If those are his models for the "potential" to make Atlantic Yards better, that ain't saying much. You'd thing for MAS to take a stand like this they would have better examples to offer as hope. But they don't because most big projects happening right now are all terrible, no matter the process, which is why their "compromise" position is so hopeless.

ITP Winter Show 2006
Sunday, December 17 from 2 to 6pm
Monday, December 18 from 5 to 9pm

A two-day festival of interactive sight, sound and technology from the student artists and innovators at ITP.

http://itp.nyu.edu/show

The only other leverage we've got at this point is the yet unapproved financing, which is why it's so important for people to contact their elected officials NOW, not later. You can sign two different letters through DDDB BrooklynSpeaks websites. It's a numbers game - and at this point we don't have the numbers.

Another point about leverage - you give something up that another party wants in order to get something you want in return. In this case, the only people in the community with any real leverage are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Ratner wants their properties and might give up something else in order to build the arena. But the point is- the plaintiffs don't want to give up their homes. The leverage belongs entirely to them, not the community, and I don't expect them to give anything up for anyone else.

I completely support them, but I'm not convinced that an eminent domain win would achieve anything more than sparing their homes.

"It seems to me that from the start, the position of the vocal oposition to AY's was a no project, period. No attempt to negotiate or influence the design; just no, no, no. The debate has not been very civil with the demonization of Bruce Ratner by the DDDB gorup. Not the way to gain a place at the table."

Thats a myth.

Does anybody on this board have an idea, at this stage of the game, how this project can be changed other than lawsuits? what is the incentive for FCR and political leaders to sit down, when beyond the lawsuits the project actually is a done deal? if the lawsuits don't winits left to a negotiation, with one side having zero leverage.

its always strike me as strange:
Billionaire developer proposes outlandishly dense and large project at an overstressed hub and intersection, asks for hundreds of millions in public money along with cheap/free land PLUS eminent domain.

Community groups say "hold on there, we don't want that."

Community goups are then called "unreasonable" "uncivil," even when they say over and over they want development, not a land outsized land grab. even when they bring in a higher bidder to develop the yards.

if it's the community one thinks is being "uncivil" and "unreasonable" its time for a paradigm check.

1. bruce's plan is WAY too big.
2. the public's voice was ignored.

join dddb AND http://www.brooklynspeaks.net and make your voice heard now. let brooklyn be brooklyn.

Who is saying that DDDB is to blame for the lack of a legit community-input process? Not me. Not Barwick in this interview, as I read it.

This is why I think Barwick and BrooklynSpeaks contributions are important and vital:

Even if the development process is horrible, even if it is using eminent domain improperly, even if it involves building an arena on a busy intersection, I still want someone from my community sitting at the table with the various powerbrokers and doing whatever can possibly be done to make this a healthier, saner and less destructive project to the neighborhoods around it.

If you believe this is over, thanks for your interest.

Otherwise, I imagine DDDB could use your help in moving forward.

In the end it is all of our (those opposed to the project) fault for putting most of our eggs in the DDDB basket and keeping them there. An opposition leader with a wider platform and better handle of PR and outreach would put us in a very different position today.

the process has been rigged from the start. saying so seems redundant.

i hope dddb is successful in their lawsuit (and urge everybody to contribute to their legal defense fund) and that their victory will prepare the ground for an entirely new vision of what could be built at the site.

Your view is problematic for me because:

You're trying to put some of the blame for lack of process of DDDB (one of the "camps waving signs", as you would have it) instead of on the elected officials who have abdicated their responsibilities. This is not just a matter of "he said she said". I don't accept that supporters paid off in one for or another by the developer constitute a responsible position in favor of the project.

and

You conveniently avoid the eminent domain issue. Those living on the site should not be forced to leave solely for the benefit of Ratner. These people deserve our support, and ignoring their issue is probably the worst way to treat them.

I agree that it is somewhat of a caricature. I think it's a really accurate one.

The process that led to the Unity Plan is clearly the kind of community planning that our public officials should have been initiating and supporting on their own.

But in lieu of a real planning process and a public discussion about how to make big, dense development work in and around Downtown Brooklyn, and with a big developer benefitting from a divide-and-conquer strategy, we're basically left with these two camps waving signs at each other at public hearings and then filing law suits. That's a crappy way to build a city if you ask me.

I'm not sure why this view of the situation would take anything away from the remarkable work that DDDB has done.

But Indignatio, you've clearly proven the point about how divisive this issue is. They're either with you or against you.

It's difficult to have a single graphic to describe the shadows that would be cast by this project, and the one used in this article (which appeared in NY Magazine) is not an exaggeration. However, if you prefer a different view, perhaps you will like the one provided by our "friends" at ESDC:

http://www.empire.state.ny.us/pdf/AtlanticYards/DEIS/09_Shadows/FIGURES/Fig9-01.pdf

Perhaps its because Mr. Barwick has freelanced in joining the fray 2 years or more into that he is unaware (thats giving him the benefit of the doubt) of:
The Unity Plan
The Extell Plan
Lawsuit challenging the ESDC/FCR conflict.
Lobbying trips to Albany
Rallys
Community Forums
and on and on.

Mr. Barwick's comment is demeaning. If it weren't he wouldn't try to say it wasn't immediately after. he protests too much.

sure its a public process for the birds. non-existent. but it is the opposition and critics that have TRIED to broaden and make the process more robust. It is Mr. Barwick who rails against it, then accepts it.