Atlantic Yards approved
Comments
-
Subject: Re: Atlantic Yards approved
greg wrote: [quote=MichaelKeys][quote=greg]Ratner will add between 600 and 1,000 units of affordable ownership housing to the project, in addition to the 2,250 affordable rental units. All of the affordable rental units will be built on the site, while at least 200 of the affordable ownership units will be built on site.
I think I read somewhere that what the developer intends to be affordable rental units is for households with a 75K income. If that is indeed the case, then it is not affordable as defined by those in the know. Does anyone know more about this?
The levels of affordability are laid out in the Community Benefits Agreement. They vary but include units affordable to families making a household annual income of as little as $35,000 for a two bedroom.
While the number of planned market-rate rentals and "affordable" rentals is equal, there are also 1,730 market-rate condos planned -- and only 200 "affordable" condos.
But enough about affordable housing, let's celebrate what this project's really about: greed, "luxury" condos... and greed!
Oh, and sports. Enjoy those Nets games, knowing that you trampled your neighbors' homes and lives to get them! -
Folks the time is now! Donate as much as you can to support the lawsuits to stop this.
http://dddb.net/php/donate.php -
Subject: Re: Atlantic Yards approved
Laura B wrote: But enough about affordable housing, let's celebrate what this project's really about: greed, "luxury" condos... and greed!
Amen, sister.
Oh, and sports. Enjoy those Nets games, knowing that you trampled your neighbors' homes and lives to get them! -
First off, I can't believe there are so many pro-AY people on this thread. Where have you guys been all this time that me and Jack Krohn were fighting the good fight??
Second, why in the hell did they reduce the size of Miss Bklyn? Who cares if the Williamsburg bldg remains the tallest? Good grief.
Third, the "affordable" units. This is where the project will hinge on being beneficial or destructive. Will it be some kind of Stuy town with a large middle class that cares about the complex and community, or is this going to turn into a gigantic Farragut Houses--a publicly-subsidized entrenchment of poverty that is under cared for by an owner with no profit incentive to keep it in good shape, that will gradually deteriorate over the years but that, once built, will be impossible to either destroy or restructure, and whose dereliction will eventually seep its way into the market-rate units as well, bankrupting the project and leaving it as a giant white elephant? We'll see.
The addition of a school is good, the open space is good, Gehry will probably do a good job with the architecture, the silly fearmongering about shadows is ridiculous, the traffic will be awful, the subways will be badly congested during rush hour but far safer during the off hours, the area will likely be far safer at night than in its current deserted state, and hundreds of local small businesses will benefit enormously.
Again, the main issue is on what the real nature of those affordable units will be, and what impact that will have on Ratner's incentive to continue investing in and maintaining the property; if he lets it fall apart b/c of constrained profits, expect disaster. We should all therefore be calling for a scaling back or outright elimination of the non-market units, in return for an overall reduction in the project size. (oh, and no, i don't expect anyone to agree with me on this, i'm just saying....) -
There are more supporters for the site than people thought. Just goes to show you that in a democracy, you can't keep people silent forever.
By the way, Eminent Domain was used to build Lincoln Center and the World Trade Center.
So there is a history of Eminent Domain being used in New York City that has bettered people's lives.
All you nay sayers are hypocrites.
GO RATNER!!!!! -
Anonymous wrote: By the way, Eminent Domain was used to build Lincoln Center and the World Trade Center.
Uh, that's like saying "Woodstock was a free rock concert, so all of you who criticized Altamont are hypocrites."
So there is a history of Eminent Domain being used in New York City that has bettered people's lives.
All you nay sayers are hypocrites. -
Does anyone have a map showing the exact area that will be effected?
-
This is the map on the official Atlantic Yards website.
http://www.atlanticyards.com/html/ay/location.html
How can these few blocks possibly accomodate includes a huge residential housing complex with about 6,400 market-rate and subsidized apartments, a basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets, and a smattering of office space? -
I think the building of Atlantic Yards is analagous to the way people become immune to a poison that is introduced to their system. (Or the adaptation by any living organism.)
When the dosage is increased little by little the body is able to absorb and adapt. As time goes on the body gets used to the poison until one day it gets to the stage where the amount that is being ingested would instantly kill a person if they swallowed it. However since the body has been making daily adaptations it has no effect on the body/organism.
If AY was phased in over a greater time period perhaps the neighborhood surrounding it would be able to adapt but to me the way it looks now is that there's going to be one heck of a lot of poison being dumped directly into the Brooklyn bloodstream. As a result there are going to be some pretty nasty side effects. -
First of all, let's keep it civil. Obviously this is a VERY heated topic but calling people hypocrites solely based on the fact that they have a different perspective than yours automatically opens you up to being called a greedy whore, for instance, which does nothing for this exchange. So, let's cool it and try to stick with the facts. I may not agree with escap, for instance, but I like how s/he voices their point(s). But, hey, who the hell am I, right?
As someone stated here before, "Eminent Domain" has been used for good. But it's a very powerful weapon that must be handled with extreme care since wrongly used it can turn into a conduit for govt to become "muscle" for billionaire private developers. Sound familiar?
Brooklyn doesn't need to be a "world-class destination"--that's what Manhattan is for. There's already more arts, culture, and entertainment here than the vast majority of the cities in this country. Granted, it's always great to get more quality examples of that anywhere, but do you want to bring Wall St, the UN, and Trump Tower out here, too? Would that make it a "world-class destination"? Absurd! The manhattanization of Brooklyn must be stopped. Period.
It also doesn't need a sports arena by, arguably, the worst intersection(s) in the entire borough, in terms of traffic conditions. (Whoever has witnessed the insanity of this traffic situation NOW, cannot in good conscience favor the project anyway, unless they haven't given thought to the MONSTROUS traffic mess to be, or they just doesn't care.) What Brooklyn needs is common sense growth and development, along with REAL affordable housing, schools and other basics. (Let's not kid ourselves; there won't affordable housing in this project.)
If, as another poster said, you can enjoy your Nets games and condos, and sleep soundly at night knowing that hundreds of people and small business have been displaced for your pleasure and/or profit, then God help us: we are doomed. -
izisharp wrote: No more casual strolls between Ft Greene and P Heights;
Casual stroll across Atlantic Avenue??????
Everyone bemoans ED - but seriously thousands of people will get affordable (according to established definitions) housing as a result of this project. A new school will be built, a ugly hole will be filled and a much needed arena will be built - since when is ED limited soley to road school and mass transit construction?
And what difference does it make if Ratner makes a profit (BTW if he doesnt make a profit will it be ok then?) - I mean do you think that the planners and builders of roads and schools (who are virtually all private) dont make a profit? - the only difference is that they put up ZERO capital and then milk the Govt for as much as they can with cost overruns. -
I eagerly await my eternity in Hell, Mr. Keys.
-
The latest article I read on this indicated that both the stadium and Miss Brooklyn can and will be built without the use of eminent domain, which will only come into play in the second phase of construction that will just be housing. Is this accurate? Any insight?
-
escap wrote: The latest article I read on this indicated that both the stadium and Miss Brooklyn can and will be built without the use of eminent domain, which will only come into play in the second phase of construction that will just be housing. Is this accurate? Any insight?
Nope. Eminent domain is necessary for the arena, which is in the first phase. In fact, the whole project requires eminent domain- the so called "friendly condemnations" will be used on Ratner's own land.
Eminent domain will even be used to tear down homes to build parking lots for construction workers. It's likely that the project will take more than 10 years to build and that often the second phase of the project may never get built, so this may mean that people's homes and businesses will be flattened for the forceable future. There are many cases of eminent domain being used to flatten private property and then the whole project falling through. And we may be living next to large parking lots.
Fun!
Where did you read this? -
This is so sad. One of the reasons I love Brooklyn...it's not Manhattan. I am thrlled that Ms. Brooklyn was shortened.
Brooklyn is all about history and neighborhoods. It's what makes it different from the other 4 boroughs.
I am more worried about the element of people who will move into the new AY...and no, I do not mean the affordable housing units....I am talking about the Upper East Side denziens with their attitudes and their willingness and complete blindness to pay insane (ie: Manhattan) prices for apartments and condos). Brooklynites are getting priced out of Brooklyn. I see Brooklyn slowly slipping away.
I just have a question for the pro AYers....how many of them have to move cause their homes are going to be torn down? And how many of them would be SCREAMING a different tune if they were. -
Drama Queen, I don't think that any AY supporters would go so far as to say that those whose property is being seized should themselves be supporters. However, if your entire building is vacant except for you and you are about to live next to a construction site, followed by tall buildings which you profess to hate, and yet you refuse to sell at offers well above market value, then one might reasonably accuse you of being an ideological crusader rather than a true victim. You could, after all, have just sold, and you are still guaranteed compensation. There are many other examples of owners being forced to sell in this society--for one, shareholders must sell their stock if the board of directors and/or a majority of the shareholders approve a merger, regardless of their own individual desire to sell. And there are numerous other cases of government seizure of private property to benefit other private citizens, including arguably many tax and spend provisions. My point is not to defend eminent domain, but rather to put it in context. If you want to be anti-ED, that's one legitimate stance, but only if you're consistent. If you're a hardcore libertarian capitalist, then fine (simplistic, but at least consistent); if, however, on every other issue you don't give a rat's ass about property rights, then please spare me your pseudo moral outrage of the day.
Also, as for upper easters moving to Bklyn, you do know that very few people from the UES actually are from the UES themselves, right? And you also know that 40% of New Yorkers were born outside of this country, no? And countless more from out of the city? Since when is this an exclusive city closed to outsiders? But listing the hometowns of people I've met recently in low-rise Park Slope or Prospect Heights, we're talking Poughkeepsie, Wichita, South Carolina, Long Island, Boston, Michigan, etc. Sorry, but if you really like New York but hate the fact that non-New Yorkers live here, then I'm afraid you really don't like New York. And I can say this, b/c I am a native of the area, born and bred.
Raulism, thank you for your response--what you say is what I had believed to be the case. If you read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/nyregion/22yards.html it seems to say that ED will only be in "phase two", but it was a bit unclear so that's why I sought confirmation. So I guess we're looking at another year or two of legal battles before any ground gets broken. Well, it's already been, what, 50 years since anything existed there? I guess I can hold out for a couple more. -
BabsAnne wrote: I just have a question for the pro AYers....how many of them have to move cause their homes are going to be torn down? And how many of them would be SCREAMING a different tune if they were.
Only 3 homeowners are facing ED - and none of them have lived there more than 4yrs. In exchange thousands of people will have new affordable homes, tens of thousands of construction jobs and thousands of permenant jobs will be created.
Sure it sucks to be the subject of ED - but it also sucks to to pay taxes, or serve on a jury or to be drafted. That doesnt mean the Govt shouldnt allow it - ED is articulated in the Constitution (income taxes arent btw) - clearly even our founders understood the need for this Govt power.
Your objection cant be to ED - it has to be to its use here and if so then please articulate why it is better to lose your home so that the Govt can build housing projects then it is so Ratner can build AY? -
One only has to look as far as cities like Barcelona, Amsterdam, and London to see how daring, new architecture can co-exist and (gasp!) even complement historic architecture. Sealing up Brooklyn like some kind of early twentieth-century time capsule strikes me as offensively artificial. We create historic districts to preserve areas with a cohesive, uniform character; there's no reason we can't or shouldn't fill in the interstitial areas with bold gestures. Brooklyn has enough Scarano's and other developers of architecture on the cheap (may I direct your attention to Fourth Avenue or any of the midblocks in South Slope?). I'm no fan of Ratner's, or even of Gehry's, but I like thinking big and taking risks... and I certainly don't want to end up with an exposed rail yard separating neighborhoods.
I'm right with friendlypitbull on the eminent domain issue... it exists for a reason and I'm 100% in favor of it being used in this situation.
It's really makes me completely disillusioned to see that they agreed to lower the height of Miss Brooklyn. I think there are still lots of improvements that could be made to the plan (less uniform architectural styles on the residential buildings, more open park design, more street connectivity, etc) and that these improvements were infinitely more important than ensuring that the signature building is lower than a building that was designed to be one of many tall buildings in Brooklyn's second downtown. It angers me so much I can't even think about it.
I'll stop there. -
Someone was asking how this development will effect them personally. Besides the 500 trucks a day every day for 10 years of construction, besides 20,000 new car trips, besides disruptions of services like police, fire safety, sanitation, sewage, I personally will be subjected to light polution.
The 15 story lighted signs will make my quiet backyard very well lit.
I also imagine that bus routes will have to be changed, and I would not be surprised if Prospect Place becomes a bus route. And I once spread a false rumor that the EIS called for the chopping down of the trees on Carlton, but I wonder how long they would last, given the increased traffic there.
Right now, small businesses have been popping up on Vanderbilt. But given the fact that Vanderbilt near Atlantic will be a parking lot for the construction workers, I expect new businesses will go up catering to the people building the project, which will hopefully be completed in 2016.
Of course, we live in a very high asthma area, and if that will probably be more acute.
60% of the new residents will come from outside of New York, so I expect there will be a substantial change of neighborhood character, especially considering that if built according ot the current plan, almost half of the resident of Prospect Heights will live in the Ratner project. -
8thandPrez wrote: One only has to look as far as cities like Barcelona, Amsterdam, and London to see how daring, new architecture can co-exist and (gasp!) even complement historic architecture. Sealing up Brooklyn like some kind of early twentieth-century time capsule strikes me as offensively artificial.
I don't think anyone is objecting to development in Brooklyn in general. I think the wish here is for more a more organic development process.
Moreover, another thing about Barcelona, Amsterdam, and London is that there's still room for city expansion, whereby New York City has limited land mass available. There's less of a "but where do the lower-income folk go" factor to my understanding there than there is here.
and that's if you think the modern buildings in those cities DO complement the historic sites to begin with, and you may get a difference of opinion about that as well. -
Someone was asking how this development will effect them personally. Besides the 500 trucks a day every day for 10 years of construction, besides 20,000 new car trips, besides disruptions of services like police, fire safety, sanitation, sewage, I personally will be subjected to light polution.
Where are the 15-story lighted signs going to be placed? I haven't seen them in any of the project renderings. I find it extremely hard to believe that this type of signage would be allowed. I would expect some type of illuminated sign on the arena, but signs as large as the ones you describe are only permitted in Times Square.
The 15 story lighted signs will make my quiet backyard very well lit.I also imagine that bus routes will have to be changed, and I would not be surprised if Prospect Place becomes a bus route.
Why do you think that will be the case? There is already a bus route down Bergen and Pacific, which is much closer to AY.Right now, small businesses have been popping up on Vanderbilt. But given the fact that Vanderbilt near Atlantic will be a parking lot for the construction workers, I expect new businesses will go up catering to the people building the project, which will hopefully be completed in 2016.
Ok, this is a huge, huge stretch of an assumption. Where is this info coming from?60% of the new residents will come from outside of New York, so I expect there will be a substantial change of neighborhood character, especially considering that if built according ot the current plan, almost half of the resident of Prospect Heights will live in the Ratner project.
Others have said it more eloquently but, who cares? New York is fulll of people who arent' from New York. Speaking as a Floridian who came to Bklyn via Seattle, I think you have a really narrow view of how cities work. People from outside of New York = good. -
Moreover, another thing about Barcelona, Amsterdam, and London is that there's still room for city expansion, whereby New York City has limited land mass available. There's less of a "but where do the lower-income folk go" factor to my understanding there than there is here.
All the more reason why building over rail yards is critically important here. We don't have a lot of room to grow, so we need to get creative and build whereever the opportunity presents itself.
I think people don't understand how complicated and insanely expensive it is to construct a platform over a working rail yard and then build on top of it... it simply will never be done for anything other than big buildings. On top of that, I see no better area to build big than in this area. -
raulism wrote: Someone was asking how this development will effect them personally. Besides the 500 trucks a day every day for 10 years of construction,
Wouldnt any plan - even the Extell plan - necessitate years of heavy construction, with truck trips, construction workers parking and disruption of egress through the site? -
queencallipygos wrote:
Not trying to provoke - but what does 'organic development' even mean - I know what people dont like about how AY was proposed and approved, but outside of that, what is an "organic development" and how do you envision it on a site that would require 100's of millions of dollars to build a platform before a single building could be started?
I don't think anyone is objecting to development in Brooklyn in general. I think the wish here is for more a more organic development process. -
8thandPrez wrote:
http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol29/29_48/29_48nets1.htmlSomeone was asking how this development will effect them personally. Besides the 500 trucks a day every day for 10 years of construction, besides 20,000 new car trips, besides disruptions of services like police, fire safety, sanitation, sewage, I personally will be subjected to light polution.
Where are the 15-story lighted signs going to be placed? I haven't seen them in any of the project renderings. I find it extremely hard to believe that this type of signage would be allowed. I would expect some type of illuminated sign on the arena, but signs as large as the ones you describe are only permitted in Times Square.
The 15 story lighted signs will make my quiet backyard very well lit. -
friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=raulism]Someone was asking how this development will effect them personally. Besides the 500 trucks a day every day for 10 years of construction,
Wouldnt any plan - even the Extell plan - necessitate years of heavy construction, with truck trips, construction workers parking and disruption of egress through the site?
FPB, thanks so much for pointing this out--great point. With the exception of eminent domain, the Extell plan essentially would have caused all the same problems that are decried by AY opponents, and in fact there were no affordable units whatsoever if I'm not mistaken. Yet AY opponents rallied around it. Sure, the scale was somewhat smaller, but make no mistake--such a project would have entailed massive construction and environmental impact, hugely increased traffic, congestion and pollution, parking lots for construction workers, bright lights, long shadows, gentrification, yadayadayada.
The canard of the absurdly named Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn has always been that it's pro development, just not this development. But "this" development essentially will include any development that could possibly be proposed for the area. One of my very first posts on this forum ever was an accusation that AY opponents were anti development, at which point the great Dan Goldstein Himself personally rebutted my charge and insisted otherwise. But the fact is, you can't have a dynamic, exciting development of the area in question without suffering a certain environmental impact, without changing the character of the neighborhood--for the better!! And as FPB rightly pointed out here, the very proposal that dddb embraced would also have created virtually all of the problems on which they base their AY opposition.
Oh, and btw, Sheldon Silver is a scum sucking pig. :evil: As I predicted, he abused his position to engage in last minute horse-trading to help his downtown Manhattan commercial zone and gain concessions on the Moynihan Station, and the AY plan is worse off for it. This guy typifies everything that's wrong with NY politics. -
8thandPrez wrote:
This is coming from primary sources. A friend of mine just opened a buisiness on Vanderbilt, and did not want to be too close to the construction area.Right now, small businesses have been popping up on Vanderbilt. But given the fact that Vanderbilt near Atlantic will be a parking lot for the construction workers, I expect new businesses will go up catering to the people building the project, which will hopefully be completed in 2016.
Ok, this is a huge, huge stretch of an assumption. Where is this info coming from?
I wrote "I expect" and not "I have read," so I thought it was clear that I was expressing my opinions, not information from a newspaper. If you know a better source than owners of businesses of Vanderbilt, please let me know.8thandPrez wrote:
I was not placing a value judgement, just being descriptive based on information from the developer. The context of my statements is how the Ratner proposal will effect people in this neighborhood- I'm in Prospect Heights.60% of the new residents will come from outside of New York, so I expect there will be a substantial change of neighborhood character, especially considering that if built according ot the current plan, almost half of the resident of Prospect Heights will live in the Ratner project.
Others have said it more eloquently but, who cares? New York is fulll of people who arent' from New York. Speaking as a Floridian who came to Bklyn via Seattle, I think you have a really narrow view of how cities work. People from outside of New York = good.
Please explain to mean how I have a narrow view of how cities work. Why do think your view of how cities work is broader than mine?
I happen to believe that there is a public benefit to stable neighborhoods, but I am open to learning more about that issue. What articles can you point to that show the public benefit of a transient population?
Of course, if a neighborhood has new residents, that suggests that people have voted with their feet, and are probably investing money into new developments. Since people are already doing that here without government subsidies, do you think the government should subdize a favored developer for what other people are doing on their own dime?
Thanks for letting me know I have such narrow views! I never knew. -
Organic development is a disingenuous term used by many posters on this board to justify their anger at Ratner while excusing their own roles in gentrification.
Please, stop with the "what would you if your home were being seized" question. I have answered this about two dozen times on various blogs, as have many others, with the same line: I would have sold out to Ratner long ago for double the value of my property. -
friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=queencallipygos]
Not trying to provoke - but what does 'organic development' even mean - I know what people dont like about how AY was proposed and approved, but outside of that, what is an "organic development" and how do you envision it on a site that would require 100's of millions of dollars to build a platform before a single building could be started?
I don't think anyone is objecting to development in Brooklyn in general. I think the wish here is for more a more organic development process.
What about renovating existing buildings that are sitting empty? Building on existing empty lots? Designing buildings to fit available space rather than necessiatating evicting homeowners because the available space isn't big enough for what you want to build? That's what I mean. I'll grant you I pulled the "organic development" term out of my ass, but I was always taught that if you can't afford the thing you want -- financially or spacewise -- rather than taking over someone else's resources, maybe you should try to scale back a little. -
escap wrote: The canard of the absurdly named Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn has always been that it's pro development, just not this development. But "this" development essentially will include any development that could possibly be proposed for the area. One of my very first posts on this forum ever was an accusation that AY opponents were anti development, at which point the great Dan Goldstein Himself personally rebutted my charge and insisted otherwise. But the fact is, you can't have a dynamic, exciting development of the area in question without suffering a certain environmental impact, without changing the character of the neighborhood--for the better!! And as FPB rightly pointed out here, the very proposal that dddb embraced would also have created virtually all of the problems on which they base their AY opposition.
Yup. Development causes problems as well as benefits. But what is the assurance that the Ratner proposal will bring benefits? You are placing the burden of proof on the wrong people: If the developer wants public moneys and to use government to take private property, he has to prove (according to SEQRA, which is what he chose to be subjected to) that he is making things better.
You may love the Ratner proposal, but I don't think he's proved his point. The financing is questionable highly questionable, but worse than that, it has not been subjected to public review. In the words of MAS, this is a public-private partnership where the public has had no meaningful input.
As far as the environmental mitigation, I have read in detail one section of the DEIs, and it's pathetic. ANY project should go through environmental review, especially one the size of city.
All I'm asking for is that we have a fair and open process. The alternative plans that DDDb has supported should go through environmental review to make sure that are workable. So should the Ratner proposal- he shouldn't get a free pass just because you don't like the name of DDDb. Ratner does not deserve a free pass just because the opposition supports plans that may also have problems.escap wrote: Oh, and btw, Sheldon Silver is a scum sucking pig. :evil: As I predicted, he abused his position to engage in last minute horse-trading to help his downtown Manhattan commercial zone and gain concessions on the Moynihan Station, and the AY plan is worse off for it. This guy typifies everything that's wrong with NY politics.
I love it when there are points that we can agree on. Silver has provided us with a shining example of the corruption of New York.
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