How much uglier can it be?

escap · May 2006

I think there's a glitch somewhere, b/c your posts keep getting duplicated.

Anyway, I understand your points. I just wanted to briefly say that--intentional or not--I think the message that too often comes across is that ultimately the project opponents' main goal is to nix the project entirely, and all their arguments serve to further that cause. Not to excuse it, but the reason pols and developers live in terror of "community input" and try to skirt it at every chance is that they believe input=obstruction, no matter what you say. If the message coming across was truly one of constructive input, I would hope that pols (and maybe even developers) would be more open to it.

Though there have been many good points made in opposition to the AY plan, the fact is that you can barely lay a brick in a residential NYC nabe without attracting a protest rally. Many of my friends are going into real estate development, and I can tell you that they feel tremendous frustration with neighborhood "activists", and this atmosphere of contention has led us to the point where there is zero trust on both sides. This is not all the fault of one side or the other, but on your side I think you'd get a lot further with the type of well-reasoned arguments that were mostly presented here, and also by picking and choosing fights more discretely.

For example, a ~10 story condo in Fort Greene recently brought down local furor (as did a proposed condo at Grand Army Plaza), so why should anyone belive that people are willing to be flexible? As a very extreme and rare example, I even once saw a guest post on this board advocating acts of sabotage at the potential AY construction site. Not exactly a way to bridge that trust gap. I know that's not representative of the norm, and I know you're going to say that FCR/Marty/Mike wouldn't listen no matter what, but I think they have made efforts to win public support (ACORN, the CBA, union jobs, etc.), and they're likely to listen more so long as the message isn't drowned out by rhetoric.

muteflute · May 2006

escap wrote: Anyway, I understand your points. I just wanted to briefly say that--intentional or not--I think the message that too often comes across is that ultimately the project opponents' main goal is to nix the project entirely, and all their arguments serve to further that cause. Not to excuse it, but the reason pols and developers live in terror of "community input" and try to skirt it at every chance is that they believe input=obstruction, no matter what you say. If the message coming across was truly one of constructive input, I would hope that pols (and maybe even developers) would be more open to it.

...

For example, a ~10 story condo in Fort Greene recently brought down local furor (as did a proposed condo at Grand Army Plaza), so why should anyone belive that people are willing to be flexible? As a very extreme and rare example, I even once saw a guest post on this board advocating acts of sabotage at the potential AY construction site. Not exactly a way to bridge that trust gap. I know that's not representative of the norm, and I know you're going to say that FCR/Marty/Mike wouldn't listen no matter what, but I think they have made efforts to win public support (ACORN, the CBA, union jobs, etc.), and they're likely to listen more so long as the message isn't drowned out by rhetoric.

Well, I may as well say that the government/development nexus has wrecked so much havoc in the past that there is lots of evidence that obstruction is the ONLY way to get anyone's attention. Reasonable rhetoric is just not going to work, because the power of a group of "reasonable" people will not in any way prevent an extremely wealthy individual with the support of the entire executive branch of city and state government from walking all over them, making promises that they can't keep. As much as I, too, get frustrated by protests over every little thing, there does have to be some balance between new (invasive) development and community preservation. There has been too long a history now of neighborhoods getting bulldozed that people do not forget. There's a lot to be said (and there are, lo and behold, people saying this sort of thing) for the fact that a stagnant city is a dying city and that neighborhoods do have to evolve, and a lot of these people advocate a careful approach with community involvement and actual government regulation of these projects. Because, really, to be honest I have no faith in either my government or businessmen to look after my interests, and I sure as hell know that just gently asking for change is not going to bring it about.

Also: involvement would not equal obstruction if involvement were not just a de facto rubber stamp procedure. I maintain that a developer who wants to build a bigger building on land s/he owns can, BEFORE EVEN BEGINNING TO DESIGN IT, hold community meetings and work to find a way to make sure the design FITS in the community. There's something about designs being rammed down your throat that makes you want to obstruct. If you really wanted to avoid obstruction, you'd listen to neighborhood needs and work to fulfill them with a development that reconciles your economic imperatives with community needs and wishes.

And, surely, escap you too are guilty of extreme rhetoric.

brooklynartisan · May 2006

I maintain that a developer who wants to build a bigger building on land s/he owns can, BEFORE EVEN BEGINNING TO DESIGN IT, hold community meetings and work to find a way to make sure the design FITS in the community.

Hold a meeting with the community? What's the community in this case? Every person who lives within 5 blocks of AY? Ten? Everyone who hopes to have a job or live there someday? Or thinks they'll get stuck in a traffic jam because of it?

Defining community in this case is pretty difficult. And deciding whether something "fits" is problematic. "Fits" according to what criteria?
And what percentage of the "community" has to decide something "fits"?

If you and I are the "community" in this case, it looks like we'd be in a deadlock, because you'd vote against the AY proposal and I'd vote for it.

I am as suspicious as you are that politicians or businesspeople will not represent my interests. But I'm just as suspicious of people who annoint themselves spokepeople for their neighbors.

dope on the slope · May 2006

I think there's a glitch somewhere, b/c your posts keep getting duplicated.

To quote King Crimson - "I repeat myself when under stress... I repeat myself when under stress..." Must be some kink in the firewall where I posted from this afternoon. I'll blame it on New Jersey. Now that I'm back home in Brooklyn everything seems to work normally.

As a very extreme and rare example, I even once saw a guest post on this board advocating acts of sabotage at the potential AY construction site. Not exactly a way to bridge that trust gap.

Yes and we saw a construction union member physically assault a Staten Island official when he voiced concerns over the proposed NASCAR track near the Goethals bridge. When it comes to big development projects, civility seems to be in short supply.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe the residents and taxpayers in Brooklyn deserve deference and respect. They are Bruce Ratner's peers and Mayor Bloomberg is supposedly a public servant. Running around like Chicken Little claiming that having any restrictions on eminent domain will lead to a complete halt in development is absurd and irresponsible. I pay a shitload in taxes. I expect better from our mayor and the rest of our elected officials. When they fall short of expectations, then it's both my right and my duty to give them hell. The onus is one Bruce Ratner to prove why he should be allowed to feed at the public trough. As for eminent domain, it needs to be off the table entirely for this project.

I know you're going to say that FCR/Marty/Mike wouldn't listen no matter what, but I think they have made efforts to win public support (ACORN, the CBA, union jobs, etc.), and they're likely to listen more so long as the message isn't drowned out by rhetoric.

You may sincerely believe that, but I take a much more Machiavellian view of the Ratner's actions. FCR didn't go for "public" support. FCR went for the political support that they thought would give them the most PR cover for controversial aspects of their project. And they paid dearly for that support.

As for the CBA, my lawyer friends tell me it's fairly weak legally. If we had a contract with performance guarantees and penalties, then we'd have a CBA. What we currently have is a PR document with several of the signatories on the FCR payroll. I want enforcement and accountability. If FCR doesn't deliver the goods as promised, then there must be substantial consequences. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

The union jobs? Many of the arena jobs have already been promised to members of a union in Jersey. How does that benefit Brooklyn? The construction jobs are temporary and may not go to locals once all of the contracts are in place. No new industry is being created.

As for economic benefits, just where is all of the new tax revenue going to come from? Are people from out of state going to move to Brooklyn because they can live at Atlantic Yards? Will building office towers create new jobs? Wow. All we have to do is build condos and cubicles and we create new wealth where none existed before. Who knew? Ratner's economic projections are ever-changing and, in my opinion, pure fantasy. About the only thing I trust is the notion that we'll have a hell of a lot more cars to contend with on the 250 nights a year when events will be held at the arena.

It's interesting to contrast FCR's actions with those of Commerce Bank when they unveiled plans for a drive-thru on 5th Avenue. Local residents felt the drive-thru didn't "fit" into the pedestrian context of 5th Avenue, and they asked Commerce Bank to change the plans. The bank responded, and altered their plans in response to community concerns. I was involved with one of the groups that participated in that dialog. We didn't get everything we asked for, but we were satisfied with the result and our organization set up an account at the bank. Commerce Bank had no legal or ethical oblication whatsoever to listen to community concerns. They purchased the property on the free market and no zoning variances or subsidies were requested. Why did they bother to change their standard design and incur increased expense? Because it was in their business interest to do so. The problem with the FCR proposal is that there is simply no reason for Ratner to listen at all to the local residents if he doesn't have to. He makes a profit even if the whole thing is a monumental failure long term. This makes his proposal very dangerous IMO. There is absolutely no reason for him to give a flying flip about what happens after he's cashed in on the development.

Ratner has not once made overtures to any of the local politicians or community groups, and it isn't because he hasn't been asked. Why should he bother? He's got Mike and Marty shaking pom poms and removing obstructions for him. He's a good guy.

I personally hope FCR suffers an embarrassing, costly defeat and ultimately the project goes to another developer. Darwinian selection in action. Developers that try to sneak public projects through private channels should be an endangered species, and extinction can't happen quickly enough. This type of development is bad for communities, and ultimately, I think it's bad for Brooklyn's economic future. If Ratner changed his tactics, then I would feel differently. This isn't about personalities, it's about process.

When you look at the areas of Brooklyn that have been "revitalizing" over the past three decades, how much of that is attributable to big, government subsidized projects?

Higher density housing is needed. More affordable housing is needed. But there isn't some ticking timebomb that says if we don't approve Ratner's proposal, all will be lost. That's just what the developers want people to believe. If everything is urgent, then there is no time for tough questions.

If this project is such a great deal for the residents and taxpayers of Brooklyn, it will stand a little scrutiny and oversight.

dope on the slope · May 2006

If you and I are the "community" in this case, it looks like we'd be in a deadlock, because you'd vote against the AY proposal and I'd vote for it.

Do you own a home or a business?

I'm not implying that one needs to own anything to be a part of the "commuity" that deserves to be heard, but I'm just curious as to whether you would willingly give up your home or business because a developer convinced a policitian that your loft, or brownstone, or gallery, or cafe wasn't the highest revenue generating use for the property?

How do you feel about eminent domain?

If you personally knew and liked people who were adversely affected by this project, would you be as supportive?

If your little corner of paradise were adversely impacted, would you step aside for the good of the community?

How will you personally benefit if this project is built?

What do you expect will improve for you or someone else? How will you know? What is the measurable result?

Why do you believe these improvements will come to fruition?

What data do you have other than what the developer's PR people have told you?

I'm just interested in how you came to support the project as it currently stands.

escap · May 2006

And, surely, escap you too are guilty of extreme rhetoric.

Moi? :shock:

Oh, btw, there have been several community meetings, just fyi. I've seen them advertised periodically and a friend of mine went to one of them. From what he said it was mostly a contentious atmosphere of union members and neighborhood activists screaming at each other, but it's false to say that FCR hasn't reached out to the community at all. It's more accurate to say that the two sides are so far apart that a middle ground seems unattainable.

friendlypitbull · May 2006

Can I comment on some of the things you say:

Dope on the Slope wrote:
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

ED is always a last resort and least in terms of AY isnt being contemplated strictly as a tax revenue enhancer - public benefits include development of an eyesore(railyard) in the center city; a public entertainment venue; affordable housing; upgraded infrastructure (railyard itself and platform); additional office space (jobs) and retail (ammenities) - now you may not accept that these are benefits and/or you may argue that there are economically viable way to achieve all these things w/o ED but you are simply creating a 'straw man' if you say that this is only about favoring one taxpayer over another.
As for whether someone would 'gladly' hand over their house - no one is expected to do that - they are suppossed to be compensated for their loss (now again you may not belevee this is possible but our entire civil legal system is based on the notion of compensation, so you have a uphill battle here) and I encourage anyone facing ED loss to fight for every last cent that they can extract out of it.

Dope on the Slope wrote:
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.

I am sure that subsidized housing is not the most effective solution (I favor unregulated housing, with direct subsidies to people in need); however you (presumably well housed) gloss over the 3500 units of affordable housing that AY will provide.
Sure it wont change the world but it will be a huge benefit for the 3500 families affected and while you might not consider it a 'drop in the bucket' it is a tidal wave in the ocean compared to the 57 renters and 3 new condo owners living in the footprint.

Dope on the Slope wrote:
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.

Well actually it is a State and City project when you consider it is largely being built over MTA property which is a State public agency; nor I have ever seen anything be economically built developed or run when elected officials are 'managing our shared public assets'.

Dope on the Slope wrote: 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.

You ignore the most important aspect of this - if you dont build office space, arenas, housing and retail at AY then it will be built elsewhere -and if it is built elsewhere we have INCREASED costs - high density ensures effective use of economies of scale for all infrastructure and land type costs and the fact that AY is next to a huge mass transit center means that enviromentally it is in the absolute best location to minimize enviromental costs for the city and region. It is easy to say building this huge development will increase demand on roads sewers, schools etc....but what you have to weigh is the effect if the same development took place in a less centralized manner, and further from mass transit and the core downtown infrastructure.
Your comments regarding loss of sun light are just silly, the cost in terms of utilites are more than made up for by the savings of living in large buildings (where apts have internal walls , floors and ceilings on 3 sides) - as for existing homeowners, virtually none are going to face more shadows since in NY the sun is to the south.

Dope on the Slope wrote:
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..

If you agree that high density in NY is needed then you must recognize that AY is probably one of the best places in all of NYC to have it, therefore you should opposse lower density plans (even if you opposse Ratner)

dope on the slope · May 2006

You ignore the most important aspect of this - if you dont build office space, arenas, housing and retail at AY then it will be built elsewhere -and if it is built elsewhere

I wasn't aware there was an office space or retail space shortage. I'll bet you two pints he doesn't get anywhere near full occupancy on the office space - unless, we pay the tenants to relocate and pay them some more to keep them from moving. We've done it before.

If you agree that high density in NY is needed then you must recognize that AY is probably one of the best places in all of NYC to have it, therefore you should opposse lower density plans (even if you opposse Ratner)

What if it's only 97% as dense as FCR's plan? Or maybe 78.2%? I don't think it's intellectually honest to say that if the plan is merely lower than Ratner's in density that is should be opposed. It can be lower in density and still not be "low density" can it not? What is the ideal density number? Can I look that up somewhere?

We should focus on our area of agreement. We cannot expect Brooklyn to remain a completely low-rise borough. That's just not realistic.

ED is always a last resort and least in terms of AY isnt being contemplated strictly as a tax revenue enhancer - public benefits include development of an eyesore(railyard) in the center city; a public entertainment venue; affordable housing; upgraded infrastructure (railyard itself and platform); additional office space (jobs) and retail (ammenities) - now you may not accept that these are benefits and/or you may argue that there are economically viable way to achieve all these things w/o ED but you are simply creating a 'straw man' if you say that this is only about favoring one taxpayer over another.

If ED is always a last resort, then why is it mentioned when the developer goes to buy up property in his initial buying. We'll just have to disagree on this. I think the threat of eminent domain is a gun held to the property owner's head, and it needs to be curtailed significantly.

You are correct to assume that I will not accept your list of benefits. When it comes to taking a home, public benefit should be defined very narrowly and unambiguoulsy. As for "public" entertainment venue, I'm looking forward to my free event passes in the mail. Also, Ratner will be demapping streets thereby converting them from public to private space. Those spaces will be no more public than the interior of Atlantic Center. Functionally, it may not feel that much different, but legally it is.

And I'll cling desperately to my straw man, but with a minor modification. This isn't about favoring one taxpayer over another. It's about favoring one taxpayer over thousands of others.

IMO, Bruce Ratner stepped into a different realm when he engineered this project to use public land, infrastructure subsidies, tax breaks, ED, etc. You don't get to play by free market rules when you have a so-called public-private "partnership."

Partners are peers. The citizens of Brooklyn are not being treated as peers of either Bruce Ratner or Mayor Bloomberg. I can respect the opinions of fellow Brooklynites who think this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I don't respect anyone who feels that city council and local residents should be completely shut out.

This is not a development paradigm that will lead to a good result. It is reactive and fragmented. If we want more high density development, then let's look at Brooklyn as a system and decide the broad parameters for achieveing that goal. If we want to increase reliance on public transportation, then let's plan for that, rather than tacking it on as an afterthought.

Strident opposition is the natural human reaction when folks are completely blind-sided by a project of this scale, and are basically told they have no choice. This project could have been a real milestone for Brooklyn's "renaissance."

As it is, I think it will end up being a millstone. Either because it gets dragged under due to financial or legal problems, or because it gets rammed through to avoid risky delays (risk to the project) and ends up being dysfunctional.

This is the largest single source project ever in New York city history. It's bigger than the WTC site. The arena seats more than Madison Square garden. Brooklyn cannot afford to build this and get it wrong.

I have zero faith in the competence of the current players. Their inept handling of the PR, despite spending millions, should give everyone pause.

friendlypitbull · May 2006

Dope on the Slope wrote: I wasn't aware there was an office space or retail space shortage. I'll bet you two pints he doesn't get anywhere near full occupancy on the office space - unless, we pay the tenants to relocate and pay them some more to keep them from moving. We've done it before.

Then you havent researched the point, Recent surveys (and rising rents and lower vacancy rates) have forecasted substantial shortage in office space over the next decade, not to mention the perpetual shortage of 'affordable' office space for lower margin functions like backoffice operations - one only needs to look at the Jersey waterfront to see how much of this market we have ceded

Dope on the Slope wrote: What if it's only 97% as dense as FCR's plan? Or maybe 78.2%? I don't think it's intellectually honest to say that if the plan is merely lower than Ratner's in density that is should be opposed.

True but no one (opposition or counter-proposals) are advocating or proposing anything even close in terms of density or usage (arena)

Dope on the Slope wrote:
We should focus on our area of agreement. We cannot expect Brooklyn to remain a completely low-rise borough. That's just not realistic.

Maybe not realistic -but many are vocally advocating for just that.

Dope on the Slope wrote:
You are correct to assume that I will not accept your list of benefits. When it comes to taking a home, public benefit should be defined very narrowly and unambiguoulsy. As for "public" entertainment venue, I'm looking forward to my free event passed in the mail..

I hope your kidding with this analysis - Virtually every NYC (public) venue charges a fee - Botanical Garden, Museums, Golf courses, tennis cts, Baseball fields, zoos, etc,etc,etc - not to mention other public facilities like city owned colleges, community centers - even some bridges. Many of the fees result in 'profit' (i.e fee is excess of cost to run facility) and this is on top of taxes the govt ordinarily collects.

Dope on the Slope wrote: Also, Ratner will be demapping streets thereby converting them from public to private space. Those spaces will be no more public than the interior of Atlantic Center. Functionally, it may not feel that much different, but legally it is.

A distinction w/o meaning in this era of public/private cooperation - take Bryant Park (a huge success by virtually every measure) yet although still owned by the city, is managed, policed and run by a private corporation.

Dope on the Slope wrote:
Partners are peers. The citizens of Brooklyn are not being treated as peers of either Bruce Ratner or Mayor Bloomberg. I can respect the opinions of fellow Brooklynites who think this is the best thing since sliced bread, but I don't respect anyone who feels that city council and local residents should be completely shut out. .

Not sure how the residents are 'shut out' - they elect the Mayor, City Counsel, Govenor and State representatives - each of these branches of Govt control the purse strings that will subsidize the infrastructure improvements underlying the project as well as give the tax breaks given to the developer. True there is no ULURP review; but you ought to study how obstructionists continually highjack that process to prevent all development before you bemoan it.

dope on the slope · May 2006

Not sure how the residents are 'shut out' - they elect the Mayor, City Counsel, Govenor and State representatives - each of these branches of Govt control the purse strings that will subsidize the infrastructure improvements underlying the project as well as give the tax breaks given to the developer. True there is no ULURP review; but you ought to study how obstructionists continually highjack that process to prevent all development before you bemoan it.

I'm clearly a contrarian when it comes to the theory of representative government. I believe in referendums and recalls. I don't think my participation should be limited to voting.

I'm sure ULURP gets hijacked, but for chrissake, how can anyone believe that it is appropriate for a project of this size to be decided by three men in a room, with only two required public hearings on the EIS?

Do you have any reservations at all about how the AY proposal has played out so far?

Why are you so sanguine about it?

My opposition isn't born of NIMBY rage. I honestly think it this project, if built, will become a planning school example of how not to do a large, high density development project. That's just a gut feel mind you.

I imagine we want the same basic things out of life and have the same basic idea of what constitutes "good" performance from a development of this size.

We just must be starting from totally different assumptions and data sets.

I think it's a loser.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

escap · May 2006

Dope on a Slope, you officially get the award for longest posts ever!!! Congratulations.

I'm clearly a contrarian when it comes to the theory of representative government. I believe in referendums and recalls. I don't think my participation should be limited to voting.

Okay, so between this and the other thread I get your point--it seems you're focusing primarily on process, rather than the details of the development itself. I respect your opinion on this, but for the record I think the degree of involvement you're advocating is a horrible, horrible idea. Referendums, numerous community meetings, etc. would lead to popular micromanagement that is about the worst thing you could ask for. Sometimes you need to let officials to their jobs--if they fail, punish them election time.

But officials often have to make tough, unpopular decisions. Imagine you had to raise taxes or cut spending--it's hard enough with the spineless politicians we've got. Hold everything up for referendum and it'd be downright impossible. As an example look at central banks--it's been shown that central banks that are highly independent from govt are reliable and those countries have low inflation rates. The closer they're tied to govt, the more politicians can lean on the banks during recessions and force them to print money to momentarily spur the economy, leading to much higher inflation in non-independent countries. This is just one of many great examples of how policy must often be separated from myopic popular opinion.

armchair_warrior · May 2006

cliff notes for the past like 10 post ?

muteflute · May 2006

armchair_warrior wrote: cliff notes for the past like 10 post ?

not worth it, it's just the same ol' sh*t.

ratnerville4ever · May 2006

friendly pitbull: the Extell plan IS approximately the same density as the Ratner plan. so kindly end that attack that says "Ratner opponents are against density." 'kay?

escap · May 2006

armchair_warrior wrote: cliff notes for the past like 10 post ?

In sum, we all agreed to support the AY development proposal.

boygabriel · May 2006

escap wrote: [quote=armchair_warrior]cliff notes for the past like 10 post ?

In sum, we all agreed to support the AY development proposal.

lol

friendlypitbull · May 2006

ratnerville4ever wrote: friendly pitbull: the Extell plan IS approximately the same density as the Ratner plan. so kindly end that attack that says "Ratner opponents are against density." 'kay?

Not true - the Extell plan proposed approx 2000 units of housing and 115,000sq ft of office with 110,000sq ft retail- total of approx 2.5 million sq ft and NO arena - the Extell plan was withing the DDDB community principals of maximum FAR of 6.0 (medium density)

Ratner is proposing 7,300 units of housing, 628,000 gross square feet (gsf) of commercial office space, 196,000 gsf of hotel use, 256,000 gsf of retail - total approx 8.6 million sq ft including ARENA

Even if you consider the larger land size Ratner is using (21 acres vs 9 acres of Extell) - Ratner is still almost twice as large on a sqft basis and much much large on a 'usage basis' w/ office and arena.

How much uglier can it be?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories