If I were Bruce Ratner....
Comments
-
Anonymous wrote: emily, the confusion has more to do with my inability to login with a registered name.
Understood. Another thing you can do, though, is just enter a name/word other than "Guest" at the top of the form when you're posting a comment. -
I am now convinced that the infamous "Guest" does work for Forest City Ratner. Every discussion on this board about the project, which could potentially present a rational exchange of ideas and differences of opinon, is sidetracked by guest's obnoxious and inflammatory posting.
Guest's job is not to argue the merits of the project, but simply to disuade anyone else from discussing it. -
Eliot,
You have convinced me that you're as much a conservative as you try to hide.
Why do you think that I work for FCR? There are many who support this project including many reputable icons in PH.
I do not, nor I have I ever worked for FCR, but I am supportive of his plan for as many reasons that you're not. Understood -
as for the person who wrote that DDDB is vitriolic in calling Ratner's plans a land grab, what would you call it? What Ratner wants IS the land, and takingn more than the 8.4 acres of the yards, especially when he already owns the site of the Atlantic Center and Terminal Malls, as well as the PC Richards/Modells, I don't know what else to call it but a land grab. He wants 21 acres to add to what he already has, and once he gets those 21 acres, with the help of eminent domain, gov't subsidies and a sweetheart price from the MTA he'll do with it as he wishes.
I don't mean to get hung up on semantics, but I think the most accurate statement would be, "The arena is a front for what Ratner really wants, which is to build thousands of housing units, a development he expects will be enormously profitable." Yes, he needs the land, but that is a means to an end, not the end itself. Again, the "he'll do with it as he wishes" talk makes it seem like he might just build concentration camps. In fact, he will be building housing, which our borough desperately needs. I'd rather see the arena part of the plan nixed than the housing, frankly. The skyscrapers don't bother me at all.
And your point that opposition has yielded benefits such as the increased bid, etc. is very well taken. I've always said that the community should be involved, should push the city and Ratner to get the best deal possible. My point, however, was that 90% of the tone of the opposition is not from the standpoint of constructive criticism or community input, but rather rabid bombast and exaggeration. The "Ratner is an evildoer" rhetoric just alienates city officials and, like I said before, has the inverse result of excluding the community from the project, not including it. -
Exactly what I've been posting, except a little more articulate.
Escap hit the nail on the head, except FCR will not allow for community input. One can point to the WTC site as an example of too much input from a diverse group. Allowing a few community inputs initially will open the door to many more. This will cost the developer more time and money.
Architecturally, if the community is alloewd input, then we'll have what I call de soup dejour. One spice from this person, another from someone else, etc. Try tasting that -
Isa wrote: So the only problem you have with my wonderful well researched plan is the traffic? I think a place that I described would be well utilized by people who do take public transportation. It's a better idea than an arena. Now give me 5 billion and let's start building.
Not quite - there's also one of scale. As I initially said, a retail area would have to be pretty huge to justify the lack of a larger common-usage space near the transportation center. In other words, take the Atlantic Center and multiply it by about 10. As the site is today, it will be developed by one entity - which will seek to get the most profits out of the retail space. Which leads us quickly away from street-level developments and back to a mall. Excellent if that's your desire, though I don't imagine the majority of posters here are that interested in a mall (or development at all - cf escap's posts).
I will also throw my SoHo / Nolita hat into the ring really quickly. There's great public transportation between Canal St and Houston St - no hubs like Atlantic Ave, but many subways nonetheless. On weekdays, many shoppers use the subways, as the majority of shoppers tend to be people who work in town and stop by after work. On weekends, however, the streets do get very clogged with commuting shoppers - the ones who spend an entire day in town, load their car with their purchases, and then drive back out the tunnel to NJ (or over the bridge to Brooklyn, etc). Listen to a local traffic report on Sunday evenings - I'm always amazed that the Holland Tunnel is usually more jammed with day-trippers heading back out of town than residents returning to town from the NJ Shore or other points south and west. And if one thinks about it, it makes sense. If one is planning on making multiple stops in one trip (and purchasing something at each stop), then one is going to be more inclined to drive than to ride the subway. Those who swing by on the way home from work are usually after one thing, which is much easier to tote home on the subway.
So, am I arguing against an arena? Not at all - arenas, concert halls, performing arts centers - each of these is a destination for a specific event, not a whole day. This would in turn make people more likely to use public transport, or even taxis (imagine - more taxis in Brooklyn!), rather than drive on their own. While that was the crux of my transportation argument, my real argument was the first one above - that a retail arrangement would have to be on the scale of a SoHo or 5th Avenue to justify the use of that transportation center to the rest of NYC. -
Subject: transit hub
yes, transit hubs invite density. but if that is the argument, then an argument can be made that Ratner's proposal is NOT DENSE enough. I'm making a silly point there which is: There is density and there is density.
who is to say what is too dense or not dense enough? i'm not sure, though I would like to submit that Ratner's plan is too dense. That subway hub just finished a $72 million renovation w/o the Ratner plan in mind, and it is already, after renovation, considered to be at capacity.
also, keep in mind that the transit hub, happens to be at one of the worst intersections in the City. So perhaps that is a reason to argue against maximum density. overloaded streets and overloaded subway hub, BEFORE Ratner even came along.
so, in sum, density at a hub makes sense, but Ratner's is too dense. If someone wants to argue that it is not too dense, then why not argue that it sould be more dense?
as for driving vs. public transport. MSG get 60% of visitors by car on an average weekend event. so granted weekdays will be less, but being situated in a "scary outer borough" more surbanites will choose to drive. and those going to the games and events will have NO incentive to visit and purchase sales taxable items outside of the arena. they'll have a dedicated tunnel to the arena from the subway, there will be no need to go above ground or out of doors. -
Subject: Re: transit hub
pacific wrote: yes, transit hubs invite density. but if that is the argument, then an argument can be made that Ratner's proposal is NOT DENSE enough.
That subway hub just finished a $72 million renovation w/o the Ratner plan in mind, and it is already, after renovation, considered to be at capacity.
also, keep in mind that the transit hub, happens to be at one of the worst intersections in the City.
as for driving vs. public transport. MSG get 60% of visitors by car on an average weekend event. so granted weekdays will be less, but being situated in a "scary outer borough" more surbanites will choose to drive. and those going to the games and events will have NO incentive to visit and purchase sales taxable items outside of the arena. they'll have a dedicated tunnel to the arena from the subway, there will be no need to go above ground or out of doors.
Those are interesting points, though my arguments have not centered on questions of density but rather questions of use. My point was that a transit hub should offer a good common space for the entire city - not just the locals. Large, thriving cities require convention centers, arenas, performance spaces and the like, and it makes a lot more sense to put them near pre-existing transit centers than anywhere else. If they were to remain adjacent to a car park in the burbs, then only car owners could access them, which places a heavy burden on those urbanites who don't have a car.
And isn't Ratner offering funds to further develop the station (not just the tunnel you mention)? This may help to reduce the capacity issues you cite.
I would also argue against your "scary outer borough" thesis. As a city dweller who does more than his fair share of driving around town (hence my experience with Holland Tunnel backlogs), Brooklyn is one of the least accessible locations in town by car. The BQE and Belt Parkway are already permanent parking lots, and many suburbanites would have to utilize two river crossings to get to Atlantic Ave. A car makes sense only to attendees from Queens and certain parts of Long Island - those that do not offer direct train service to Atlantic Avenue. And one would have to be living under a rock to not be aware of the Brooklyn Renaissance and the loss of "scariness" in the neighborhoods surrounding the Atlantic Yards. That is, of course, why Ratner finds them so appealing to begin with.
On a slightly different note, I see this 60% MSG figure bandied about a lot - we know that this applies to weekends only (presumably the weeknight crowd is much more train-friendly, for obvious reasons). What would be an interesting question is the breadth of impact. How far from the Garden is this influx felt? As I mentioned in an earlier posting, at the London Terrace Apartments on W 23rd St, one is less than a half-mile from MSG, yet one has to be reminded of the fact - impact seems virtually nil. The urban grid does a much better job of diffusing traffic than suburbia (and I will admit that Manhattan's grid is a bit more mesh-like than Atlantic and Flatbush Aves).
-je
PS - I find your concern about "sales taxable" items fascinating. I would imagine that taxability as a factor would be insignificant in comparison with general economic activity. -
The traffic to be concerned about is not the arena traffic, but the traffic and transit congestion generated by the 17 high-rises behind the arena.
The Atlantic Yards development needs to be looked at in the context of the developments that have already been approved. The Downtown Brooklyn plan is already approved and will create 12 million sq ft of new space. Fourth Avenue has already been rezoned to permit residential developments of over eight stories.
We've been talking about traffic in mostly an anecdotal manner. Instead, people may want to look at The Social Consequences of Development in Downtown Brooklyn written by Community Consulting Services, a traffic engineering firm. It can be reached at:
http://www.communityconsulting.org/DTBklyn/DTBklyn.html
Among the points made:
New development in Downtown Brooklyn (excluding the arena) will add:
-59,000 car and truck trips
-189,000 subway trips
-47,000 bus trips
The Atlantic Yards will create:
-23,000 car and truck trips concentrated in the Flatbush/Atlantic Avenue -57,000 subway trips
-20,000 bus trips
And bear in mind that the Dept. of Health ranks Prospect Heights as one of the top ten asthma hot spots in the city. (I know this sounds unbelievable, but it's true.)
These are consequences that may be inevitable with any development and increase in density, but the developer and our elected officials have done virtually nothing to address impact issues from this massive development. Not very reassuring. -
Jamie a couple of things:
"And isn't Ratner offering funds to further develop the station (not just the tunnel you mention)? This may help to reduce the capacity issues you cite"
the answer is no. and there is nothing Ratner or anyone can do to increase subway capacity.
As for sales tax, the bulk of new revenue for the city, as analyzed by Dr. Andrew Zimbalist in the report Ratner commissioned, is from sales tax.
so, it is true that sales tax created in the arena or outside, is no different.
so i muddied my point. my point is that new spending in the surrounding neighborhoods, which is another Ratner point, will be limited when it comes to arena goers. -
Subject: sorry, that was me, pacific.
sorry, that was me, pacific. -
Subject: brooklyn renaissance
Also, Jamie, if you were to listen to FCR and Markowitz, the Brooklyn Renaissance can only be complete with Ratner's project. and no, I don't think the Brooklyn Renaissance has reached the ears of many suburbanites, or many Manhattanites for that matter.
as I think one of your friends on the board said, you are too be congratulated as the rare Manhattanite who comes out here.
despite all the wonderful things going on in Brooklyn over the past many years, there is still a perception (granted the perception is stronger the further you go from the city and Brooklyn) that Brooklyn is "other" -
Pacific - Thanks for pointing me to that site - it was really fascinating! (And thanks for your kind words as well - it's nice to have a reasonable debate in this day and age). CCS clearly is concerned about the consequences of these developments. Though I will admit that I found it difficult to find a source, or explanation of methodology, behind the traffic and ridership numbers that CCS came up with (and the differential between their numbers and the SDEIS numbers). It seems they started with the numbers given and then made the estimate that best fit their concerns. It was also weird to see a larger focus on downtown-to-downtown traffic, downplaying the Manhattan Bridge redevelopment - I imagine the N/Q and B/D trains would naturally absorb a large amount of the Flatbush traffic (and interestingly, I imagine the impact at Bleecker St near me would be large as well). While I couldn't spend a huge amount of time backing into their methodology, that study raised almost as many questions as it answered for me. It also begs the question - if downtown Manhattan, which remains one of the largest commercial districts in the country, and much larger (I'd imagine) than all these commercial developments put together - can make it work pretty well, why can't Brooklyn? The tip of Manhattan is a little less accessible to vehicle traffic than downtown Brooklyn, and there the thoroughfares of West St and the FDR (which cannot accommodate truck deliveries anyway) are less central than Flatbush and Atlantic.
That said, their case that the LIRR (or JFK express) should serve downtown Manhattan as well makes a huge amount of sense, and would in turn alleviate some of the crunch. I don't think tolls are the answer to everything (as they seem to believe) - especially as tolling the East River bridges would eliminate the last free points of egress from Long Island - but that's a wholly different discussion.
Finally, I will admit a degree of personal sympathy to Ratner's and Markowitz's argument. As it stands now, Brooklyn remains heavily dependent on Manhattan for income taxes, as well as many other sources of revenue. A large-scale commercial development, along with the impact of a professional sports team, I do believe has the potential to act as a capstone to the re-gentrification and general assertion of an independent "Brooklyn" identity that has been growing over the past generation. Many Brooklynites are proud that their borough would be one of the largest cities in the country were it independent again. It would also be the largest city in the country without a convention center space or, yes, a professional sports team.
I know those arguments are the oldest ones in this saga, and they rest much more on emotional heart-strings than the cold logic of impact studies, but they are relevant. Indeed, I would assert that where one falls on this argument has less to do with the impact studies and more to do with their gut feeling on this issue. Thus, to those who are predicting doomsday with the arrival of new space and the Nets I say: give it a chance. I imagine you might end up liking the result. And to FCR and Markowitz I say: make good on your promises, and then improve upon them (and especially the subways). Make Atlantic Yards a destination - you're developing some of the most valuable ground on the planet. -
Jamie, due credit goes to Daneo for that link. But i know Brian Ketchum and Carolyn Konheim of Community Consulting and they are traffic experts and engineers. They've been doing this for some 30 years. They do their own traffic modelling. What just came out is that the DOT underestimated the traffic for the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning in their EIS by a factor of 1:3. They are writing about ALL of the development in downtown Brooklyn which will reach 44 million sq. ft. They are not Henny Pennies. BTW, the Ratner plan is nearly 1.5 times the size of the WTC footprint.
as i said there is nothing Ratner or the MTA can do about increasing capacity at the hub.
as for this:
"Finally, I will admit a degree of personal sympathy to Ratner's and Markowitz's argument. As it stands now, Brooklyn remains heavily dependent on Manhattan for income taxes, as well as many other sources of revenue. A large-scale commercial development, along with the impact of a professional sports team, I do believe has the potential to act as a capstone to the re-gentrification and general assertion of an independent "Brooklyn" identity that has been growing over the past generation. Many Brooklynites are proud that their borough would be one of the largest cities in the country were it independent again. It would also be the largest city in the country without a convention center space or, yes, a professional sports team."
None of that is really a good argument for siting the arena at this spot and the rest of it, with no debate about a suitable location AT ALL.
I wouldn't wish this development on any community, BUT there are more suitable locations and if those communities welcomed it, then they would be better locations.
as for celebrating the arena in the future, I know I sure won't as if it comes, my home would be gone. the home I planned to live in for a long time. and if that happens, I may have to wave good-bye to Brooklyn and the City as I can't live in a place that threw me out because of political corruption and favoritism. -
Oops - sorry about the attribution. But thanks for the background information on CCS. I would love to see some of their past impact studies - especially to contrast their prognoses with government ones. I imagine they offer some great insight.
You suggested there would be better locations for such a development - out of curiosity, what do you have in mind? One of my arguments is that the city and borough would be hard-pressed to find a location that is so central, served by mass transit, and yet undeveloped. (It's ironic in both this case and the Hudson Yards one that it is the rail tracks themselves that are one of the chief attractions to the site).
That said, I am no fan of eminent domain, and you lend me the impression that you will be thrown out against your will - due to eminent domain. That is most definitely wrong. If certain tenants won't move, then let them stay. And I do empathize with your feelings, even if I disagree with you on the big picture and overall impact. -
Jamie,
You say you are no fan of eminent domain, yet you support the project.
You said the trasit hub is underused, I made the point that games happen once a week when offices and conventions would be more regular and make use of the hub.
You talk about jobs, but an office and convention center would bring more stable and a higher quatity of jobs for the same reason that games are twice a week at best.
You talk about "brooklyn team pride", the only person who give a shit is markowitz, how many coney island cyclones hats have you seen on the subway.
You talk about the promises Ratner has mad to the community, but admit theres no enforcement, let alone penalty to an organization that already blatantly abusing E.D.
You talk about taxes like brooklyn is some red state to a manhattan blue state, where do you think most of the workers in manhattan live?
I'm starting to think you just want to talk in circles, you attitude is just build it with little concern for those that will be affected, easy to do from your place in manhattan, if all doesnt go well you wont have problems with safety, traffic, 10 years of construction, local resources. I wonder if somehow you haven caught the same stadium fever that bloomberg and Marty have and fail to see the real ramifications and the waste of taxpayer money. Right now kids dont learn shit in public school and dont really have many places to even play basket ball or sports, you must have come from a priveledged life to be so blind to the needs of those less fortunate, not everyone can affort private school, let alone decide what "the people" really "need".
If you were as considerate as you claim then you would lobby for the right project for everyone, including you and me. -
Subject: I am firmly opposed to the FCR plan, but
Whoa, Captain M, no need to go personal on Jamie--"Privileged life" and all that. That way lies Anonymous Guestdom... -
Subject: Re: I am firmly opposed to the FCR plan, but
JamesonVandy wrote: Whoa, Captain M, no need to go personal on Jamie--"Privileged life" and all that. That way lies Anonymous Guestdom...
You are totally right, I retract that part of my statement. My apologies. My comment on Jamie going in circles still stands.
I think the only difference between people like me and Jamie is that I dont believe screwing over locals and using lies to propagate a plan is the cost of doing business and moving forward. I find it a disapointing compromise from someone who seems smart enough to see many of the problems. -
"Jamie,
You say you are no fan of eminent domain, yet you support the project."
- That's one strike against it that I have tried to be open about, but one strike does not an out make.
"You said the trasit hub is underused, I made the point that games happen once a week when offices and conventions would be more regular and make use of the hub.
You talk about jobs, but an office and convention center would bring more stable and a higher quatity of jobs for the same reason that games are twice a week at best."
- Which is why I cite commercial use and the arena's potential use as a convention center regularly. I certainly don't believe it's the arena alone, and I wouldn't be interested in a project that didn't combine efforts at mixed affordable and high-end housing, various commercial entities, and a convergence point for the entire city (such as the arena would be). It's never been any one selling point, but rather the project as a whole.
"You talk about "brooklyn team pride", the only person who give a shit is markowitz, how many coney island cyclones hats have you seen on the subway."
- There's a big difference between a farm team (of another team in the same city, even) and a top-level team. And I may not see a plethora of Cyclones caps on the subway, but I certainly see them more regularly than I expect. I imagine I'd see more Nets caps - whereas Brooklyn produced many professional baseball players generations ago, that has since flipped, and basketball seems to have taken over the borough.
"You talk about the promises Ratner has mad to the community, but admit theres no enforcement, let alone penalty to an organization that already blatantly abusing E.D."
- We all have the Supreme Court to thank for the recent free pass on that one.
"You talk about taxes like brooklyn is some red state to a manhattan blue state, where do you think most of the workers in manhattan live?"
- Some live in Manhattan, some live in Brooklyn, some live in other boroughs, some live in NJ, some in Westchester, some on LI, some in CT. Though honestly, I don't follow your red/blue logic here. People who live in Brooklyn today generally depend on jobs in Manhattan - less so than Manhattanites depend on Brooklyn for jobs - hence the dependency on Manhattan for the income that generates income taxes. If more Brooklynites could live and work in the same borough, then Brooklyn could assert more independence from Manhattan and city purse-strings as a whole. It's always better to work and live in the same political jurisdiction, even if the initial effect is only marginal.
"I'm starting to think you just want to talk in circles, you attitude is just build it with little concern for those that will be affected, easy to do from your place in manhattan, if all doesnt go well you wont have problems with safety, traffic, 10 years of construction, local resources. I wonder if somehow you haven caught the same stadium fever that bloomberg and Marty have and fail to see the real ramifications and the waste of taxpayer money. Right now kids dont learn shit in public school and dont really have many places to even play basket ball or sports, you must have come from a priveledged life to be so blind to the needs of those less fortunate, not everyone can affort private school, let alone decide what "the people" really "need"."
- Then call me blind. It was interesting growing up in a city that faced many of the challenges Brooklyn faces now (albeit on a smaller scale). I remember the hullabaloo regarding a planned convention center and mega-hotel in an abandoned lot in the middle of a historic preservation district, on the edge of which my privileged nest stood. Many were concerned about the impact of traffic / people / tourists at the time, and since it has become the mainstay of a revitalized downtown area and a source of pride in the town. Yes, the charm of the whorehouses has since been replaced by the tackiness of Saks, but that's a trade-off I'd make again. The smaller businesses and original boutiques - the ones that make life interesting - have been growing on the uptown edge of this district, "gentrifying" areas that had serious crime and drug issues within my lifetime, as my neighborhood supposedly did before I was born. It's really fascinating to observe the parallel developments of these two areas, and Charleston and Brooklyn have more in common in this respect than either would like to admit to the other.
If you were as considerate as you claim then you would lobby for the right project for everyone, including you and me.
- Thanks, and I hope I am. I remain open to other ideas - ideas that would be positive for the city as a whole... -
Ahh, welcome back to the conversation, Captain M. This discourse was getting WAY too polite.
I think the only difference between people like me and Jamie is that I dont believe screwing over locals and using lies to propagate a plan is the cost of doing business and moving forward.
I'm a local--I live three blocks from the proposed development--and I fail to see how I'm being screwed over. Granted, I don't own a car so don't care about traffic, and my own property is not being seized by the city. But it srikes me that community as a whole stands to benefit from the development. Despite some careless talk about the plan "destroying" the neighborhood, I think we can all agree that in fact it will raise the surrounding land value. This will clearly benefit landowners, and obviously hurt renters. I myself am a renter and have seen my rent double in the last five years for the same apartment, but I was born and raised in this hood--am I supposed to root for land values to go DOWN?? I don't think so. I hope to always be able to afford to live in FG, but if I can't I won't stoop to hoping the nabe goes to hell just so I can still afford it.
All due sympathy goes to those who are directly in the line of fire. However, I would not go so far as to make a blanket statement that eminent domain is wrong or should never be used. It plays a controversial but important part in government and needs to be examined carefully on a case by case basis....waste of taxpayer money. Right now kids dont learn shit in public school and dont really have many places to even play basket ball or sports.
Taxes come from growth in the private sector, not from the government. There is NO WAY that this plan, taking into account the taxes gained from the construction itself, the arena, plus the residents living in the new housing, their local purchases, the small businesses that will inevitably be created to meet their demand, the increased real estate tax from elevated land values, etc. etc. etc. will be a net loss for the city. Therefore, b/c of this plan the city will have MORE $$ for public schools, bball courts and other public facilities. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp. -
Subject: Re: I am firmly opposed to the FCR plan, but
"Captain M wrote: You are totally right, I retract that part of my statement. My apologies. My comment on Jamie going in circles still stands.
No worries - apology totally accepted, and I hope that my retort to the circles thing helped linearize the logic....
That said, I think escap articulated the tax benefits better than I ever could. Well said. -
Captain M wrote: Right now kids dont learn shit in public school
I went to PS8 and I learned shit. -
Jamie wrote:
Right, and my point is you seem to be open to other ideas but you sit here defending the wrong plan by giving excuse after excuse for it. What are you doing do promote other ideas....nothing from what I an see all you do is sit here and defend Ratner all day.
- Thanks, and I hope I am. I remain open to other ideas - ideas that would be positive for the city as a whole...
My point is that the Ratner plan is not good enough, you seem to think so, thats the difference. -
escap wrote: Ahh, welcome back to the conversation, Captain M. This discourse was getting WAY too polite.
I disagree about the tax situation and its my opinion that to subsidise a private basketball team and mostly private housing is an awful waste of tax money. As for the returns on that investment, well like any statistics class will show, you can play with the numbers and show different sides.
Taxes come from growth in the private sector, not from the government. There is NO WAY that this plan, taking into account the taxes gained from the construction itself, the arena, plus the residents living in the new housing, their local purchases, the small businesses that will inevitably be created to meet their demand, the increased real estate tax from elevated land values, etc. etc. etc. will be a net loss for the city. Therefore, b/c of this plan the city will have MORE $$ for public schools, bball courts and other public facilities. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp.
In our discussion the other day, we ended in you stating the Ratner plan should move forward becasue nobody else would touch that land for X years. Well I disagree, it has only been a few months and the Extell deal has presented itself and if Markowitz and Bloomberg did their job they could drum up developers for the right plan rather than the selfish stadium goal on deck right now. As with Jaime, you state that this plan is not the best but you are willing to go with it anyways, sorry but I'm not down. -
Alex wrote: [quote=Captain M] Right now kids dont learn shit in public school
I went to PS8 and I learned shit.
So right now you are in what grade? 4th?
I'm not saying some kids wont learn, but if you think the current funding allows for proper programs in all displines then I disgree with you, and so would most public school teachers. -
Captain M wrote:
Only been a few months since what exactly? It has been 50 years since there was any development of the land in question.
In our discussion the other day, we ended in you stating the Ratner plan should move forward becasue nobody else would touch that land for X years. Well I disagree, it has only been a few months and the Extell deal has presented itself and if Markowitz and Bloomberg did their job they could drum up developers for the right plan rather than the selfish stadium goal on deck right now. As with Jaime, you state that this plan is not the best but you are willing to go with it anyways, sorry but I'm not down.
And yes, we've both agreed that Extell represents a middle ground, but I'm still skeptical, b/c Extell's plan includes most of the features that the anti-Ratner crowd finds so offensive, such as increased traffic, high rise buildings and elevated land value.
So, here's my pessimistic prediction of the two possible outcomes we face. 1) The Ratner plan is chosen but gets held up in endless lawsuits and is pressured so much to adapt to 'community' needs that it becomes unprofitable, and no development occurs. 2) The Extell plan is chosen, but once Ratner is out of the picture the usual suspects rally to fight this plan as well. B/c it is subject to the ULURP review and will face tons of community opposition too, it eventually deems the plan unprofitable and no development occurs.
I hope I am proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath until I see Jason Kidd eating at Madiba. -
Subject: ha
I hope I am proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath until I see Jason Kidd eating at Madiba.
would you settle for mos def hanging out at habana outpost? i saw this a few fridays ago... -
really? not quite the same thing, unless he's about to play pg for the nets, but that's cool anyway.
-
escap wrote: ...but I'm not holding my breath until I see Jason Kidd eating at Madiba.
that will never happen buddy. -
Escap,
I agree with your point that the Extell plan has many features that the anti-Ratner crowd opposes. That it ever came to be that they would be rooting for a plan which calls for a 28-story building in a "low rise" neighborhood is ironic ("Anybody but Bush"). Regarding your prediction that community opposition would continue if the Extell plan were ever chosen, I'd actually never thought of that, but it makes sense. My guess is that defeating Ratner would be considered a first step, and scaling down the Extell plan would become the main goal thereafter. After that, it'd be the high-rise on Plaza Street and E. Pkwy, the Brooklyn Bridge Park, the Williamsburg-Greenpoint waterfront, the Ikea in Red Hook, the office buildings in downtown Brooklyn, and a certain condo in Greenwood Heights that will prevent two statues from looking at one another. This, all while chanting, "We're not anti-development".
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds