I had been loosely following the Atlantic Yards saga for months now. It’s not that unique a story. Developer wants to build; neighborhood complains. Really the only thing special about this is that the parcel up for development is quite large. The reason I’m bringing this up is because the Economist actually took notice. All over the world people are reading about the fighting going on in downtown Brooklyn.
Somehow this fracas has become global news, so I might as well put my feelings out there. The first I heard of Atlantic Yards was months ago when Frank Gehry’s designs for “Miss Brooklyn” was unveiled. I still despise that ode to the homely, but what I also remember was hearing about how this development was the largest private real estate deal ever. It sounded like hyperbole to me, but I accepted it at face value because I had no reason not to. It wasn’t until about a month ago that I actually looked into the plans.
Forest City Ratner won the initial competition for developing this area of Brooklyn. Actually FCR was the only company to enter a serious bid. There was a second bid that was rushed in at the last minute, but I’ll discuss that a little later. FCR has a checkered past in New York City real estate. They have a reputation for building sterile, cold, fortress-like designs. Metrotech, the scourge of Brooklyn, was built by Ratner in the early 1990s. However hiring Frank Gehry was supposed to alleviate the fears FCR would build a monstrous Metrotech 2.
As I said I finally checked out the plans for Atlantic Yards. Boy was I shocked to discover the land that is actually affected by this. This is much ado about nothing as far as I’m concerned. The train yards (the Vanderbilt Rail Yards) only take up three blocks. Then you have roughly two blocks with apartment buildings that would be torn down. Whoop-de-friggin-do. I cannot believe this real estate project is the largest in the US. It covers five blocks, only two of which are inhabited.

DDDB‘s complaints seem to be about the size of the buildings FCR wants to build and the use of eminent domain to take over buildings from people who refuse to sell. Let me talk about eminent domain first. Eminent domain is unfortunate to have to use, but it does not trample on owner’s rights. DDDB’s rhetoric makes it sound like the owners are being robbed in the middle of the night. The reality of the situation is that these owners are being very well compensated for their loss. I have never heard anyone, including the opponents of FCR, say the compensation is not adequate. This project has turned these dispossessed people into millionaires, so they can move to almost anywhere they like. Sorry, when I say people, I mean owners. Any renters there will have to scatter to the four winds because renters have no rights.
The implied complaint about using eminent domain seems to be that these people shouldn’t have to move. It seems that our society has grown an enormous sense of entitlement. Somehow people have got it into their heads that because they’ve lived somewhere before, they have a right to be there. Sorry but no. You do not have a right to live where ever you want to. If that were the case I demand a house in the Hamptons. It is discrimination that I can’t live there just because I can’t afford any of the houses there. Neither are you granted a right to live in a neighborhood because you’ve been there ten or more years already. When you can’t afford to live in a neighborhood, you have to move to somewhere you can.
I suspect the anger over having to move, at least from the old-timers, stems from fear. These people have lived in that neighborhood for so long, they can’t comprehend living somewhere else. They’re afraid to learn a new commute, meet new neighbors and find new shops. That is the saddest thing in the world, and I can sympathize with those people. I lived in the same apartment until I finished college, and at that time I didn’t understand how people could move from home to home. Then once I finished school, I moved across the country. Doing that really opened my eyes and took away all my fears about moving. In the last five years I’ve lived in four different places. Instead of moving being a tragedy, it’s a tiresome nuisance. Back in Brooklyn, these old-timers never got over their fear of moving. They’ve been living the same routine for years, and don’t know how to live without it.
I would guess only half the people being moved by Atlantic Yards are old-timers. The other half are people who arrived in the last five years because the neighborhood was becoming cool. I don’t understand what the problem is with these people. I would have expected them to take their money and run to another up and coming place. I can only assume they’re protesting because of spite. They found their cute, little brownstone and don’t want to give it up.
The complaints about building size I find quite galling. Over and over I hear the phrase “out of scale” uttered by Atlantic Yards opponents. That complaint should never be spoken in New York City. Someone should tell these people NYC is famous for building sky high. Brooklyn is not a museum for 19th century brownstones. It’s a living community that thankfully is growing. People actually want to live there again. Building the two and three story structures that were good enough a hundred years ago, are no longer good enough. Tall towers are a must to accommodate the population growth.
DDDB have complained that the size of Forest City Ratner’s project are too tall, but the fact that they threw their support behind the plan from Extell Development Corporation makes me doubt their sincerity. Those buildings are much taller than the neighboring brownstones.


The buildings are still tall towers but there’s no eminent domain involved and the Nets won’t get their new sports stadium. I could respect DDDB more if they didn’t toss specious complaints into the debate.
To be honest, I am not enamored with either plan. They both waste a lot of possible living space with unproductive green space. Instead of building isolated towers on each block, I would rather see several different buildings placed adjacent to each other like a traditional New York street. This streetscape would be far more interesting if you built 30 different buildings, designed by 30 different architects. As long as the buildings were tall, we could maintain the same amount of living space as with the current plan.
So if my vision is so different from Ratner’s why don’t I oppose him? It’s a simple principle. I respect ownership. Ratner made the agreements with the government to develop this land. As the owner he has every right to do what he likes with it. If people are upset with the design or with using eminent domain to clear out original owners, they should be complaining to their city and state representatives for agreeing to the deal. They have no right to demand anything from Ratner. As owner his word is supreme.