How much uglier can it be?

i only started to use it in the early 2000's

ana.log wrote: [quote=escap]

How much uglier can it be?

I invite you to go to the site of the yards as they are today, and you can see the answer to that question for yourselves.

At least there is some semblance of the real "body language of Brooklyn" there now.

Isn't that a bit patronizing? I run along that strip of land several days a week, and it's one of the most hideous stretches of eyesore in the city. And I'm not just talking about the tracks, but most of the immediate surrounding area as well. The few decent buildings that are there are certainly not urban treasures. I wouldn't be so quick to judge Gehry's design based on some popsicle stick models. You know the real thing will be far different.

Drano wrote: The answer is none. None more ugly.

The very first thing I thought when I saw the thread title.

iowagirl wrote: Me too. Can't get any uglier. Nowhere. Nohow. It really does look like it's about to fall over on the shiny happy people walking by its shiny happy facade.

But that's okay, 'cause it's just a short walk back to their eminently affordable housing.

I also don't think it's progress when the houses people worked for years to buy and call home can be razed without any real thought given to the residents or the historical value of those buildings. Not that I want to get into the whole "eminent domain" thang (other threads for that), but jeez. Ugly building, uglier process. I'm feeling shinier and happier already.

Mr Gehry has so far been unable to get anything significant built in NYC, and he is the kind of guy who starts thinking "legacy." (He is 77, after all.)

I have always had an odd love-hate fascination with his major projects: he's about 2 out of 3 for me. Bilbao? Disney Hall in LA? Wins, both. The MIT buildings? Only one example of his version of rockstarcitecture. Try asking an MIT student who has ever spent any significant time there.

Again though, the problem here isn't just the name being slapped on the construction drawings (not like FOG does a whole bunch of actual work on these things anymore, he just squiggles something down and hands it to his staff), the problem is the scale of the proposal and the lack of respect it affords to the community. Something has to be done with the rail yards, of course. But not in this manner.

escap wrote: Muteflute, I didn't mean to distress you. And I wasn't talking about the Atlantic Center when I referred to the ugly area around the railyards, even though the center is not so great either, admittedly. Again though, I'd take the Atlantic Center over what was there before--nothing--any day.

I'm not wildly enthusiastic about the designs I've seen so far either--they seem weird, garish and, fine, ugly. However, I'm reserving judgment because I don't think a wooden model counts for much, and I have faith that the final design will be a great addition to the area. Many other tall buildings in Brooklyn and Manhattan that have been opposed have turned out to be very nice, IMO, and anyway ugly/beautiful is just a matter of taste. If it hurts your eyes so much to look at a building, then by all means move elsewhere. For me, I welcome a thoughtful architect's ideas, even if I disagree with them, over overgrown weeds, rusty fences and graffiti-covered warehouses.

escap, as flattered as I am that you would think of me in this debate, you should be responded to ana.log. oh SNAP.

oh, and PS: uglier than a superhighway.

Again though, I'd take the Atlantic Center over what was there before--nothing--any day.

So would every member of every grass roots group that opposes this project. The choice is not between Gehry/Ratner and nothing. The choice is between a developer driven landgrab being rammed down the local community's throat with no input or oversight vs. a project that would be based on a Brooklyn vision for the site with some basic groundrules about how it will be built and how the developer would be held accountable for wise use of public funds and assets. And absolutely no eminent domain would be required.

One objection people have to public process is "but won't it be design by committee and delay, delay, delay?" Absolutely not. You begin with a public charette to create the vision, issue an RFP and then have numerous public input sessions as the design evolves. Not everyone will be "happy" with the result, but when people feel they have been sincerely consulted about something that will affect their quality of life, they don't organize protest marches and file lawsuits.

As for delay, this project is already far behind its original schedule, and the legal pitfalls that Ratner has built for himself are numerous.

If there is still a giant hole in the ground five years from now, the blame lies squarely with Ratner and the politicians who decided to by-pass the public to get the largest single-developer real estate proposal in New York history built with nary a hitch. Such hubris.

If they had approved something like the Extell plan, there would be opposition, but it wouldn't be metastasizing like it is with this loser.

I'm not wildly enthusiastic about the designs I've seen so far either--they seem weird, garish and, fine, ugly. However, I'm reserving judgment because I don't think a wooden model counts for much, and I have faith that the final design will be a great addition to the area. Many other tall buildings in Brooklyn and Manhattan that have been opposed have turned out to be very nice, IMO, and anyway ugly/beautiful is just a matter of taste.

I agree 100%. Models cannot be trusted. Sometimes the project ends up looking much better in context, sometimes much worse. It really isn't the model that's the problem here. It's the fact that after claiming the projects would be "significantly" scaled back, the changes to scale are barely noticeable. Also, Gehry's utter contempt for the local community is evident from his comments. This isn't a single building we are talking about, it's an entire neighborhood. Why does anyone believe that one landlord and one architect have the skill to pull that off?

If it fails, who pays?

I'll give you one guess.

This is not a matter of differences in "taste." This is about fundamental values. Should taxpayers have any say at all in how their funds are used beyond and election every couple of years? Should homeowners and small businesses just get used to the fact that people with more money and influence can conspire with the state to take what they have worked so hard for? Should we totally abandon a strategic approach to address our lack of good jobs and sufficient affordable housing by outsourcing it to the private sector? Do we really believe that Bruce Ratner designed this project to solve Brooklyn's problems, rather than fill his coffers in the short term?

This ain't about art. It's about life, and how much control the regular guys and gals should have.

If it hurts your eyes so much to look at a building, then by all means move elsewhere.

And if I don't like Bush's foreign policy should I move to Canada?

This sounds a bit like "America, love it or leave it."

How about "if you can't get your goddamned project built without resorting to eminent domain or public subsidies then by all means go find another town?"

Wouldn't that work equally well?

Look, I hear you--FCR should have talked more with the community. Fine. But isn't the community supposed to be represented by democratically elected leaders? ... The elected reps are mostly in support of the project (not all, just most).

The reps that matter are City Council, an elected body that would normally have to approve a project of this size and scope under ULURP. ULURP would have also required several opportunities for public input. Unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg unilaterally decided to cede control of this thing to the state, a complete reversal of his usual behavior of complaining that the city needs to wrest local control from the state. I don't think City Council would approve this proposal in its current form.

Also, if "most" officials are in favor of the proposal and the process for getting it approved, why did so many local representatives sign on to the bill to reduce the project's size by one third, as reported in the Daily News?

Assemblyman James Brennan (D-Brooklyn) and five Brooklyn colleagues - including vocal arena-supporter Assemblyman Roger Green - are introducing a bill that would cut the size of the project to 6 million square feet from nearly 9 million square feet.

In addition, if you review the recent statements of several candidates for local public office at Thursday's Brooklyn Candidate Forum, it appears that unequivocal support for the project is clearly the minority position. Most candidates were very skeptical and many were opposed.

Should FCR consult with people who were elected as local reps, or with self-appointed local reps like DDDB?

If you limit consideration of "local" to council districts that are within or adjacent to the footprint, what do you think the verdict would be?

Of course, this supposes that the definition of community is very limited, and if we assume that the entire borough is an interconnected system, we can't limit consideration only to those who would be immediately impacted. However, it is outrageous that those who would be most impacted have been shut out of consultation or oversight by executive fiat. The only reason I can come up with is that we're Brooklyn, and the mayor figures we should be thankful that anyone wants to build anything at all in our godforsaken borough.

Can you imagine the media circus if a project of this size were going to be built near established residential enclaves in Manhattan or Westchester?

As for "self-appointed" local representation, all I can say is we need more of it. Our leaders have abdicated responsibility for thoughtful, strategic approaches to the development problems we face in the 21st century. We will definitely need higher density housing in Brooklyn, but we also need to think about our transportation, utility infrastructure, environment, and economic development. If our leaders are merely reacting to the real estate power brokers then the system has failed. I for one don't want to sit on my ass and wait for the next election. It may be goofy and libertarianish, but I view the taxes I pay as membership fees. As I member, I'm entitled to complain when I don't like what's going on with my club. If I want to band with other members to force politicians to listen and respond, then bravo to me. If people don't like what DDDB is doing then they can organize a counter movement.

Also, as much as I believe you are sincere, I truly believe that the choice is between this project and nothing, unfortunately. Remember all those great "alternate" ideas for the Jets stadium in the UWS? What's there now? There is zero spirit of compromise in what you describe as the community.

I believe this is sincere bullshit. The land around Vanderbilt Yards is exceedingly valuable real estate, and the surrounding neighborhoods have been developing quite nicely without government handouts or eminent domain. If a public private partnership will help catalyze development, then fine. Let's just make sure that taxpayers and residents get to set some ground rules about how their assets will be used.

There was a competing developer responding to the hastily issued MTA RFP that was willing to pay three times as much for the railyards as Ratner. This developer was courted by DDDB. Does that sound like a group that doesn't want anything built? The members of DDDB are as diverse in their opinions on what should be built there as the rest of the community. The principle that unifies them is the process for achieving that development.

Ratner screwed himself over. He had many opportunities to consult the communities in and around his ever expanding footprint. He chose not to because he thought it would be easier to ram it through with backroom political dealing and up-front spin.

I kept hoping he would see that his proposal was in jeopardy, and ask the locals to come to the table. Unfortunately, it's too late in the game for that now.

We should be thinking now about how to pick up the ball if the Ratner deal implodes later this year (I think it's 50% likely, especially if the economy turns sour). If the deal does fall through, I think you'll see DDDB step up to the table to try to get the site developed. They are not an anti development group.

Do you have any alternative ideas, or is it "Ratner's way or the highway?" I would like to understand how far your spirit of compromise extends.

escap wrote: You know, I have to give you credit for at least making a rational, coherent argument. It's refreshing to hear an anti-AY argument that isn't littered with bombast, exaggeration and hysterical name calling.

citations please?

escap wrote: Should FCR consult with people who were elected as local reps, or with self-appointed local reps like DDDB? The elected reps are mostly in support of the project (not all, just most). So it's not accurate that the public hasn't been involved, unless you don't think that elected leaders represent the public. I guess local pols like Letitia James could be given the ultimate say--then communities would be thrilled, but you'd see a mass exodus of developers to other cities and housing costs would explode.

Also, as much as I believe you are sincere, I truly believe that the choice is between this project and nothing, unfortunately. Remember all those great "alternate" ideas for the Jets stadium in the UWS? What's there now? There is zero spirit of compromise in what you describe as the community. Nothing is good enough, so if consulting this community means giving into all its demands, then the result will indeed be nothing.

escap. you misunderstand. Cablevision was trying to kill the stadium because they had a vested interested in doing so. Extell is not doing that. the horse is long out of the barn and these yards will be developed.

and you misunderstand the process, unless you sincerely believe that the largest project every proposed by a single developer should gain approval without any official oversight by the city council or a vote by that council. do you sincerely belive that bypassing that still provides representation? that leaving the decision up to Bruno/Pataki/Silvers is representation? and you are damn right, when profiteers come to take one's home and neighborhood you had better fight because most pols won't.

one more correction. 3 of the 4 reps of the district where the site is located, OPPOSE the project. the fourth, Roger Green supports it but is both a disgraced lame duck on his way out of office, and just co-sponsored an Assembly bill to be introduced, (based on false premises, mind you) which would statutorily require Ratner to "scale down" 3 million feet for the project to be approved. that sure doesn't sound like the support you describe. but never mind, if Ratner/Gehry like it, screw our elected officials.

you claim DDDB and other community groups and activists are self-appointd. who the F appointed Gehry and Bruce? c'mon.

Has anyone here ever seen the EMP building in Seattle? ( Experience Music Project). My friend Dan said it looks like they crumpled a Doritos bag and made it a building. Also a Gheary. Look it up. Although, the new building is beter than what's at the yard now, but that's not saying much.

I would still want whomever the lead architect was to get some real urban planners on the team and hold some charettes with the Brooklyn community ... You can't please everyone, but it is possible to get public buy-in and ongoing support for a large, disruptive project.

What is the Brooklyn community you're talking about? Does such a monolithic entity exist? And who gets to speak for it? How would we even know if there was public "buy-in"?

Do you suppose that the people who live by are the only ones who should have a say? There's a region-wide housing shortage. The most logical place for in-fill development would be a place like the Atlantic Yards. The short-term burdens we experience in this neighborhood has to be weighed against the long-term benefits the region might receive from developments like this. I don't know what the conclusion to this kind of discussion would be, but no one here seems to be taking a larger view.

This is the guy that deserves $1.6 billion of our tax dollars and the right to seize property from homeowners who worked their asses off to finally buy a place in the neighborhood they chose to live in?

Can I see some worked-off asses, please? Do you think these unsupported generalizations are supposed to persuade people, or do we as the "community" only talk to people who already agree with us?

Please. You do NOT speak for me. I worked my ass off for the property I own, and I STILL support the Atlantic Yards plan.

Thanks for all the replies, and come on guys, you know you love having me on this board--would you really want to just sit around and pat each other on that back and nod in agreement with each other? How boring would that be???

I just wanted to state my position to be clear. Generally speaking, I think the land in question should be free to be used by its owners as they see fit. A minimum regulatory standard is obviously necessary (no toxic waste dumps), and the input of an elected community board etc. is appropriate for development that may directly impact surrounding residents--for example if a prison, industrial plant, stadium, or other major impact development is planned the community should have a say. However, the law should give significant advantage to the rights of landowners to use their own land over the rights of neighbors to prevent that use. Physical harm or severe nuisance should be the standard--a sulfure plant is a no go, a tall building is a definite go. And the ultimate decision of whether the land use crosses the line should be left to higher level councils and judges, not local boards, who are clearly biased towards the neighbors' view.

Bottom line, if Ratner owns the land and wants to build housing on it, non landowners should not be able to stop him just because they think his plans are ugly, may affect their property values up or down, don't care about basketball, or have complaints about the direction of profits, his workforce, his character, motives, etc.

Finally, I believe that eminent domain should be used only as a last resort to facilitate development that has a clear public benefit and cannot be accomplished without it--I have yet to see compelling evidence that the AY plan meets this threshold. Furthermore, the city is far better off taxing the developer at the standard rate and allowing him to charge market rates across the boards. As for straight subsidies (not tax breaks), these are only appropriate when public infrastructure or other services are involved, or maybe if a city needs to entice developers in. I don't know enough about the details of this plan to say whether the $100MM from the city and state are justified--it seems like standard practice across the nation, but ideally I'd of course prefer to see the development paid for privately.

So I support protests that call for lower public subsidies, careful review of the eminent domain issue, elimination of the "affordable" housing provisions, and for dialogue between local council members and FCR. I oppose protests that focus on the size of the development, the ugliness, call for bureaucratic obstructionism, or (most common) degenerate into character assassinations of the "greedy" Ratner.

Subject: Re: Video interview with Gehry and Olin

ph-bklyn wrote: FYI: there's a video interview of Architect Frank Gehry and landscape architect Laurie Olin talking about the Atlantic Yards project on the home page of the New York Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/.

that video was useful even if only to hear the architects speak for themselves.

of course there's only a cursory mention of the opposition to their plans.

And the video doesn't address what I feel is the most disturbing aspect of this process: there has been next to no diologue with the community and people who were displaced or will have to live with what Ratner wants to build.

the bidding & financial process has been shady at best. and the community diologue is almost non-existant.

So I support protests that call for lower public subsidies, careful review of the eminent domain issue, elimination of the "affordable" housing provisions, and for dialogue between local council members and FCR. I oppose protests that focus on the size of the development, the ugliness, call for bureaucratic obstructionism, or (most common) degenerate into character assassinations of the "greedy" Ratner.

Excellent summary. Your position is clear, understandable and rational.

I think there is a lot of common ground:

1) Eminent domain is ripe for abuse by people with political connections and money to burn. It should be a last resort, and the definition of "public good" must be subject to local scrutiny and oversight. I'm even more dogmatic on this issue, in that I don't believe that it's ever acceptable to seize private property because a city thinks it might get higher tax revenue from a different use of the property. I realize there are some that find that position bullheaded. However, I'm betting those same critics would not gladly hand over their cherished home or business for the "public good" as defined by the government and whatever developer could sell them on the benefits. And anyone who doesn't want it for themselves but wouldn't mind it happening to the other guy is the epitome of NIMBY.

2) Elimination of "affordable housing" provisions. This is an interesting position. Personally, I think the affordable housing guarantees are complete bullshit to begin with, so I would have no problem eliminating them. BUT... this is the one issue that FCR and the pols that unequivocally support this project trumpet the most. It's like they believe the AY project will be some silver bullet.

Housing is expensive and getting more expensive. Conventional wisdom says that one's housing costs should be about 30% of one's total annual income. I have no doubt that there are many hard-working people who provide essential services who can't find housing at anywhere near that rate. Presumable the availability of additional housing units would help. However, I don't think carving X% of units out of each development project as they come up is a strategic or sustainable solution to the issue. Free market corrects itself? Government assistance makes up the difference? Hell if I know. I just know that AY won't even be a drop in the bucket.

3) Lower public subsidies. I agree, but would add that there must be transparency, accountability and oversight regardless of the amount. That doesn't mean bureaucracy either. If private sectore business have contract admnistrators and vendor management to ensure service level agreements are complied with, why should public private partnerships be any different? Taxpayers are shareholders. Our money should be treated with the same care (then again, our elected officials might be the equivalent of Ken Lay).

4) Dialogue between Council Members and FCR. I want more than dialogue. I want my elected officials to have real negotiating leverage. I think that Council members should have the ultimate approval on FCR's project. That's what we elected them to do - manage our shared public assets intelligently. We don't need the mayor handing over this decision unilaterally to Pataki, Silver and Bruno. This is a city project. The city should have a real deciding vote.

5) The size of the development. You oppose protests that center on this. I have to respectfully disagree. This is not a matter of taste, but a matter of sustainability and long term maintenance costs. Size matters. That's why we have zoning and infrastructure planning. It would be different if all developments used equal amount of shared resources, but that's not the case. The proposed AY project will put greater demands on sewage, roads, first responders, and schools. There are potential impacts on small business owners in surrounding neighborhoods. Depending on how the development is handled, those impacts could be positive (increased foot traffic) or negative (decreased parking, decreased foot traffic). Solar rights are not a trivial issue. Many folks who now enjoy full sun will be completely shaded. I know they're not growing crops, but it could even affect utility bills (positive or negative). Unfortunately, these impacts cannot be isolated to the buildings within the footprint, and the costs can't be billed directly to FCR. Everyone will have to shoulder a part of the added burden. That's why size must be considered. The impacts are systemic.

6) Bureaucratic Obstruction. Stopping a crappy proposal is not obstruction. Preventing any development is. Brooklyn must have high density development in the near future. We just need to do it intelligently, and with some basic ground rules in place to level the playing field and protect homeowners and taxpayers from paying for developer mistakes. You don't need bureaucracy to enforce accountability and maintain tranparency.

7) Character assassinations of the "greedy" Ratner. What's wrong with greedy? As far as I'm concerned that's what a developer is supposed to do, try to get the most profit for the least investment and risk. Who can blame Ratner. Asking him not to use political connections to force this thing through is like asking a tiger to eat tofu. On the other hand, there has been an awful lot of "demonization" of the opposition. How did residents who deign to ask tough questions, defend their property rights, and critically examine the impacts of this project on the community come to be "naysayers" and "obstructionists" who are unwilling to compromise?

You can't compromise if you've never been invited to the table in the first place. The fact that local residents were completely shut out is outrageous.

The real failure here is with our elected officials. They're letting things happen rather than making things happen. There is no vision or planning. Just reacting. We don't have time to do things over. We need to do them right the first time. If the way the FCR AY project has been conducted to this point is our "best practice" paradigm for large scale development - Brooklyn is in for a decade of underachievement.