It's a criticism of Frank Gehry for not wanting to reduce the project at all
4%
[ 1 ]
It's a criticism of Forest City Ratner for offering such a tiny reduction like that means anything
17%
[ 4 ]
It was an attempt to criticize community critics, but the artist didn't quite follow the orders the way they wanted him to. And since the Times has not sense of irony, they printed it anyway
21%
[ 5 ]
This was a coup for DDDb because the NY Times has completely changed its editorial stance
0%
[ 0 ]
C'mon, it don't mean nothing. Lighten up, okay?
26%
[ 6 ]
Total Votes : 23
raulism Crabby Native
Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 510 Location: Prospect Place
So this cartoon took up about a third of a page on the New York Times Op-Ed page today. But different people have completely different opinions about what it is trying to say. What do YOU think?
sweet tea Cooler Ham
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 Posts: 4981 Location: the jewish
Sat Sep 23, 06 10:36 pm EST
i thought the whole spread was a little snarky and unnecessary, personally.
there are plenty of things to be said on both sides of the issue (and god knows they've been said on these boards), but this seemed like a cheap and stupid joke. except not so much with the funny.
i was surprised at the times. then i thought about it, and i wasn't surprised anymore.
escap expatriated
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 1189
Sun Sep 24, 06 1:07 am EST
I actually agree that it was snarky and unnecessary. But just to be clear, this was definitely a criticism of AY opponents.
sweet tea Cooler Ham
Joined: 26 Feb 2006 Posts: 4981 Location: the jewish
Sun Sep 24, 06 8:28 am EST
escap wrote:
I actually agree that it was snarky and unnecessary. But just to be clear, this was definitely a criticism of AY opponents.
yes, definitely. any other reading is, i think, a little delusional.
raulism Crabby Native
Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 510 Location: Prospect Place
Sun Sep 24, 06 9:03 am EST
I'm beginning to feel like the answer to my own set of questions is "all of the above." I have no basis in this impressions, but it seems to me that the cartoonist doesn't really care, and he's snarking on everyone, probably including himself. If you don't like around here, you can take a detached position like that, but if this project is going to effect you personally, there is something vaguely aggravating about it.
ratnerville4ever Regular
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 137
Sun Sep 24, 06 11:03 am EST
Either McCall is criticizing project critics (though everyone from Marty, to Roger Green, to even Ratner has called for a scale down project) or he is make a mockery of Atlantic Yards and Gehry by sarcastically suggesting they should be compared to some of the great works of humankind.
sterling2000 CIO, Outdated Theatrics, Inc.
Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 600 Location: The intersection of Blight Street and Gentrification Avenue.
Sun Sep 24, 06 11:11 am EST
My opinion: development by committee never works and you wind up with something less than.
I actually used the pyramid example in a conversation with my wife on 9/11, where I was laying into the interest groups poking their noses into the ground zero memorial plans. I said: "Imagine if the pyramids had been designed by committee with community input -- we'd have no great works of world architecture if the masses always had their say.
ok...let the flames begin... _________________ "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
Sun Sep 24, 06 11:22 am EST
sterling2000 wrote:
Imagine if the pyramids had been designed by committee with community input -- we'd have no great works of world architecture if the masses always had their say.
There's nothing really controversial about this statement; it's simply a fact. Name a successful army that had each military tactic submitted to a battalion popular vote before acting, or a profitable corporation that asks all of its shareholders and employees to individually weigh in before it contemplates any new strategy. The same goes for governments, including democratic ones--we must elect leaders but then let them do their jobs. Democracy cannot function if it implies popular micromanagement, or endless bureaucratic horsetrading by countless interest groups and committees. You need a balance between representiveness and leadership.
raulism Crabby Native
Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 510 Location: Prospect Place
Sun Sep 24, 06 12:30 pm EST
escap wrote:
Democracy cannot function if it implies popular micromanagement, or endless bureaucratic horsetrading by countless interest groups and committees. You need a balance between representiveness and leadership.
Yup, I agree. Since Forest City Ratner wants to build the largest single developer project in New York City history with a population density twice as high as any census tract in North America, there does need to be a balance betwee representiveness and leadership.
Democracy cannot function with no popular management, so it is really the duty of local groups to speak up when there appears to be governmental mismanagement. Remember, this project has been taken out of all City zoning procceses, and put into the opaque State's SEQRA process.
Specific buildings should be built with a singular artistic vision. However, Frank Gehry has no histroy in building cities, and a development with 18,000 people is really a small city. There needs to be either a healthy public debate or a real leader who has had long experience in building cities.
escap expatriated
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 1189
Sun Sep 24, 06 1:01 pm EST
Well, I'm all for local groups speaking up, and for a healthy public debate. For huge projects like this one, I agree that leaders should seek feedback from their constituents, and a good dose of arguing should be encouraged before a final plan is hammered out. However, when the argument is not, "How should we do this?" but rather, "Let's stop this at all costs", you have a very different situation.
Also, this is just a semantic argument, but it's absurd to call this project "a small city". Perhaps you're from the stix, but 18,000 people is not even a neighborhood in this city, and there's no guarantee it will be that many people. Furthermore, your density claims seem fishy. Perhaps you mean residential only? I used to work in the World Trade Center, where an average of 100,000 people passed through daily. Was that less dense? Hardly, but as I recall the local nabe was pretty distraught when it was gone. And on that note, the WTC is a perfect example of why there needs to be limits on public input, since the output invariably ends up as nothing.
Carnivore Brooklyn Snark
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 Posts: 13712 Location: St Johns Pl and Underhill
Sun Sep 24, 06 1:09 pm EST
escap wrote:
Well, I'm all for local groups speaking up, and for a healthy public debate. For huge projects like this one, I agree that leaders should seek feedback from their constituents, and a good dose of arguing should be encouraged before a final plan is hammered out. However, when the argument is not, "How should we do this?" but rather, "Let's stop this at all costs", you have a very different situation.
Also, this is just a semantic argument, but it's absurd to call this project "a small city". Perhaps you're from the stix, but 18,000 people is not even a neighborhood in this city, and there's no guarantee it will be that many people. Furthermore, your density claims seem fishy. Perhaps you mean residential only? I used to work in the World Trade Center, where an average of 100,000 people passed through daily. Was that less dense? Hardly, but as I recall the local nabe was pretty distraught when it was gone. And on that note, the WTC is a perfect example of why there needs to be limits on public input, since the output invariably ends up as nothing.
I think the AY project will be more like an expensive version of Co-op City than the WTC.
Oh, I certainly don't think AY will be anything like the WTC, I was merely suggesting that the "densest population ever" claim is silly.
As for the co-op city comparison, one valuable lesson to be learned from that experience is the disastrous results of trying to turn a large scale housing development into a public housing project. This is one of a zillion key pieces of evidence that show that the subsidized units within AY are a terrible idea. They will not only waste millions of taxpayer dollars, but will also be terrible for the AY complex and the surrounding neighborhoods.
SevenOneEighty Sanity Inspector
Joined: 08 Feb 2006 Posts: 718
Sun Sep 24, 06 4:43 pm EST
So the AY project by Forest City Ratnerville is the achitectural eqivalent of the great pyramids in Egypt.....?
Does that make the EIFS-clad Atlantic Terminal Mall the equivalent of the Colosseum in Rome??? I would be willing to bet that more planning went in to the Great Pyramids and the Colosseum.
A bit of a stretch to say the least... _________________ "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
U.S. Senator Pat Moynihan
SevenOneEighty
young snitch Regular
Joined: 20 Sep 2006 Posts: 179 Location: FA
Sun Sep 24, 06 5:05 pm EST
if only ratner had slave labor.
ratnerville4ever Regular
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 137
Sun Sep 24, 06 6:05 pm EST
escap wrote:
Well, I'm all for local groups speaking up, and for a healthy public debate. For huge projects like this one, I agree that leaders should seek feedback from their constituents, and a good dose of arguing should be encouraged before a final plan is hammered out. However, when the argument is not, "How should we do this?" but rather, "Let's stop this at all costs", you have a very different situation.
Also, this is just a semantic argument, but it's absurd to call this project "a small city". Perhaps you're from the stix, but 18,000 people is not even a neighborhood in this city, and there's no guarantee it will be that many people. Furthermore, your density claims seem fishy. Perhaps you mean residential only? I used to work in the World Trade Center, where an average of 100,000 people passed through daily. Was that less dense? Hardly, but as I recall the local nabe was pretty distraught when it was gone. And on that note, the WTC is a perfect example of why there needs to be limits on public input, since the output invariably ends up as nothing.
Forget limits on publi input. Should the City Council have a vote on the largest project proposed by a single developer in the histroy of NYC when emient domain, public land and public subsidies are in play? I think so. do you? as for density. AY WOULD indeed by the densest residential community in the country. and though it is not a census tract (its smaller in acreage than most) if it were it would be twice as dense as the current densest tract. this is not hereasay but true.
as for neighborhoods being bigger than 18k, well P. Heights is about 18k.
escap expatriated
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 1189
Sun Sep 24, 06 6:36 pm EST
ratnerville4ever wrote:
escap wrote:
Well, I'm all for local groups speaking up, and for a healthy public debate. For huge projects like this one, I agree that leaders should seek feedback from their constituents, and a good dose of arguing should be encouraged before a final plan is hammered out. However, when the argument is not, "How should we do this?" but rather, "Let's stop this at all costs", you have a very different situation.
Also, this is just a semantic argument, but it's absurd to call this project "a small city". Perhaps you're from the stix, but 18,000 people is not even a neighborhood in this city, and there's no guarantee it will be that many people. Furthermore, your density claims seem fishy. Perhaps you mean residential only? I used to work in the World Trade Center, where an average of 100,000 people passed through daily. Was that less dense? Hardly, but as I recall the local nabe was pretty distraught when it was gone. And on that note, the WTC is a perfect example of why there needs to be limits on public input, since the output invariably ends up as nothing.
Forget limits on publi input. Should the City Council have a vote on the largest project proposed by a single developer in the histroy of NYC when emient domain, public land and public subsidies are in play? I think so. do you? as for density. AY WOULD indeed by the densest residential community in the country. and though it is not a census tract (its smaller in acreage than most) if it were it would be twice as dense as the current densest tract. this is not hereasay but true.
as for neighborhoods being bigger than 18k, well P. Heights is about 18k.
Actually, no, I don't think the city council should have a vote. The council is made up of people from Staten Island, Queens, and other far off places. But for the record, the AY project would pass in a landslide if all of these non-area pols weighed in, and then you'd be bitching about excluding them. A public dialogue (which de facto has been ongoing for years now), and an environmental review (currently underway) is all that should be required for the project approval itself. The review should examine whether or not surrounding residents will be directly harmed (annoyed/inconvenienced doesn't count), and to what extent public infrastructural development is required, and how much that will cost. All of this is happening.
Second, to address the issue of funding, I don't know the exact bureacratic process that our city and state constitutions require for fund appropriation, but since nobody has been found guilty of violating those constitutions, any charge otherwise is unfounded. I would love to see all tax breaks that are intended to compensate Ratner for building non-market rate housing eliminated, and an appropriate level of funding allocated to develop supporting infrastructure. And I'd like to see the city and state both pitch in on this, which they are doing.
On the eminent domain issue, yet again the city council has no business weighing in. This is an issue for the courts to decide, based on extensive review that includes evidence from local groups, politicians, public review boards, developers, and other interested parties. It seems that this process, too, is taking place.
Our system should not make it difficult to develop; rather, it should make it difficult not to develop. How can this land have been left dormant for so many decades? There ought to be a public accountability and environmental review of that!!
escap expatriated
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 1189
Sun Sep 24, 06 6:41 pm EST
Sorry for the novel, but just on the density and scale issue, I just want you to keep your claims precise. This is not the "single largest development in NYC history", since there have been tons of larger and denser developments that were non-residential. Those developments also had a significant impact on their surrounding communities, but did not cause the world or their neighborhoods to come to an end. On the contrary, those areas are thriving.
sterling2000 CIO, Outdated Theatrics, Inc.
Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 600 Location: The intersection of Blight Street and Gentrification Avenue.
Sun Sep 24, 06 10:53 pm EST
SevenOneEighty wrote:
So the AY project by Forest City Ratnerville is the achitectural eqivalent of the great pyramids in Egypt.....?
Does that make the EIFS-clad Atlantic Terminal Mall the equivalent of the Colosseum in Rome??? I would be willing to bet that more planning went in to the Great Pyramids and the Colosseum.
A bit of a stretch to say the least...
Probably not, but my point is too many voices can cloud a development. Taste-wise, AY will probably not be the next Giza, but the plethora of non-qualified people weighing in on development with knee-jerk reactions would stymie any development given enough space for opinion.
As I have pointed out here before, a professor of mine in preservation school always pointed to a case where a church and populace weighed in adamantly against the renovation of a chapel space which eventually became the Sistine Chapel.
People should choose their battles. A slaughterhouse or a munitions factory would clearly be a misuse of the space, but high denisty multi-use development in a high density multi-use area doesn't smack of any denial of public benefit. The only thing that bugs me about AY is the palm-greasing of the development politics. _________________ "The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
raulism Crabby Native
Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 510 Location: Prospect Place
Sun Sep 24, 06 11:41 pm EST
escap wrote:
Sorry for the novel, but just on the density and scale issue, I just want you to keep your claims precise. This is not the "single largest development in NYC history", since there have been tons of larger and denser developments that were non-residential. Those developments also had a significant impact on their surrounding communities, but did not cause the world or their neighborhoods to come to an end. On the contrary, those areas are thriving.
Okay, I gots to be a little snarky, because you "want to keep our claims precise," yet you are misquoting us. I've never used the term "single largest development in NYC history," rather the largest "single developer" project in New York City history. Groups like the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, which includes real experts like John Shapiro (of Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates) and Dr. Tom Angotti (of Hunter College Center for Community Planning and Development) describe it as "the largest single-source development ever proposed for New York City."
A lot of the grand government projects turned out completely different from what was intended. Battery Park City was created on the promise that it would also be a mixed-income community. And do include Pruitt-Igoe (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt-Igoe) as an example of an area that's thriving?
Also, what is your problems with The Observer's methodology in determining the current proposal as twice the highest density of any census tract in the United States? I have not heard anyone dispute that.
escap wrote:
On the eminent domain issue, yet again the city council has no business weighing in. This is an issue for the courts to decide...
Uh, I'm afraid you are saying exactly the opposite of what the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo. Their ruling was that there should be a fair local process, and the courts have no role in overruling that process unless it was set up to benefit a specific developer. In the words of jurist.law.pitt.edu, "The bottom line is that, after this decision, the future of eminent domain law is in the hands of state and local elected and appointed officials."
I hope nothing I say ever is confused with being against development and progress. I just think that even after three years, I have not heard a convincing argument that the Atlantic Yards is worth the costs and risks. I have been reading the DEIS, and the more I read, the more it seems that the FCR proposal is built on a house of cards.
escap expatriated
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 1189
Mon Sep 25, 06 1:01 am EST
raulism wrote:
Okay, I gots to be a little snarky, because you "want to keep our claims precise," yet you are misquoting us. I've never used the term "single largest development in NYC history," rather the largest "single developer" project in New York City history. Groups like the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, which includes real experts like John Shapiro (of Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates) and Dr. Tom Angotti (of Hunter College Center for Community Planning and Development) describe it as "the largest single-source development ever proposed for New York City."
So we agree there have been tons of developments on a far greater scale. If you're not emphasizing the scale, then who cares? You'd be appeased if a second developer partnered up with Ratner??
raulism wrote:
A lot of the grand government projects turned out completely different from what was intended. Battery Park City was created on the promise that it would also be a mixed-income community. And do include Pruitt-Igoe (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt-Igoe) as an example of an area that's thriving?
Oh, I agree, government projects are generally a horrible idea, particularly housing projects. I am opposed to most if not all public housing projects, and I am overjoyed that Battery Park City has not ended up as yet another one.
raulism wrote:
Also, what is your problems with The Observer's methodology in determining the current proposal as twice the highest density of any census tract in the United States? I have not heard anyone dispute that.
My problem is that it must be wrong, since there is no way it will be more dense than the 100,000 who occupied the WTC, not to mention the density created by the scores of skyscrapers in downtown and midtown Manhattan. And like I said, those areas are all thriving and are in extremely high demand as residential sites despite (or because of) that density.
raulism wrote:
Uh, I'm afraid you are saying exactly the opposite of what the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo. Their ruling was that there should be a fair local process, and the courts have no role in overruling that process unless it was set up to benefit a specific developer. In the words of jurist.law.pitt.edu, "The bottom line is that, after this decision, the future of eminent domain law is in the hands of state and local elected and appointed officials."
You're not contradicting me here since all I'm saying is that there is a public process involved, as set forth by Kelo, in determining the eminent domain issue. However, when a person whose property is being threatened wants to sue, he/she will go to the courts to determine if there has been a violation of the conditions dictated by Kelo. The case by case determination is not made by a popular vote or by new legislation.
I hope nothing I say ever is confused with being against development and progress.
(Snarky) Oh, no, I can't imagine anyone thinking that.
raulism Crabby Native
Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 510 Location: Prospect Place
Tue Sep 26, 06 11:44 am EST
escap wrote:
raulism wrote:
Okay, I gots to be a little snarky, because you "want to keep our claims precise," yet you are misquoting us. I've never used the term "single largest development in NYC history," rather the largest "single developer" project in New York City history.
So we agree there have been tons of developments on a far greater scale. If you're not emphasizing the scale, then who cares? You'd be appeased if a second developer partnered up with Ratner??
Scale is probably the greatest problem with the Ratner proposal, but it is tied to process. The fact that the MTA decided to negotiate exclusively with the lowest bid instead of the highest bid in the sale of the Vanderbilt Railyards is a problem.
If we had a transparent, competitive and fair process, I would be greatly appeased. So, yes, it would help a lot, in my mind, if there were more than one developer.
If we had transparent process that didn't completely ignore reality, maybe I could accept the claims that the proposed density is workable. But right now I'm reading the ESDC's DEIS, and it has NO RELATION TO REALITY. This is a problem, because the ESDC is acting more like a subsidiary of Forest City Ratner than a publicly accountable agency.
escap wrote:
raulism wrote:
A lot of the grand government projects turned out completely different from what was intended. Battery Park City was created on the promise that it would also be a mixed-income community. And do include Pruitt-Igoe (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt-Igoe) as an example of an area that's thriving?
Oh, I agree, government projects are generally a horrible idea, particularly housing projects. I am opposed to most if not all public housing projects, and I am overjoyed that Battery Park City has not ended up as yet another one.
You are missing my point again!! The fact that Battery Park City is or is not a public housing project is irrelevant to my point. The construction of Battery Park City got tons of government funding because, like Atlantic Yards, it was sold as a mixed-income housing development.
The developers sold the project as one thing, the public bought it, and the developers delivered something else. When I buy something and don't received what I agreed to buy, I get angry. That's exactly what's happening with the Forest City Ratner proposal.
I brought up Pruitt-Igoe because like Battery Park City, it did not deliver what was promised. Obviously, it was quite different than Battery Park, but both represent a failure of the planning process. The planning process will fail if there is no public input. That doesn't mean that excessive public input is good, but lack of it is bad.
escap wrote:
raulism wrote:
Also, what is your problems with The Observer's methodology in determining the current proposal as twice the highest density of any census tract in the United States? I have not heard anyone dispute that.
My problem is that it must be wrong, since there is no way it will be more dense than the 100,000 who occupied the WTC, not to mention the density created by the scores of skyscrapers in downtown and midtown Manhattan. And like I said, those areas are all thriving and are in extremely high demand as residential sites despite (or because of) that density.
I'm sorry, I think you're not reading very carefully. The WTC did not have 100,000 RESIDENTS. We're talking about census figures that measure residential density.
Do you have any figures that contradict the fact that the proposed Atlantic Yards development would have double to highest density census tract in the United States?
escap wrote:
raulism wrote:
Uh, I'm afraid you are saying exactly the opposite of what the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo. Their ruling was that there should be a fair local process, and the courts have no role in overruling that process unless it was set up to benefit a specific developer. In the words of jurist.law.pitt.edu, "The bottom line is that, after this decision, the future of eminent domain law is in the hands of state and local elected and appointed officials."
You're not contradicting me here since all I'm saying is that there is a public process involved, as set forth by Kelo, in determining the eminent domain issue. However, when a person whose property is being threatened wants to sue, he/she will go to the courts to determine if there has been a violation of the conditions dictated by Kelo. The case by case determination is not made by a popular vote or by new legislation.
Okay, I'll buy that. But there is a lot of new legislation being proposed in almost every state of the country tightening the rules around eminent domian.
This article has a lot of statements that are extremely pertinent to this thread, such as
Shiffman wrote:
If Forest City Ratner’s proposal proceeds at the current scale, it would constitute the densest residential community in the United States and, perhaps, Europe, with the exception of some of the suburbs of Paris....
Sadly, FCR is responsible for the “developer’s blight†that now plagues the area. The only pre-existing blighting influence was the Atlantic Center mall. Everything else was subject to step-by-step private investment that would have facilitated the revitalization of the area, albeit with some displacement of manufacturing and the absence of affordable housing. While courts usually do uphold the “blight†argument, bad law does not mean good planning.....
If the basis for eminent domain is economic development, I find it hard to see how it could meet any of the criteria of the Supreme Court’s controversial 2005 Kelo decision. The Supreme Court majority approved the use of eminent domain in New London, Connecticut, in part because the plan had emanated from a defined planning process. In Brooklyn, there’s been no planning, and the sole developer and beneficiary is Forest City Ratner–signs of a sweetheart deal.
escap expatriated
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 1189
Tue Sep 26, 06 7:59 pm EST
Hey man, I thought you'd given up! Guess you just needed a day to do non-brooklynian related activities (imagine that).
I respect your responses, and just wanted to clarify a couple of things. I'm going to switch gears into "reasonable escap", my counterpart who rarely shows his face around here.
Quote:
Scale is probably the greatest problem with the Ratner proposal, but it is tied to process. The fact that the MTA decided to negotiate exclusively with the lowest bid instead of the highest bid in the sale of the Vanderbilt Railyards is a problem.
If we had a transparent, competitive and fair process, I would be greatly appeased. So, yes, it would help a lot, in my mind, if there were more than one developer.
If we had transparent process that didn't completely ignore reality, maybe I could accept the claims that the proposed density is workable.
I don't disagree with your fundamental point here. Transparency is most certainly better, and the MTA's obligation to its shareholders (which are taxpayers if I'm not mistaken), was to accept the highest bid. Of course, they claim that they did, and other legitimate terms often play an important role in bidding beyond notional dollar amounts. I know you will claim that they're lying, but nevertheless the MTA has stated that it thinks it took the better bid. I wholly agree on the transparency issue, though.
Quote:
You are missing my point again!! The fact that Battery Park City is or is not a public housing project is irrelevant to my point. The construction of Battery Park City got tons of government funding because, like Atlantic Yards, it was sold as a mixed-income housing development.
The developers sold the project as one thing, the public bought it, and the developers delivered something else. When I buy something and don't received what I agreed to buy, I get angry. That's exactly what's happening with the Forest City Ratner proposal.
No, I assure you I am not missing your point. In fact I think we (sort of) agree on the Batter Park issue. I am opposed to providing public subsidies to these types of development projects as an incentive for mixed-income status, and I am opposed to this aspect of the Ratner plan.
Quote:
I'm sorry, I think you're not reading very carefully. The WTC did not have 100,000 RESIDENTS. We're talking about census figures that measure residential density.
Thank you, that's what I was getting at as well. I'm not disputing your figure, I am just pointing out that you are not including residential AREAS, and therefore your numbers are misleading. Midtown is a residential area that is far denser overall, and, as I said, is in great demand. Now, do I want to turn the area into midtown Manhattan? No, but this doesn't come close to that--my point is that density is not necessarily contrary to quality of life, and in fact can be a good thing (as I think it will be for this area). I think we would agree that such density does however require appropriate infrastructural spending by the city (I suggest using the ill-advised housing subsidies).
Finally, on the eminent domain issue, I think that private property rights are critical to a prosperous society. At the same time, I recognize the legitimacy of govt taxation, zoning powers and other such property infringements. I think the ED issue is enormously complex and difficult, and I personally think it has a certain place but should only be used as a last resort. Do I think the area is blighted? Some of it, but not all--it's silly to blame the blight on Ratner, though. Obviously I want this development to go through, but hell I'd be pissed too if it were my property being seized. Ultimately, this issue has to be settled via a thorough public and legal process; I feel sympathy for anyone who is forced to sell, but they have the right to fight it vigorously in court. If they lose, they deserve "fair" value at the very least.
raulism Crabby Native
Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 510 Location: Prospect Place
Wed Sep 27, 06 11:22 am EST
escap wrote:
Hey man, I thought you'd given up! Guess you just needed a day to do non-brooklynian related activities (imagine that).
You know, I can see the Burrito Bar sign out of the front of my apartment, and I guess I just got lost in contemplation while looking at it for a few hours. Or maybe it was days, I kinda lost track.
escap wrote:
I respect your responses, and just wanted to clarify a couple of things. I'm going to switch gears into "reasonable escap", my counterpart who rarely shows his face around here.
Wow, that's a bit of a shock to my system.... that Burrito Bar sign is beckoning me again... .. ...
escap wrote:
I don't disagree with your fundamental point here. Transparency is most certainly better, and the MTA's obligation to its shareholders (which are taxpayers if I'm not mistaken), was to accept the highest bid. Of course, they claim that they did, and other legitimate terms often play an important role in bidding beyond notional dollar amounts. I know you will claim that they're lying, but nevertheless the MTA has stated that it thinks it took the better bid. I wholly agree on the transparency issue, though.
Having been to MTA, City Council and other hearings and speaking with many elected representatives, my experience shows me that our City and State government is failing us. Reading the DEIS only enforces my understanding that our local government is run by people who have no fear of being held accountable.
I could recount hundreds of horror stories of how our government is messed up, but I think we're going to have to simply disagree on this issue. I don't trust the MTA or the ESDC, and I think they are promoting the Ratner proposal because it benefits various political interests, and I think they have been treating our taxpayer's money as their private account.
escap wrote:
No, I assure you I am not missing your point. In fact I think we (sort of) agree on the Batter Park issue. I am opposed to providing public subsidies to these types of development projects as an incentive for mixed-income status, and I am opposed to this aspect of the Ratner plan.
Cool! Common ground! WhooHoo!
Quote:
Thank you, that's what I was getting at as well. I'm not disputing your figure, I am just pointing out that you are not including residential AREAS, and therefore your numbers are misleading. Midtown is a residential area that is far denser overall, and, as I said, is in great demand. Now, do I want to turn the area into midtown Manhattan? No, but this doesn't come close to that--my point is that density is not necessarily contrary to quality of life, and in fact can be a good thing (as I think it will be for this area). I think we would agree that such density does however require appropriate infrastructural spending by the city (I suggest using the ill-advised housing subsidies).
I don't think density is necessarily is a bad thing either. I just feel that there has been a complete lack of planning. The DEIS seriously claims that by adjusting some street lights, adding 18,000 new residents plus massive new commercial and sports facilities will have negligible impact on traffic. They claim that many streets are underutilized, and that nothing can be done about the unmitigatable traffic impacts of the Atlantic Yards proposal.
They ignore the 50,000,000 square feet of other development already being built in Brooklyn, and ignore little things like the BQE.
The DEIS may be correct, but I don't think they have proven it. I don't think our city and state planning process is really looking at the various projects carefully.
I often repeat the "highest density census tract" mantra because I think it is hard to conceptualize how big the Ratner proposal really is. It's easy for people to complain if a ten story building goes up on their block, but people's eyes glaze over when you talk about 8,000,000 square feet of development.
escap wrote:
Now, do I want to turn the area into midtown Manhattan? No, but this doesn't come close to that
Look at the redevelopment of Downtown Brooklyn. With the addition of the Atlantic Yards proposal, we will be in the same league. Downtown Brooklyn is already the third largest commercial area in New York City, after Midtown and Downtown.
escap wrote:
Finally, on the eminent domain issue, I think that private property rights are critical to a prosperous society. At the same time, I recognize the legitimacy of govt taxation, zoning powers and other such property infringements. I think the ED issue is enormously complex and difficult, and I personally think it has a certain place but should only be used as a last resort. Do I think the area is blighted? Some of it, but not all--it's silly to blame the blight on Ratner, though. Obviously I want this development to go through, but hell I'd be pissed too if it were my property being seized. Ultimately, this issue has to be settled via a thorough public and legal process; I feel sympathy for anyone who is forced to sell, but they have the right to fight it vigorously in court. If they lose, they deserve "fair" value at the very least.
So can I get your donation for the DDDb Walkathon?
ratnerville4ever Regular
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 137
Wed Sep 27, 06 2:47 pm EST
escap wrote:
Sorry for the novel, but just on the density and scale issue, I just want you to keep your claims precise. This is not the "single largest development in NYC history", since there have been tons of larger and denser developments that were non-residential. Those developments also had a significant impact on their surrounding communities, but did not cause the world or their neighborhoods to come to an end. On the contrary, those areas are thriving.
you misquoted me, I wrote:
"the largest project proposed by a single developer in the history of NYC " which is what it is.
and ifyou think that these decisions should be made by George, Shelley and Joe only, then we simply have a big difference of opinion.
escap expatriated
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 1189
Wed Sep 27, 06 11:00 pm EST
ratnerville4ever wrote:
escap wrote:
Sorry for the novel, but just on the density and scale issue, I just want you to keep your claims precise. This is not the "single largest development in NYC history", since there have been tons of larger and denser developments that were non-residential. Those developments also had a significant impact on their surrounding communities, but did not cause the world or their neighborhoods to come to an end. On the contrary, those areas are thriving.
you misquoted me, I wrote:
"the largest project proposed by a single developer in the history of NYC " which is what it is.
and ifyou think that these decisions should be made by George, Shelley and Joe only, then we simply have a big difference of opinion.
Actually I misquoted Raulism, and we've hashed it out. Since it's clearly not the biggest project ever proposed, the fact that it's proposed by a single developer seems irrelevant to me. It may also be the biggest project proposed on a Wednesday, by a guy with the initials BR. I raised this point already and Raulism asserted that multiple developers might lead to a more transparent and efficient bidding process. I don't have a preference for one or many developers--I think that each process may have strengths and weaknesses.
I have to say that I wish there was less govt involvement in this, to be honest. I have serious fears about creating 2000+ "affordable" units in the middle of the area, which could potentially mean a rehash of the failed Robert Moses strategy of using eminent domain to destroy private property and create public housing projects that ended up stifling prosperity and becoming bastions of entrenched poverty and failure. I'm mildly encouraged by the constant refrain that Ratner will back out of these "affordability" agreements, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I was glad to see that today's recommendation that more open space be included and the scale be decreased. At the same time, the announcement that the Hudson Railyards may be sold off piecemeal in a competitive bidding process that will lead to mixed-use development struck me as the ideal--an ideal that is not being realized in AY. However, I am just waiting for the inevitable community protests of that development as well, which when they come will remind me that if local community approval were the standard required, NYC would still be a village.
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
Guess you just needed a day to do non-brooklynian related activities (imagine that).
