New Jersey Nets Move to Brooklyn?

The controversy over Atlantic Yards has only grown more public as lawsuits and neighborhood outcry have dominated headlines locally and nationally. The centerpiece of this $4 billion dollar development that includes new housing and commercial towers is the $950 million Nets Arena designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry. Developer Bruce Ratner announced his plans for Atlantic Yards in 2003 and hoped to have the Nets play their first season in Brooklyn in 2006. A series of lawsuits has delayed the groundbreaking until at least the summer of 2009. This doesn’t put the Nets in their new home until 2011. Bringing a nationally recognized team to Brooklyn would certainly have its benefits. It would bring a sense pride to residents, and potentially stimulate the local economy by creating new jobs and opportunities for new businesses.

But the projects itself is beleaguered by its sheer scale and dominance in the area. Images we have seen of the surrounding area paint a picture of a sleepy neighborhood filled with a diverse group of families and individuals. The Atlantic Yards project is certain to change the character and distinct urban fabric of the neighborhood, and displace long-standing residents. The stadium itself is a giant—a colossal structure emerging in the middle of one of the busiest intersections in Brooklyn. The Gehry design is a distinctive aesthetic—a cylindrical metal cladded tower certain to take center stage, crammed in a small corner lot across from the Atlantic Terminal. How this structure overshadows the shy brownstones left in its wake is evident. The arena will bring in thousands of spectators to the area in short bursts of time. Their presence will certainly be felt in the neighborhood by the remnants of trash, cars, and pedestrian congestion. Commuters using the Atlantic Terminal station will be fighting for space on trains with basketball fans traveling to the stadium. And with the MTA cutbacks already being felt around the city, trains are sure to be full to capacity, leaving many trying to get home behind.

The stadium promises to be a new economic anchor to the neighborhood. But in terms of planning, it seems to be more of an urban impediment. The arena sits right across from the busy Atlantic Terminal, meaning most commuters will have to circumvent the entire site across from the terminal to get to their homes. The arena is ringed by a series of towers that would include commercial and residential space, putting most of the area north of the arena in shadow. The tower and arenas will literally be a looming, dark presence in a vibrant neighborhood. Opponents of the project argue the arena and other proposed Atlantic Yards buildings are incongruous additions to surrounding neighborhoods. Other arena projects are located in the outskirts of the city, like Shea Stadium in Queens and Yankee Stadium in the Bronx. Here, the Nets Arena would be placed in the middle of an already densely populated area, the equivalent of putting a new stadium in Greenwich Village or the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Stadium advocates argue the change would be positive, and arenas like Madison Square Garden have been able to operate successfully in a dense area. However, the area around Madison Square Garden is on a decidedly downward spiral. Congestion in the area has made it an undesirable place to live and poor upkeep of the area is evident in the state of the streets and sidewalks. Now that MSG is a number of years old, the building itself looks dated among a sea of new midtown skyscrapers.

The Nets Arena is susceptible to this dark future. Slick architecture is sure to win over New York Times critics who believe a billion dollar project could give the area a facelift. But those critics are not looking forward to 20 or 30 years from now when a crumbling colossus is left standing in a neighborhood still left to thrive on its own accord. The Atlantic Terminal is an important part of the city’s infrastructure that will continue to have fiscal support. But it is more difficult for politicians to argue to continue to fund a decaying sports arena. Even now, before its groundbreaking, supporters are having a difficult time arguing in support of the Arena. Tough economic times have made the project seem more unfeasible than ever. Even Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz,, one of the project’s staunchest supporters, is scaling back his approval and suggesting some cost-cutting measures. In light of the economic downturn, he said Forest City should conceive of a “sports and entertainment venue that is more economically feasible but provides the modern amenities our residents and visitors to Brooklyn demand and deserve.” (New York Times, 1/13/09) Opponents of the project now see themselves in a strong position given current circumstances. Forest City announced it was looking to pare down costs of the arena to make it more financially viable. “Opponents of the project, who view it as an oversize intrusion, regarded the Forest City announcement as a death knell. Daniel Goldstein, a spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, said he found Mr. Markowitz’s statement “bewildering.”

“We’re in the midst of the most severe recession since the Great Depression and he’s discussing what a publicly subsidized arena should look like?” Mr. Goldstein said. “It is indefensible to subsidize a luxury housing project and an arena when so many other vital city services are being cut or going begging. It is long past time to start over with the process of developing the railyards in a feasible manner where we can actually achieve job creation and truly affordable housing in a timely fashion.” (New York Times, 1/13/09)

What lies in the wake of this project are families and businesses – crowded out of their own neighborhoods when the Nets play in their backyard, and forced to skirt around a giant, empty arena when not in use. The longevity of this neighborhood is at stake, as well as the future of urban development in Brooklyn. If such a small, congested area is susceptible to such a large scale development, then a precedent is surely being set.

Assignment 2