| ORIGINAL
VERSION OF: The stadium is deeply entwined with Mayor Michael Bloomberg's hopes for development on the far West Side of Manhattan. Mr. Bloomberg is right to focus on this large chunk of underused real estate, now sparsely populated by rail yards and light industry. We agree with his conviction that the area should have subway service, parks and the other things that will make developers want to construct splendid buildings where people can live and work and enjoy the riverfront. We admire the vigor with which the mayor has pursued his vision. We just don't believe that a hulking box of a football stadium, built with the help of millions of dollars in public money, is the way to make it happen. Virtually every big city from This is about the 2012 Olympic Games. The spades for a giant stadium
on the Hudson River must be in the ground by next spring, the advocates
say, or the Games - and a long list of desirable public works projects
they would entail - will be lost to Nice as it would be to have the Games, they don't justify the stadium. Here are some of the reasons we believe it's a bad idea. THE STADIUM As a piece of architecture, it would be clunky and unattractive. A really bad design can, of course, always be reworked - although the Jets have so far shown no sign of falling out of love with their current plan. But even an inventive proposal, which must account for the luxury boxes that are the economic drivers of any modern football stadium, would lead to a mammoth structure, which would overwhelm anything built nearby. The tract of land along the Hudson River where the Jets want to build is a site of extraordinary potential. We don't believe that a stadium would be its optimal and best use. A study released this week by the nonpartisan Regional Plan Association found that a mixed-use redevelopment of the proposed site, including residential and commercial projects, would provide a better return for the city. The Bloomberg administration argues that the area needs a jump-start, and that the stadium would provide the right jolt. To us, the stadium seems more likely to thwart what could become one of the city's most glorious neighborhoods. THE MONEY The Jets are supposed to put in some $800 million toward the stadium and cover cost overruns, with the city and state each pledging $300 million. Both governments are desperately overextended when it comes to borrowing power. So is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which owns the railroad yards where the stadium would be built. Some estimates say the M.T.A. could reap well in excess of a billion dollars for the property and the air rights above it. The Jets are unlikely to pay anywhere near that. The public money would be used to build a platform over the rail yards where the stadium would stand, and to cover the facility with a roof to make it more adaptable for uses other than football. Advocates say it would then provide desperately needed additional space for the Javits Convention Center, which would be expanded and linked by a passageway to the new stadium. We agree that the convention center needs more space, but we doubt that a football stadium is the right way to provide that, even if it has a roof, a drop ceiling and retractable seating. In one city after another, promoters of huge sports stadiums have promised that they could be used for everything from huge conventions to high school track meets, but the results have almost invariably been disappointing. THE SUBWAY The No. 7 subway line currently runs from Queens across Midtown Manhattan, stopping at Grand Central Terminal before coming to an abrupt end at Times Square. Logically, the line should continue across the West Side, then ultimately connect to Penn Station. That service is crucial to Mr. Bloomberg's development dreams. But the M.T.A. has other priorities, most notably the expansion of the No. 2 subway line on the East Side. That's the longtime dream of the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, who happens to represent the Lower East Side. Rather than wait for the No. 2 to be finished or for Mr. Silver to retire, neither of which seems likely to happen in Mr. Bloomberg's political lifetime, the mayor's team has decided that the city should use its own money. We appreciate the mayor's pragmatism. The extension of the No. 7, more than anything else, would draw developers and tenants. But the M.T.A. should be a partner in this kind of ambitious undertaking. It's time for the public to revisit the whole wish list for public transportation, along with the way the service is financed. Both the city and the state could best serve the area's mass transit needs by providing more support for the M.T.A.'s operating costs and allowing the authority to set priorities for its capital plans along a more rational line. THE PROCESS There has been an air of inevitability surrounding the stadium, and pitifully few opportunities for genuine public input. The City Council has the power to approve a rezoning of the larger far West Side area - and rezoning is critical for the right kind of redevelopment. The Council could put limits on density to prevent overbuilding, but the Council is shut out of the stadium deal itself. Opponents of construction have, inevitably, threatened legal action. But this is the kind of project that should be decided by the political process, not the courts. In the end, the only people who can stop this train are at the state level. In New York, that means three men - Mr. Silver, Gov. George Pataki and the Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno. There's been a lot of talk lately about reforming the deeply dysfunctional state government. Taking a firm stand on the stadium would be a good way to begin letting in some light. THE OLYMPICS We have always supported big ventures like the Olympics in New York City, but the great selling point for the Games was that they would encourage the construction of needed public works like parks, housing and smaller athletic sites that could be used later by local schools. To argue that in order to get the Games, the city must use one of its most valuable waterfront sites to build a huge, ugly stadium for eight football games a year turns that rationale backward. We wanted the Games to get good facilities. We don't want to build bad facilities in order to get the Games.
|
REVISION OF: New York City is hurtling toward the construction of a $600 million Nets basketball arena in Brooklyn. But New Yorkers seem to have little say in this enormous commitment of public money for what would be the most expensive professional basketball arena ever. The approval process is on something beyond a fast track - it's more like a runaway train. The City Council Members will have no vote as the City's Review process is bypassed by the State, and the Public will be denied their hearings. And it's time to pull on the brakes. The arena is deeply entwined with Mayor Michael Bloomberg's hopes for development in Brooklyn. Mr. Bloomberg is right to focus on this large chunk of rail yards. We admire the vigor with which the mayor has pursued his vision. We just don't believe that a hulking undulating Gehry mass of a basketball arena, built with the help of millions of dollars in public money, is the way to make it happen. We also do not believe that developing the railyards should be coupled with seizing an additional 11 acres of surrounding privately held land which has been experiencing its own renaissance over the past few years. Virtually every big city from Seattle to Miami has been engulfed in a stadium debate at one time or another. Such a debate generally features grand promises for an urban renaissance that never quite comes true and cost projections that very frequently turn out to be wildly optimistic. The backers create a sense of desperate urgency, dredging up the specter of lost opportunity if the city fails to act right away. In New York, however, the threat isn't that a professional sports team will depart, or fail to arrive, if the proper stadium isn't available. For the Nets, leaving the New York metropolitan area would mean abandoning the biggest media market in the nation. This is about the 2012 Olympic Games. The spades for a giant arena to house the gymnastics on the Atlantic Rail yards must be in the ground by next spring, the advocates say, or the Games - and a long list of desirable public works projects they would entail - will be lost to Paris or Moscow. That means committing to an arena before the International Olympic Committee decides next July on the host for 2012. Nice as it would be to have the Games, they don't justify the arena. Here are some of the reasons we believe it's a bad idea. THE ARENA as a piece of architecture, it would be misplaced and unattractive in the dead centre of five historic brownstone neighborhoods. A really bad design can, of course, always be reworked - although Ratner has so far shown no sign of falling out of love with his current plan. But even an inventive proposal, which must account for the luxury boxes that are the economic drivers of any modern basketball arena, would lead to a mammoth structure, which would overwhelm the surrounding economically thriving residential neighborhoods surrounding the site. The tract of land on the Atlantic Rail Yards where Ratner wants to build is a site of extraordinary potential. (In due time the RPA will give its own input on the Ratner Proposal, we suspect. We don't believe that a stadium would be its optimal and best use. The independent Jung/Peebles report released earlier this year found that a mixed-use redevelopment of the proposed site, including residential and commercial projects, would provide a better return for the city: http://dddb.net/resources.php#econ) The Bloomberg administration argues that the area covering the railyards need a jump-start, and that the arena would provide the right jolt. To us, the arena seems more likely to thwart what has become one of the Brooklyns's most glorious and thriving neighborhoods. THE MONEY Ratner is supposed to put in some $1.4 billion toward the arena and 17 highrises (with no talk of who covers cost overruns, with the city and state each expected to pay a total of $679 million-1.1 billion (although nobody from Forest City Ratner or city or state government has given ANY details about the funding). Both governments are desperately overextended when it comes to borrowing power. So is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which owns the railroad yards where the arena would be built. Some estimates say the M.T.A. could reap nearly a billion dollars for the property and the air rights above it. Ratner is unlikely to pay anywhere near that. The public money would be used to build a platform over the rail yards where the arena would stand. THE PROCESS There has been an air of inevitability surrounding the arena complex, and pitifully few opportunities for genuine public input. The City Council should have the power to approve a rezoning of the rail yards and 11 acres of surrounding area - and rezoning is critical for the right kind of development. The Council could put limits on density to prevent overbuilding, but the Council is shut out of the stadium deal as well as the surrounding development, most of which is on privately held land and includes two city streets. Opponents of construction have, inevitably, threatened legal actionÂcurrently the only avenue for effectiveness as government is taking a back seat to the developer. But this is the kind of project that should be decided by the political process, not the courts. In the end, the only people who can stop this train are at the state level. In New York, that means three men - Mr. Silver, Gov. George Pataki and the Senate majority leader, Joseph Bruno. There's been a lot of talk lately about reforming the deeply dysfunctional state government. Taking a firm stand on the arena would be a good way to begin letting in some light. THE OLYMPICS We have always supported big ventures like the Olympics in New York City, but the great selling point for the Games was that they would encourage the construction of needed public works like parks, housing and smaller athletic sites that could be used later by local schools. To argue that in order to get the Games, the city must use one of its most valuable pieces of real estate, to build a huge, ugly arena in the middle of lowrise quiet residental neighborhoods for Mr. Ratner's private gain, turns that rationale backward. We wanted the Games to get good facilities. We don't want to build bad facilities in order to get the Games. |