What do you think of the new Atlantic Yards images?
Swoon!
13%
[ 4 ]
Gag.
20%
[ 6 ]
What the f#%k?!
50%
[ 15 ]
Reserving judgment
16%
[ 5 ]
Total Votes : 30
8thandPrez Stroller Person
Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 1130 Location: No longer at 8th and Prez
Thu May 11, 06 4:45 pm EST
New images of the Atlantic Yards project have emerged. See the Daily Slope homepage for details.
What's your take?
image credit: curbed.com
Dope on the Slope Regular
Joined: 29 Dec 2005 Posts: 85 Location: Park Slope
Fri May 12, 06 5:56 pm EST
I suppose the impression of it's appearance is purely a matter of taste, but my visual taste buds, which might just qualify me as philistine, say "soul crushingly ugly."
However, the ugliest thing by far abou this whole proposal is the process.
When a billionaire mayor who has been clamoring to wrest control from the state for nearly everything else decides that this project merits by-passing the City Council so that only Pataki, Bruno and Silver get to decide whether it's a go, something is wrong.
When a world-reknowned architect walks around Brooklyn to get a feel for its "body language," but never once holds a design charette or deigns to meet with residents of the neighborhood this could be built on top of - something is wrong.
When a developer uses the threat of eminent domain to get people to sell and then asks them to sign contracts forbidding them to ever speak ill of the proposal - something is wrong.
When homes and businesses that people worked hard for can be taken from them at Mayor Bloomberg's whim and handed to Bruce Ratner - something is wrong.
When a project receives $1.6 BILLION in taxpayer subsidies, but there is no accountability or oversight - something is dreadfully wrong.
The Atlantic Yards could already be a thriving development right now if the powers that be had followed a transparent, community-driven process.
If this proposal gets accepted, not only will it make brownstone Brooklyn's quality of life much less desirable, but it will set a precedent for how developers should behave for decades to come.
It's time to stop, take a deep breath, and do this thing right. The only people who will be harmed are Bruce Ratner, his investors, and the political boot-lickers who went to bat for him while ignoring the community.
Color me unsympathetic.
Livetotravel Rent Stabilized
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 1630 Location: A block from the Park
Fri May 12, 06 10:18 pm EST
Art Philistines! Can't you see genius when it's looming over you?
Gehry rocks - greatest architect of all time. This reminds me of his stunning "Dancing Building" in Prague. His project will bring honor and tribute to all who bow before the altar of progress.
Joined: 29 Dec 2005 Posts: 85 Location: Park Slope
Sat May 13, 06 9:59 am EST
I wear the badge of "Philistine" with pride.
But I do wonder if Gehry will be designing some housewares for Target in the near future. If I could get a Gehry showerhead, his genius could loom over me every morning.
jewlydooly Guest
Sat May 13, 06 6:57 pm EST
Love it! adds beauty and excitment to a very tired part of town.
teeples Guest
Sat May 13, 06 11:30 pm EST
These designs just aren't good. They're boring, rote. They feel very Roger Rabbit II or Space Jam 7. Unthrilling, uninspired, yucky goofiness.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2353 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Sun May 14, 06 10:18 am EST
Livetotravel wrote:
Art Philistines! Can't you see genius when it's looming over you?
Gehry rocks - greatest architect of all time. This reminds me of his stunning "Dancing Building" in Prague. His project will bring honor and tribute to all who bow before the altar of progress.
that photo made me vomit a little!
it embodies what's wrong with Gehry+Brooklyn. He may be capable of great things, but you can't just cram crazy architecture like that into any neighborhood and expect it to work.
The block in your photo has nice old-world structures, and then middle of it is an ultra-modern building that stands out, distracts, and looks nothing like anything else around it.
is there anything to be said for interacting with your surroundings, not sh*tting on them? _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
Carnivore Brooklyn Snark
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 Posts: 13566 Location: St Johns Pl and Underhill
Sun May 14, 06 10:24 am EST
I'm not in favor of the AY project, but I have to say that when you see the Prague building in person, it looks much better than in the photo, and doesn't seem as out of place.
Dope on the Slope Regular
Joined: 29 Dec 2005 Posts: 85 Location: Park Slope
Sun May 14, 06 11:24 am EST
I have to say that when you see the Prague building in person, it looks much better than in the photo, and doesn't seem as out of place.
I agree that photos can be deceptive, and I've heard friends who are architects speak of how well those buildings work in context. Those same friends think other Gehry stuff is crap, including the current incarnation of Atlantic Yards.
Gehry has good and bad projects. The good ones can be truly inspiring. However, I don't think he has ever designed an entire city block or even a skyscraper - that's outside the boundaries of his core competency IMO. It would be like Burt Bacharach writing an opera. It might be interesting, but I doubt it will stand the test of time.
The Atlantic Yards footprint is massive. It's way too big for one landlord or one architect. But even if the proposed buildings were universally lauded for their beauty and functionality, I would have to oppose the project on principle because the affected community was never once consulted by Frank Gehry or anyone else at FCR. I also don't like the fact that so much public space will be made private - especially the streets. As the landlord, Ratner will be able to determine what is permissable on even the "public" parts of the superblock once the streets are closed and demapped. If you want to have a protest, you won't be clearing it with the city, you'll be clearing it with Ratner.
In addition to the privatization of what is now public space, the use of nearly $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies and the seizing of homes using eminent domain absolutely requires that the process begin with the communities interests and then expand to consider other variables. Unfortunately, brownstone Brooklyn has been intentionally shut out, and that will be the death of this proposal - even if it gets built, it will whither and die. An expensive corpse of a white elephant that we will lament for decades. Is this really the best use of public funds and land at this time? Will this catalyze the development that is already occurring or will it stop it in its tracks? Our elected "leaders" aren't even asking those questions. Bruce Ratner proposes, Mayor Bloomberg disposes, local residents get hosed.
Better to go to the drawing board and let Brooklyn drive the vision for what they want developed there. The choice is not Ratner or nothing. That's just the PR they want you to believe.
Livetotravel Rent Stabilized
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 1630 Location: A block from the Park
Sun May 14, 06 6:58 pm EST
Gehry's work, especially when seen in person, is revelatory. The "Dancing Building" in Prague fits extraordinarily well, as does the Guggenheim in Bilbao, and the Media Harbour buildings in Dusseldorf.
By the way - you think FL Wright held design charettes? Great art doesn't require community input or process. Maybe FCR should have held them, but not Gehry. _________________ But that's impossible.
Great art doesn't require community input or process.
True. But people don't live in art.
This is a neighborhood we're talking about, not a blank canvas.
Being functional is more important than being revelatory when it comes to living space. A well designed building can inspire and even improve person to person interactions, but ultimately it must work for the people who will use it. But this isn't a single building. It's superblock.
Gehry is a single building "artist." That makes him unsuitable for a project on the scale of Atlantic Yards IMO. Let him design the arena, but invite others to design the office towers and condominiums.
As for Ratner, Metrotech is supposedly his biggest success story in Brooklyn, and I've heard that some of the tenants had to be paid to keep from moving out. Atlantic Center is as dysfunctional a retail space as I can imagine.
Why should one landlord and one architect be entrusted with the largest development project ever in Brooklyn, and the largest single source project in New York history?
Why should we subsidize their project?
Why should the state seize property for them?
Gehry may be a genius, but this proposal as it currently stands is pure folly. And I think the model is tired and trite. It's nowhere near as interesting as the building in Prague. Maybe it's just another preliminary sketch.
8thandPrez Stroller Person
Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 1130 Location: No longer at 8th and Prez
Mon May 15, 06 3:29 pm EST
Boygabriel wrote:
it embodies what's wrong with Gehry+Brooklyn. He may be capable of great things, but you can't just cram crazy architecture like that into any neighborhood and expect it to work.
The block in your photo has nice old-world structures, and then middle of it is an ultra-modern building that stands out, distracts, and looks nothing like anything else around it.
is there anything to be said for interacting with your surroundings, not sh*tting on them?
Actually, I think that some of the best architecture -- modern and otherwise -- comes from buildings that are a bit out of sync with their surroundings. The Dancing Building in Prague actually fits in perfectly with its surroundings without being historicist... its of the same scale, possesses similar architectural expressions, references the same materials; it's exactly what you'd want to see from a new building inserted into a historic fabric.
The Atlantic Yards, however, is a bit more of a tabula rasa; there's not much of a there there:
You've got the urban nightmare of Modell's, PC Richard, Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal, all doing their best to turn their back on the public realm and contributing nothing to the area. Then you've got the warehouses and former manufacturing buildings along Pacific Street. Across Atlantic is a mix of low-rise and high-rise housing. In short, I think the AY site can accomodate height and density.
Dope on the Slope Regular
Joined: 29 Dec 2005 Posts: 85 Location: Park Slope
Mon May 15, 06 8:57 pm EST
Quote:
the urban nightmare of Modell's, PC Richard, Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal, all doing their best to turn their back on the public realm
Uh... Guess who the devloper responsible for those urban nightmares was?
Also, Prospect Heights is not desolate or dysfunctional, and there are buildings there that are targeted for demoliton or seizure by eminent domain.
Forest City Ratner has done nothing to earn the public's trust.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2353 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Tue May 16, 06 12:37 am EST
8thandPrez wrote:
Actually, I think that some of the best architecture -- modern and otherwise -- comes from buildings that are a bit out of sync with their surroundings. The Dancing Building in Prague actually fits in perfectly with its surroundings without being historicist... its of the same scale, possesses similar architectural expressions, references the same materials; it's exactly what you'd want to see from a new building inserted into a historic fabric.
The Atlantic Yards, however, is a bit more of a tabula rasa; there's not much of a there there:
You've got the urban nightmare of Modell's, PC Richard, Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal, all doing their best to turn their back on the public realm and contributing nothing to the area. Then you've got the warehouses and former manufacturing buildings along Pacific Street. Across Atlantic is a mix of low-rise and high-rise housing. In short, I think the AY site can accomodate height and density.
You make legitimate points, I just don't know yet if I agree. I'm not anti-development or anti-new ideas, but visually speaking I just don't like Gehry's design. I don't like it for Brooklyn and I wouldn't like it if it existed in the middle of an empty field with nothing around it for miles.
One of the things I love most about Brooklyn is that a lot of the architecture (especially in the P-heights Park Slope B-heights Ft. Greene area i.e. all the neighborhoods that surround downtown Brooklyn) is beautiful turn of the century buildings and houses that are still in great shape. Visually it gives central Brooklyn its character. This is an old part of the city and I like the beautiful architecture that reflects that.
On the other hand, you have developments downtown like Metrotech Plaza or the hulking, painfully plain and modern George W. Bush building (I think it's dedicated to him ugh, anyway it's at the corner of the Brk Bridge Rd and Tillary). To me these buildings represent architectural and development laziness. There's no character, no creativity, they don't do anything new nor do they mesh with their pre-existing surroundings.
While there's no denying that Gehry's design is certainly something "new" for downtown, I'm very wary of it because its so radically different from anything in any of the neighborhoods around it.
Are the AY currently ugly as sin? Yes. Does the shopping mall atmosphere of Modell's and Target repulse me? Yes. But I don't think I'd go the extreme of razing all those blocks in one fell swoop, and putting up something as eccentric (understatement) as Gehry's design.
Who knows? Maybe 100 years from now Gehry's building will be considered as beautiful and classic as I think Ft. Greene architecture is today. But you know, what? I doubt it. Gehry's design is too out-there and has no relation whatsoever to the beautiful neighborhoods adjacent in almost all directions. Ratner and Co. have run roughshod over the concept of community diologue. And the city has sold us out by costing us millions in tax-payer funding and lowball sales prices for FCR.
All in all, there's a lot to dislike to about this entire plan. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2353 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Tue May 16, 06 12:40 am EST
8thandPrez wrote:
Actually, I think that some of the best architecture -- modern and otherwise -- comes from buildings that are a bit out of sync with their surroundings. The Dancing Building in Prague actually fits in perfectly with its surroundings without being historicist... its of the same scale, possesses similar architectural expressions, references the same materials; it's exactly what you'd want to see from a new building inserted into a historic fabric.
The Atlantic Yards, however, is a bit more of a tabula rasa; there's not much of a there there:
You've got the urban nightmare of Modell's, PC Richard, Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal, all doing their best to turn their back on the public realm and contributing nothing to the area. Then you've got the warehouses and former manufacturing buildings along Pacific Street. Across Atlantic is a mix of low-rise and high-rise housing. In short, I think the AY site can accomodate height and density.
You make legitimate points, I just don't know yet if I agree. I'm not anti-development or anti-new ideas, but visually speaking I just don't like Gehry's design. I don't like it for Brooklyn and I wouldn't like it if it existed in the middle of an empty field with nothing around it for miles.
One of the things I love most about Brooklyn is that a lot of the architecture (especially in the P-heights Park Slope B-heights Ft. Greene area i.e. all the neighborhoods that surround downtown Brooklyn) is beautiful turn of the century buildings and houses that are still in great shape. Visually it gives central Brooklyn its character. This is an old part of the city and I like the beautiful architecture that reflects that.
On the other hand, you have developments downtown like Metrotech Plaza or the hulking, painfully plain and modern George W. Bush building (I think it's dedicated to him ugh, anyway it's at the corner of the Brk Bridge Rd and Tillary). To me these buildings represent architectural and development laziness. There's no character, no creativity, they don't do anything new nor do they mesh with their pre-existing surroundings.
While there's no denying that Gehry's design is certainly something "new" for downtown, I'm very wary of it because its so radically different from anything in any of the neighborhoods around it.
Are the AY currently ugly as sin? Yes. Does the shopping mall atmosphere of Modell's and Target repulse me? Yes. But I don't think I'd go the extreme of razing all those blocks in one fell swoop, and putting up something as eccentric (understatement) as Gehry's design.
Who knows? Maybe 100 years from now Gehry's building will be considered as beautiful and classic as I think Ft. Greene architecture is today. But you know, what? I doubt it. Gehry's design is too out-there and has no relation whatsoever to the beautiful neighborhoods adjacent in almost all directions. Ratner and Co. have run roughshod over the concept of community diologue. And the city has sold us out by costing us millions in tax-payer funding and lowball sales prices for FCR.
All in all, there's a lot to dislike to about this entire plan. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
friendlypitbull Local
Joined: 06 Oct 2005 Posts: 261 Location: Central Slope btween 4th and 5th
Tue May 16, 06 11:26 am EST
Boygabriel wrote:
One of the things I love most about Brooklyn is that a lot of the architecture (especially in the P-heights Park Slope B-heights Ft. Greene area i.e. all the neighborhoods that surround downtown Brooklyn) is beautiful turn of the century buildings and houses that are still in great shape. Visually it gives central Brooklyn its character. This is an old part of the city and I like the beautiful architecture that reflects that.
But you cant have a viable city without new construction - and no one can, or is going to be building turn of last century buildings - and to attempt to build facimiles strikes me as disneyfication at its worst.
In terms of preservation - as long as people are moving to Brooklyn- it seems to me high density in a virtually empty area (next to mass transit) is the best place to build and take pressure off the drive to replace the existing housing stock with something larger.
- To better explain- if you only built 3000 units at AY, then all things being equal(i.e. same number of people clammoring to move to Brooklyn), the 4300 units not built there will have to be built somewhere else in the boro, that pressure (need for housing) makes preservation that much more difficult in historical (but not protected) areas
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2353 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Tue May 16, 06 11:51 am EST
friendlypitbull wrote:
But you cant have a viable city without new construction - and no one can, or is going to be building turn of last century buildings - and to attempt to build facimiles strikes me as disneyfication at its worst.
In terms of preservation - as long as people are moving to Brooklyn- it seems to me high density in a virtually empty area (next to mass transit) is the best place to build and take pressure off the drive to replace the existing housing stock with something larger.
- To better explain- if you only built 3000 units at AY, then all things being equal(i.e. same number of people clammoring to move to Brooklyn), the 4300 units not built there will have to be built somewhere else in the boro, that pressure (need for housing) makes preservation that much more difficult in historical (but not protected) areas
good points. and i agree you can't recreate the old buildings.
again, i'm biased against this whole project because i think how Ratner and the city have done business is very, very dirty. If this project is really for "the people of Brooklyn" and to "revitalize Brooklyn" than the people of brooklyn should be more involved. an open bidding process. public input. etc. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
8thandPrez Stroller Person
Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 1130 Location: No longer at 8th and Prez
Tue May 16, 06 2:07 pm EST
Dope on the Slope wrote:
Uh... Guess who the devloper responsible for those urban nightmares was?
Also, Prospect Heights is not desolate or dysfunctional, and there are buildings there that are targeted for demoliton or seizure by eminent domain.
Forest City Ratner has done nothing to earn the public's trust.
Believe me, I'm no fan of Ratner. Atlantic Center was the result of a shortsighted, ugly, racist perspective of getting "undesirable" people in and out quickly while parting them with their money. Atlantic Terminal was the result of a shortsighted, ugly, anti-urbanist perspective of turning your back on the street and malling an area that desperately needed active streets. The only reason I have any faith this time around is because Gehry and Olin have spent a lot of time working on this plan. The street level views of the Flatbush/Atlantic intersection are interesting and I think it just might work.
Now, I'm suspicious of the above image because Flatbush looks to be a quaint, village lane instead of a 6-lane highway, but it could be a really interesting and dynamic space.
Similarly, the images of the side streets show active retail facing the street, not malled or parking-focused retail such as Modell's or PC Richards.
I don't in any way mean to say that Prospect Heights is desolate or barren. What I AM saying, however, is that this is the appropriate place for high-density development and that the use of eminent domain is hardly anything new in the history of development.
My perspective has been this: platforms over rail yards are insanely expensive to build. Insanely expensive. I know this because I am familiar with the Hudson Yards plans in Manhattan. You simply cannot platform over rail yards to build 4 story brownstones; you need density to justify the cost. Second, this area should be dense. It sits on top of the confluence of subway and commuter rail lines that provides some of the best transit connection in the city. Third, it is standard for the city and state to kick in funds and incentives to the project. These kinds of contributions assume that significant long term revenue is returned to the city from taxes. If my experience with city government is any guide, the city will work like crazy to capture as much of the incremental value of the development as possible.
I would have preferred for the site to be divided amongst a variety of architects, but we could have done much MUCH worse than Gehry (see Atlantic Terminal, or half the developments in DUMBO for example) and I believe Olin will do a good job.
Dope on the Slope Regular
Joined: 29 Dec 2005 Posts: 85 Location: Park Slope
Tue May 16, 06 4:14 pm EST
Quote:
Second, this area should be dense. It sits on top of the confluence of subway and commuter rail lines that provides some of the best transit connection in the city.
Are you confiden in the traffic planning for this development PLUS all of the other disjointed, unintegrated projects springing up like mushrooms.
We have a chance to do things thoughtfully, or just let shit happen. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. If we really want Brooklyn to shine, we should be taking the time to do things right the first time.
We will not be allowed a "do over."
I'm not about to start throwing Molotov cocktails or stop speaking to any of my neighbors that support this project (I've yet to find one, but I know there are some out there).
But my mind has yet to be changed about the current incarnation of the AY project from FCR/Gehry. I don't think they can pull it off. It's too big for one landlord and one architect. Plus I'm a dogmatic bastard about ED for private development projects. It simply shouldn't happen IMO. I doubt it's even really needed for this project.
Thanks for the thoughtful and non-vitriolic debate.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2353 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Wed May 17, 06 11:10 am EST
Quote:
Thanks for the thoughtful and non-vitriolic debate.
I agree with that. This has *gasp* been reasonably productive! _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
sterling2000 CIO, Outdated Theatrics, Inc.
Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 594 Location: The intersection of Blight Street and Gentrification Avenue.
Wed May 17, 06 11:03 pm EST
The photograph from overseas was very telling.
Europeans (whom I often part ways with) have a much-to-be-respected deeper stomach for incorprating the new with the old. An odd paradigm, given they have so much architecural history while we have so little.
Perhaps because our architectural history is so short, we feel all the more protective of what little we have.
Also, it is maybe the waves of war, conflict and generations of rebuilding upon rebuilding has deepened European acceptance of the "shock of the new." We have had little turmoil in our comfy American lives, and we like to keep it that way -- obviously.
Mmmm -- and lest I get flamed as being a runaway nutcase, I spent the first 20 years of my working life restoring 19th/20th century buildings, getting a degree in Historic Preservation and writing National Register of Historic Places designations for local, state and national organizations in NY, PA, MI and Wash, DC.
I love the project.
Bring it on. _________________ "The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
escap expatriated
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 1189
Wed May 17, 06 11:52 pm EST
sterling2000 wrote:
Europeans (whom I often part ways with) have a much-to-be-respected deeper stomach for incorprating the new with the old. An odd paradigm, given they have so much architecural history while we have so little.
They do? I'm no expert, but my impression was that most European cities are treated like museums, and there are strict limits on all construction, particularly tall or "out of context" construction. N'est-ce pas?
8thandPrez Stroller Person
Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 1130 Location: No longer at 8th and Prez
Thu May 18, 06 5:28 pm EST
escap wrote:
They do? I'm no expert, but my impression was that most European cities are treated like museums, and there are strict limits on all construction, particularly tall or "out of context" construction. N'est-ce pas?
I completely agree with sterling... European cities often incorporate new and old cheek-by-jowl in a way that would get Americans' (or at least Brooklynites') blood boiling.
Look at London:
Amsterdam
Paris
Barcelona
This is why all the furor about Atlantic Yards and especially Richard Meier's Grand Army Plaza building drives me insane.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Subscribe in a reader
