That is probably true, as the goal in any lawsuit is to stall things until a recession hits. But in this case, the stall is probably so long that nothing will move forward until the next boom.

The housing was probably doomed from the start. My guess is the arena moves forward with an office building or hotel nearby, all in the vicinity of the transit hub.

The whole rest of the plan will be “deferred,” and nothing will happen for so long the entire debate will have become irrelevant.

It is also possible that nothing will be built, and Ratner will sell the Nets at a big loss. In that case, the fight will be to make sure no public subsidies go into the area to “do something.”

“Land use decisions in New York City are properly made by New York City as a whole. No individual community can ever make the land use decisions that are best for New York City as a whole. “

I agree (partially), that land use decisions in New York City are properly made by New York City as a whole. But by arguing so, you argue the precise point about the AY process, namely that New York City as a whole, or in part, did not make any land use decisions when it came to Atlantic Yards. Those decisions were made by Bruce Ratner and Pataki ESDC appointees.

More non-reality is that “that area has been a whole in the ground for decades.” Do you mean the rail yards? sure. But obviously the other 14 acres are comprised of occupied private property, city streets and city facilities, thus that little argument over eminent domain.

it’s truly incredible that anyone paying the slightest attention Atlantic Yards could say that “its a whole in the ground” over there with a straight face. incredible or dishonest; take your pick.

DDDB became the voice of the opposition on Atlantic Yards. The picture of this traffic could have been taken further out on Atlantic in Lew Fidler’s neighborhood in front of Kings Plaza. I have resisted posting just such a picture for several months now. After all, what is pictured is traffic congestion, not population density.

I look forward to the construction at Flatbush and Atlantic and its traffic calming effect. I hope they make it bus only for the entire period of construction that you think will never occur. We will see if it gets built. I’m a betting man though and if you know anyone who is making book on this project I’d like to get in on some of that. Since they have started construction at the old ILA Hall on Court and Union I don’t know where to put down a bet.

I have always thought that the protests about “process” coming from the opponents of congestion pricing sounded a lot like the protests about “process” coming from the opponents of Atlantic Yards.

Land use decisions in New York City are properly made by New York City as a whole. No individual community can ever make the land use decisions that are best for New York City as a whole. Thats one of the things that distinguishes NYC from Nassau County. Out in the burbs little “communities” make atomized land use and transportation decisions that basically keep others out. DDDB is that tendency transplanted in Brooklyn.

I disagree with lots of the land use decisions New York City makes. I protest some, I have often testified at City Council hearings on land use (and other matters). And, I disagree with most of the down-zonings that have ripped through Brooklyn in the wake of Atlantic Yards. The neighbors never want anything built, never want increased density and never want industrial retention. It is important for land use planning to stand up to that tendency.

There is a very important connection between population density and public transit efficiency. Many of the down-zoning advocates also opposed fare increases on the MTA and also favor expansion of the system. I find their position entirely contradictory.

And it is an easy argument to say that you favor increasing density in the area just not that much density. Right now its a hole in the ground and it has been that way for decades with exquisite silence from the community.

I’d like to continue this debate but the construction noise outside my brownstone is too loud and Mr. Ratner is bringing more Kool Aid over.

I believe DDDB is going to get a win on this one. Sorry Larry, tricks are for kids.

No one comes into this section of Brooklyn, pushes the community around, and then expects the communtiy not to push back.

Charles
Park Slope

There is good and bad to the AY proposal, which is why I don’t spend too much time discussing it or thinking about it. There is enough that is flat out bad to ruin my day as it is.

But the argument that no additional people shoud live or activities take place in places where there is a lot of traffic because it will make it harder for existing drivers to drive is going to drive me nuts every time, and that is what this post said. It’s been made by plenty of other people, mostly not very nice people, about plenty of other things.

If you could pick up that arena and put it down anywhere else, where would it be? The Meadowlands, where everyone would drive? Has the whole return of large gathering places to central cities from suburban highway exits over the past two decades been a mistake? Or is there some limit to the number of people who should be allowed to gather in any one place? Say 200 or so? Or 500?

This is just not an argument I want to hear. If the cars will be a problem, take steps to limit the cars.

You’re right, it’s not worth rehashing. But I think the point of the DDDB posting was that there is no real plan for mitigating the additional traffic.

As for me, I’m a very reasonable person. It’s too bad that you feel you got chased away. I myself found the orchestrated “community” support for the project much more disturbing.

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. And, this all started out with DDDB pointing out how horrible the traffic is at that intersection. Tell me something I don’t know. Then they rocket off into how thats another reason to downsize it to their ideal density.

Flatbush and Atlantic is busy with cars, buses, trains. It will always be. I too objected to the parking required in the project but found participation in the debate impossible given the approach of DDDB and their hangers on. Maybe the market will correct his vision. I don’t care. You guys chased away resonable people from this debate a long time ago.

The city and neighbors should have demanded cutbacks in the parking. I said so when I first heard of the development. But everyone was either against to matter what or in favor no matter what.

(You live in Windsor Terrace, I think you’ve said, right? Imagine 40- or 50-story buildings sprouting up across the street from your home. That’s what we’re talking about. Fort Greene and Prospect Heights and the northern end of the Slope are similar to W.T. in building heights.)

But the transit density is greater in the vicinity of Atlantic and Flatbush. Not on the other end, but see the comment above — it was an all or nothing deal.

In Windsor Terrace, a late 1980s rezonings increased density in some areas and decreased it elsewhere. That is typical DCP policy. Fort Green and Prospect Heights were pretty much downzoned. One could argue AY is the upzone.

As for the 40 story buildings at the far eastern end of the site, we’ll see. I see the whole development as financially challenged.

One of the major problems is with the parking. I think one has to assume a good portion of people are going to drive, because they aren’t planning on tough-enough provisions to deter people from driving. For example, they are planning on some HOV parking for events, but luxury-suite owners will be exempted! Added lenience for exactly the people who are most likely to drive. And they’re only planning a 50% transit discount for ticket holders, rather than building in a full free subway roundtrip. The average ticket is going to be, what, $125 probably?

Now maybe if you capped the number of parking spots at 10% of units, rather than roughly half, that’d be different, potentially. Especially since the state is completely overriding zoning, so they could do what they want. But then is the person shelling out $1mm+ for a glitzy Frank Gehry condo unit going to give up his Range Rover? Not likely.

And the sale of the thing is just out of whack. You live in Windsor Terrace, I think you’ve said, right? Imagine 40- or 50-story buildings sprouting up across the street from your home. That’s what we’re talking about. Fort Greene and Prospect Heights and the northern end of the Slope are similar to W.T. in building heights. Density is great, but that’s just crazy.

If the intersection is at capacity, and development will mean more traffic at the intersection, than the argument is that development should go elsewhere. My view is that even something as dense as AY would add little compared with the through traffic, unless everyone drives to a Nets game on a weeknight.

“With Atlantic Yards’s 17,000 new residents, and an 18,000 seat arena in use approximately 220 days per year, this gridlock would be the good ol’ days.”

Assume they are going to drive, and you could make the same argument about 1,700 new residents and an 1,800-seat high school in use 180 days per year.

I have some sympathy with DDDB’s eminent domain arguments, but not with this one.

What’s clear is that two very different visions have emerged. While the UNITY plan would add significant residential density (1500 units over eight acres would be 187.5 units/acre, compared to 6430 units over 22 acres, or 292 units/acre).

187.5 units per acre is significantly dense, just not historically (some would say absurdly) so like Ratner has proposed. And there’s actually a workshop tomorrow (see the first item on the Streetsblog calendar on the top right of this page) devoted to exploring the re-zoning of the entire Ratner footprint.

DDDB is opposed, and rightly so, in my opinion, to Ratner’s vision for that location. But I think we all want to see good development done there. And I intend to devote a lot of energy to seeing that happen once the bloated Atlantic Yards is sunk by market forces.

And for what it’s worth, given the orientation of this site, let’s not forget that the MTA agreed to sell the Vanderbilt Yard to Ratner for a mere $100 million, less than half what it’s own appraiser said it was worth, and less than Extell offered by a third, in a rigged bid. That’s cheating our transit system, which so badly needs the money.

I’m not blaming them for the traffic problems at that intersection. I’m point out that the argument that there shouldn’t be any development in any place with traffic is an argument for suburban sprawl. And that is the argument they are making.

They would have been better off objecting to the parking and calling for residential parking permits and traffic calming, to make it harder to drive and park there, than objecting to the buildings (many of which, based on market issues, will probably never be built). They could still do it.

“Following the lead of 1950s planners who believed the solution to urban congestion was suburban sprawl?” Your characterization of DDDB is just bullshit, Larry. DDDB and many others have advocated for building a significant amount of density over the railyards, and against the 3,600 parking spaces that are planned for Atlantic Yards. Just not the degree of ridiculous density that Ratner’s plan calls for. DDDB has never advocated for more driving.

And Nic, yes, it is a good location for more development (see above). Ratner, however, is proposing creating the densest residential tract in North America, by a factor of two. And that transit-rich block is also already stretched. Subway turnstile counts at that station jumped 16% from 2003 to 2005, and the narrow platforms there are very crowded at peak times. The state EIS, of course, used a 0.5% background growth rate to estimate future transit demand, but (no surprise) citywide ridership grew by more than 4% last year — eight years’ worth of “future demand.!” And with the MTA in budget crisis, the probability of being able to absorb significant demand increase isn’t great. The transportation sections of the EIS are especially egregious in their mischaracterizations, obfuscations and outright lies. By the way, if Brooklynian’s report of Beverly Cattouse’s death is accurate, she was struck and killed right around the beginning of rush hour.

And never mind that aside from issues of traffic and density, Atlantic Yards is the poster child for lack of public process, backroom boondoggling and massive taxpayer subsidies. Go Nets!

So, yeah, you guys go ahead and blame DDDB for the traffic problems at Atlantic, Flatbush and Fourth Avenues. Just get your facts straight before you start name-calling.

As far as density goes, my understanding is that they’ve never been opposed to increasing density in that area, just to the unprecedented increase in density that Ratner wants.

Right. DDDB is following the lead of 1950s planners who believed the solution to urban congestion was suburban sprawl, increasing the amount of road and parking space relative to population and employment. That’s what they are saying by objecting to decreasing the amount of road and parking space relative to population and employment.

DDDB seems to have devolved into Drive and Don’t put Density near my Block.

So maybe Ratner should be given the right to take over the streets that run through the Atlantic Yards Project and turn them into pedestrian malls???

Outdoor Cafes, Performance spaces??

Win-Win I say.

This is truly a traffic hellhole, worse in the evenings when there is less traffic and the speeds pump up to 50-60. I am curious how many of these horrible pedestrian fatalities occurred during rush hour when this picture was obviously taken and how many occurred in the evenings when aggressive driving becomes the norm.