of comparable areas in other world cities that have turned into great public spaces, whether by the vision and support of rich benefactors or the state or both, I can't think of any where virgins were a particular feature. Except maybe in some ancient civilisations, and blood sacrifice seems to be out of fashion these days, so I wouldn't suggest reinstituting that without the full consultation of the community.

the high level of discourse here is making my brain explode!

qtrain, was that bold screaming sarcasm or serious? can't tell.

ratnerville4ever wrote: the high level of discourse here is making my brain explode!

qtrain, was that bold screaming sarcasm or serious? can't tell.

You've been gentriconfronted!

curmudgeon wrote: There aren't enough places to live for all of the people that wimll be moving to New York in the coming years. Why do you think gentrifiers (that's us, by the way) are pushing out further and further?

It looks like Brooklyn is only now regaining the population it had from 1930 through 1970:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City
This page says an extra 300,000 in Brooklyn in the next 20
years to 2.8mil, or about 0.8% p.a., which seems like relatively slow growth to me.

Manhattan is still way off its peak despite all the construction.

You could say that rather than gentrifiers pushing out further and further, they've only just begun to reclaim the middle-class neighborhoods of the mid-20th century. Presumably new construction and renovation in the mid to high end, not just 'affordable housing', also increases the total amount of liveable space. Maybe 'enough places to live' depends on how tightly people are willing to be packed; if there's greater inequality than there was in 1950 then the wealthier can demand more space each, leaving less space each for the less well off. Good thing Staten Island is still going to be there if Brooklyn one day is full

escap wrote: [quote=curmudgeon]

So many of us complain about housing prices in New York, yet we continue to support measures that restrict the supply of housing and drive the costs up further.

You should know that on this board, the common wisdom is that increasing supply leads to higher prices. I've tried to argue otherwise before but it's kind of like trying to explain evolution to creationists. "So-called" experts and their economic "theories" don't count for much here, unfortunately.

actually, it seems an awful lot like demand (for a certain type of housing in certain areas) is outpacing supply, and therefore prices are rising accordingly. This trend, if continued, would force the people who have lived in those neighborhoods for the past twenty years (or longer) out into neighborhoods where this demand doesn't (yet) exist but where their arrival will stress the existing supply and raise costs there, also.

in the end, the housing market is not all that, what's the economic word for it...well, we'll say liquid because I took Ec like six years ago--so, while you're right in saying that supply should be increased and that that will force prices down, the new housing market is one predominately of luxury spaces that take up a lot of space, have high ceilings, and are, thus, inefficient. They provide relatively few housing units for the people who need them (ie. the people who are being pushed further and further out) while keeping prices high for the "luxury" goods of the moment.

If you were truly concerned about alleviating housing costs, you would be promoting projects that increased the supply of affordable housing--as anti-market as it is, preserving systems of rent-stabilization or at-cost rise will prevent the forced conversion of ALL properties into high-rent, luxury spaces and allow for the preservation of communities as they stand. Housing is not the market for soda, where substitutes are readily available. As soon as the market in a neighborhood starts to climb, everything starts to climb and all housing starts to turn into unaffordable (for normal folk) spaces.

so, yes, increasing supply of high-priced spaces--luxury spaces that will always be marketed to wealthy people, regardless of the market, due to their design, their decoration, and their location--can lead to a rise in cost. I see no-one arguing against large developments of rent-stabilized and income-diverse housing--oh, wait, that's because no-one is building such things anymore.

oh, snap, there we go, escap, you and I are arguing again. some things on this board are just not that surprising. I'll have to go back to my economics, so I'm better prepared next time.

in the end, the housing market is not all that, what's the economic word for it...well, we'll say liquid because I took Ec like six years ago--so, while you're right in saying that supply should be increased and that that will force prices down, the new housing market is one predominately of luxury spaces that take up a lot of space, have high ceilings, and are, thus, inefficient. They provide relatively few housing units for the people who need them (ie. the people who are being pushed further and further out) while keeping prices high for the "luxury" goods of the moment.

Back to reality . . .

Step one: New luxury housing gets built
Step two: Affluent people, who had previously been paying $2,000 a month for closets, flock to the new luxury housing
Step three: The decrease in demand for the housing previousy occupied by the affluent decreases, causing landlords in the old housing to decrease prices
Step four: The less affluent can upgrade their housing to the newly available spaces
Step five: Over the long-term, as more luxury housing gets built, the price of luxury housing itself will come down until the market reaches equilibrium (i.e. developers no longer have an economic incentive to build new luxury housing), and the ranks of those able to afford the "luxury" housing will have increased.

And all that without any public subsidies or rent control.

For additional reading, please see Arthur O'Sullivan's "Urban Economics", 5th Edition.

curmudgeon wrote:

in the end, the housing market is not all that, what's the economic word for it...well, we'll say liquid because I took Ec like six years ago--so, while you're right in saying that supply should be increased and that that will force prices down, the new housing market is one predominately of luxury spaces that take up a lot of space, have high ceilings, and are, thus, inefficient. They provide relatively few housing units for the people who need them (ie. the people who are being pushed further and further out) while keeping prices high for the "luxury" goods of the moment.

Back to reality . . .

Step one: New luxury housing gets built
Step two: Affluent people, who had previously been paying $2,000 a month for closets, flock to the new luxury housing
Step three: The decrease in demand for the housing previousy occupied by the affluent decreases, causing landlords in the old housing to decrease prices
Step four: The less affluent can upgrade their housing to the newly available spaces
Step five: Over the long-term, as more luxury housing gets built, the price of luxury housing itself will come down until the market reaches equilibrium (i.e. developers no longer have an economic incentive to build new luxury housing), and the ranks of those able to afford the "luxury" housing will have increased.

And all that without any public subsidies or rent control.

For additional reading, please see Arthur O'Sullivan's "Urban Economics", 5th Edition.

that's all well and good. but that assumes that the spaces abandoned by the wealthy will get re-used to another purpose, (a), and (b) that the relative number of wealthy people who are able to pay $2000 per apartment remains the same. If that number is continually rising--or if, for instance, the number of people evicted by a new luxury development is far greater than the number of units vacated by those who move to move INTO the luxury development--then that neat little diagram doesn't work out so well. I'm not saying that this (a) isn't a bubble or (b) the housing market is not going to re-adjust--it very well may. All I'm saying is that the progressive effect of this is evicting those who are less able to pay, destroying "useless" housing stock, and homogenizing neighborhoods EXCEPT for the very low income housing that everyone knows is not all that helpful. A better model--and one that the city is supporting--is one that demands that all developments provide a mixture of housing so that people aren't constantly being displaced.

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

friendlypitbull wrote: The thing that everyone seems to ignore, is that this is BEST place to put high density and an arena. Anywhere else (i.e. further away from 10 subway lines and LIRR) you ensure that people use less public transportation and more car trips.

I thought everyone in Park Slope/Prospect Heights/Ft Greene were so enviromentally conscious???

Coney Island is pretty conducive...

kristina wrote: geez. i i was just thing how cool it would be to put in in a miniature rat village.

They did, apparently it's located behind my oven.