Atlantic Yards is now Pacific Park — Brooklynian


  • 550 Vanderbilt may finally be what brings all that foot traffic promised by the arena to the businesses on Vanderbilt. The waits at Chuko are going to be so much worse...
  • I don't fear the future residents of 550 Vanderbilt.

    As a result of living locally and being adults, they are not the same as sports fans.

    ....I am quite pleased that the sports fans seem to not be straying from Flatbush.
  • It's going to take some time but I think the new stream of foot traffic will change vanderbilt in a good way.  Maybe we'll even get decent super market if there's enough demand. 

    And all those new buildings who add 300,000 square feet of retail! So, Chuko will hopefully have some worthy competition. 
  • It is being co-developed by a Chinese company, so perhaps Pacific is more appropriate. 

  • As a result of how slow the lego building is being built, I kind of have a hard time believing I'll be alive to see these buildings.

    I will only be alive 40 more years.
  • Those buildings will get here way quicker than you think.

    Have you never ordered Chinese before?
  • I hope you are right.

    Does anyone know if they still have to hire "Brooklyn union laborers"?

    ....a lot of politicians thought this project would solve the problems facing Brooklyn's unemployed.

    I didn't.
  • Such a generic looking building. The charm and uniqueness of Brooklyn and NYC is continuing to slip away. 
  • I hope you are right.

    Does anyone know if they still have to hire "Brooklyn union laborers"?

    ....a lot of politicians thought this project would solve the problems facing Brooklyn's unemployed.

    I didn't.
    Just like the buildings were supposed to help the housing shortage. Hahahahaha

    I figured this entire thing would end up as a bait and switch.
  • edited August 2014
    The nations' housing shortage is a lot like the world's food shortage:

    We just have a distribution problem, caused by people not having the means (ie money) to purchase it.

    To put it clearly, there is plenty of food in the world, just not everyone has the means to purchase any.

    ....there is plenty of housing in the nation (there are just a lot of people in New York City who can't afford what is here)..
  • I'm pretty sure I heard that these buildings are supposed to be completed by the end of 2015.

    I'm not sure what to think about this. On one hand, we need more housing.  On the other hand, this housing really isn't going to help middle-income people.
  • The first couple buildings will be 100% affordable, and
    "The affordable units will be available to families making a range of incomes, from $48,000 or less and up to $104,000."
  • At least the people in these buildings all get to share the same entrance. Read an article the other day that there's a 35 story building going up in Manhattan that has affordable units in it because otherwise the developer couldn't build. But he convinced the city that since the affordable units were in a separate part from the others that they should have a separate entrance therefore branding it the "poor" entrance. Wonder if that will stigmatize the folks moving in as people walk by and point.
  • What I finiding ironic is that in affordable buildings, the developers are still able to demand tenants have near perfect credit scores.

    Um, being poor having bad credit kinda go hand in hand.

    ....unless we are giving people a break who merely have low incomes, and not taking into account wealth.
  • So the landlords are supposed to take the risk when they know a tenant doesn't pay his bills because said person is going to pay the rent. This comes down to morals. Years ago I lived in Starrett City. The rent was $238 my take home pay was $114. The rent got paid on time every month so being poor doesn't equate to having bad credit. Making bad decisions equates to having bad credit and just because one is poor doesn't mean that they don't want what they see others as having. Because it's more important to pay the cell phone bill than to pay the rent.
  • edited August 2014
    I am actually ok with LLs who have agreed to build mixed market rate - affordable housing being able to require good credit scores of prospective tenants.

    Whether we like it or not, people who pay market rate rents have power.

    If we try to require them to live next to people who are so poor (or have so little self discipline..) that they are unable to regularly pay their rent, they will simply choose to live in a building where that is not a requirement.

    There is, afterall, no shortage of market rate housing.

    ....if the public wants housing to built for the "dire poor" (such as those in DHS shelters), it is going to need to pony up the $ to build NYCHA.

    The folks presently in shelters will always be screened out of developments where their future neighbors have power.
  • When I moved to Starrett in 1977 they actually came out to my parent's house to make sure we were clean and lived decently. Of course they can't do that now but it kept the complex very nice to live in for the three years that I was there. So, it was more of a character thing than an affordable thing. Really, to screen someone out because their income isn't the same as someone else's is pretty crappy. If of course, they're slobs, then that's a different story. Because even if you're poor you can still be neat.
  • None of the methods used are foolproof.

    ....there are always exceptions.

    But the mere application of the credit score rule seems to imply that the developers believe it is "true enough" to be valuable.

    My sense is that (in general) people who are poor and somehow manage to keep good credit scores are not going to be poor for long.

    In this way, I am an optimist.

This discussion has been closed.