Atlantic Yards Question

Good question. I think that a poll option would be interesting-

Do you think they are going to stop it?

Or is Ratner un-stoppable?

Medusa wrote: I personally think that something will be built there but hope that it will be scaled down from the current plan. I wish I could say that I hoped Ratner would be taken out of the picture (because in my opinion he has not made very attractive developments in the past), but I doubt it. I think he's too powerful and connected.

It will be scaled down to what he had planned all along. The current plan has the anticipated concessions built-in, so after negotiation, Ratner can build what he had planned all along.

Sorry for the cynicism. :?

It might also depend who is voted into office this November. I know Spitzer is re-looking at the project but from what I understand (please, don't quote me on this) if new state senators are elected they might put a kibash on most of the project if they are opposed to it.

ratner is too well connected to the state and city gov. so it will be built.

I agree with Idlewild, I think Spitzer is the best hope here. Although Ratner's connections are deep and varied throughout the city and state political establishment, it is his friendship with Gov. Pataki (Harvard or Columbia roomates? or something equally close apparently) that has gotten him this far. The ESDC and Charles Gargano act on Pataki's command and Atlantic Yards as a project relies completely on state approvals.

Therefore, I think Spitzer's move to get more time before public hearings are held is a ploy to make sure the AG is in office as the new governor before a shovel hits the ground. That way, he will exert FAR more control over the process (and the money involved) since he will be the effective head of ESDC and Gargano will, god-willing, be unemployed.

If Spitzer gets his way and delays the project's timing, it is an open question as to how he will influence it given that (I beleive) he has said he supports the Atlantic Yards concept.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=Medusa]I personally think that something will be built there but hope that it will be scaled down from the current plan. I wish I could say that I hoped Ratner would be taken out of the picture (because in my opinion he has not made very attractive developments in the past), but I doubt it. I think he's too powerful and connected.

It will be scaled down to what he had planned all along. The current plan has the anticipated concessions built-in, so after negotiation, Ratner can build what he had planned all along.

Sorry for the cynicism. :?

I don't think that's cynical, I think you're exactly right. I would be shocked at Ratner's lack of negotiating skills, frankly, if this weren't true. I'm sure he'll be happy to get more than he expected, but I have no doubt he threw out as big a number as he could, figuring it would be whittled down. It already has been, and I'm sure it will be more.

But the real negotiations will be, and have been, far more ludicrous. The Spitzers and Silvers of the world won't be swayed by a 5% reduction in the AY project--no, they will want something for their own backyard. There will be a key allocation of funds to fund some construction in a key district, or an influential special interest group with connections to Ratner will throw its campaign weight behind Spitzer--something along those lines. Horse trading will settle things, as always.

As for the all or nothing scenario, remember that Ratner already owns a huge portion of the lands in question, and has invested tons of $$ getting to this point. I don't think he'd throw in the towel so easily. However, I do agree that the eminent domain battle will be very difficult for him, and could seriously alter the whole development outlook.

I think the best description comes from Chris Smith's article in the most recent New York mag. The following paragraphs express very nicely how I have felt about the entire project since I started learning about it:

"As a political reporter, I know that money and spin usually win. But in looking at Atlantic Yards up close, it’s outrageous to see the absolute absence of democratic process. There’s been no point in the past four years at which the public has been given a meaningful chance to decide whether something this big and transformative should be built on public property. Instead, race, basketball, and Frank Gehry have been tossed out as distractions to steer attention away from the real issue, money. Ratner’s team has mounted an elaborate road show before community boards and local groups, at which people have been allowed to ask questions and vent, and the developer has made a grand show of listening, then tinkering around the edges. But the fundamentals of the project—an arena plus massive residential and commercial buildings—has never been up for discussion. Ratner, with Gehry’s aid, has built a titanium-clad, irregularly angled tank and driven it relentlessly through a gauntlet of neighborhood slingshots. And Bloomberg and Pataki—our only elected representatives with the power to force a real debate about Atlantic Yards—instead jumped aboard early and fastened their seat belts. What at first seemed to me impressive on a clinical level—a developer’s savvy use of state-of-the-art political tactics—ends up being, on closer inspection, truly chilling.

Every time I begin to buy into the lyrical people-have-the-power rhetoric of the opposition, to fantasize that Goldstein’s impending eminent-domain lawsuit has a prayer of succeeding, or to get revved up about the density trivia, someone smacks me back into reality. Most recently, it was a prominent Democrat. “In some cases, an army of Davids could take down Goliath,” he said. “But not this one. It’s a fait accompli.” " - Chris Smith

(http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/18862/index.html)

i'm not sure if AY can be stopped or not, but it's certainly worth a try. it's too big, too dense, w/unmitigatable effects on traffic, environment, etc, etc. the worst of it is the kabuki like process whereby this thing has been foisted upon the borough. public input? land use review? i don't think so.

if 10,000 people show up at next wednesday's (aug. 23) "public review" then perhaps the powers that be will realize that their political LIVES are at stake. there's nothing like the prospect of voter revolt to jolt a sonambulent poltico into action. time to wake up, marty. hoops, housing and jobs might well be your

didnt they do the same thing in european plays. all the roles were play by males. same thing with chinese ones all roles up to modern times were play by guys.

sweet tea wrote: yes, in the shakespearean era, for instance, young men did play the women's roles. two things about kabuki make it particularly interesting on this topic: one, that it was actually invented by a woman and originally performed only by women (while men performed noh theatre); two, it remains almost entirely sex-segregated. oh, and another interesting twist is that at a certain point, even young men were forbidden as performers, because there were too many fights over the "favors" of particularly handsome ones....

like that still doesnt happen now days for actors or actresses . hehe do the director a favor and you might get nice staring role .