« ACTRESS IN BATTLE TO FOIL NETS' ARENA BID | Main | Battle lines drawn over Nets arena in Brooklyn »
November 14, 2005
The Project That Ate Brooklyn
In a Sunday New York Times City Section Op-Ed piece, the author, John B. Manbeck, accuses all sides of "overkill," then fumbles the facts, before making some good points.
FUMBLE |
FACT |
|
The project is being proposed "on the very site that was denied the Brooklyn Dodgers 50 years ago." |
Ratner's failing mall sits on that site (let's put this Brooklyn myth to rest already). |
|
"The arena would stimulate construction on Boerum Hill's vacant lots." |
Boerum Hill is booming thanks to the already approved Downtown Development plan. |
|
8,300 new housing units |
It's 7,300, unless Manbeck knows something the public doesn't. |
The TimesRatnerReport points out some other problems including the fact that the "bio box doesn't mention that [Manbeck] has written for both issues of Forest City Ratner's Brooklyn Standard p.r. sheet."
It's regretful that there are these holes in Manbeck's piece because he brings up three important points: * "a project that relies heavily on subsidies rarely works," * "Officials need to consider the existing profiles of neighborhoods as well as the immediate goals of developer" * Brooklyn developers typically unveil overly ambitious projects that are eventually scaled back, resulting in a project "that satisfies his true ambitions while allowing the public to feel that it has staved off disaster."
Posted by lumi at November 14, 2005 11:30 AM