December 29, 2003
B. B .N. (Brooklyn, Before Nets)
Mike at Satan's Laundromat has photographs of the Brooklyn that would be lost if Bruce Ratner's plan to bring the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn goes through. While Ratner's plan is being touted as a way to inject Brooklyn with a healthy dose of pride and prestige as well as money, the photographs suggest it would be at the expense of Brooklyn character.
Ratner's Brooklyn plan is reportedly the front runner for the Nets, which will make any development interesting in light of the neighborhood's protests.
|
Advertisement: Gothamist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
yeah... that little area has a number of great graffiti pieces, including two by ESPO, and several good ones by Shepard Fairey. It'd be a shame to lose some of those old brick buildings- and i'm a big preservationist, but if brooklyn could get a real sports team, i'd be willing to let them go.
Here, here, Jake! A major sports team for Brooklyn within walking distance of my apartment? And an arena with an ice-skating rink on top? I can't wait.
a friend of mine bought a great apartment this past summer and if the deal goes thru, his building will be demolished. they will get "fare market value" if this deal comes to pass, but what is fare market value in a city where bidding wars can be notorious? i guess it makes me glad i still rent. . .
Anybody that bought one of the 31 units at 636 Pacific Street ought to be howling. That is a beautiful building, and the condo conversion project last year created some wonderful space. But the rest of the area is hardly representative as one of Brooklyn's "character", unless your fervent hope is the neighborhood becomes an east coast version of Detroit. Since almost 2/3 of this project is devoted to residential, seems to me a good compromise would be to leave 636 intact. Blow up the rest - it's just flat out ugly urban decay, with no redeeming architectural or historical value. (full disclosure - I live down the block in the Boerum Hill historic district.)
it's interesting- when my parents first moved to bklyn in 1971, they lived on pacific street a couple of blocks off 4th avenue. they moved to pslope in 1975, but i've always felt a connection to the area around the intersection of atlantic and flatbush- like state street, which feels so cut off by atlantic, and the small wrecks of buildings just east of atlantic. i agree with everyone- i think the stadium is a great idea- but the rest seems sort of dull.
I really thought that Jen was joking when I saw that picture. Preserve what? That broken down building?
Bring on the Nets, man.
i have been away from the computer all day, so this is late, but my friend bought a place, not in a broken down old building, but a beautifully renovated warehouse that is amazing. whether or not it was developed by forrest city ratner, i do not know, though i highly doubt they would be tearing down their own property in this deal, but i think the area is what the area is, why does it too have to be turned into something it is not.
i feel a strong personal connection to that area having lived on state street when i first moved to brooklyn in '97 and having worked for Mark Morris Dance Group that has a beautiful new building right around the corner across the street from BAM, but a stadium isn't going to revitalize the neighborhood. look at areas that surrond stadiums in other major cities - people who can afford a ticket come to the arena, buy overpriced soda and beer at the arena and leave - a sports team/stadium isn't going to change that neighborhood - at least not for the better. the jobs it will create are low paying and seasonal. the traffic, noise and desolation when it is not in use will certainly bring the neighborhood further down.
Noooo!!! That's the very last abandoned building in Brooklyn! Those savages!
jack, i see you feel so strongly about this you had to post twice. yikes. i'll only respond in brief, and try to post only once.
(1) i never claimed to support BAM, however mmdg is most certainly connected to the community, teaching in local schools, offering subsidized studio space to local and smaller arts organizations and independent film companies and teaching dance and creative movement to local children, teens and adults and providing work study positions for people who can't afford to pay for their classes, as well as bringing in people from "the city" to attend these classes and showings of these classes.
(2) when i said "why does it have to be turned into something it's not" i really should have said: there are people who live there who may not be able to afford to live anywhere else. and I'm not speaking of my firend or any other yuppie that buys in brooklyn because they cannot afford to buy in manhattan, i'm talking about people who have lived there for years and either rent or whose "fair market" buyout wouldn't buy them shit anywhere else.
Evolution of a neighborhood is one thing, sanitization is another. The Old Navy mall was bad enough, but at least there's a grocery store there.
i live in that neighborhood, too (pacific and 4th), and though i would certainly agree that many of the buildings on atlantic could look nicer, i also don't think that a stadium nearby is going to solve that area's problems. the neighborhoods around stadiums are generally not great looking neighborhoods, and the noise, pollution, and traffic caused by the influx of bridge and tunnel people (and of course, yuppy white manhattanites) would be a nightmare for people who live there. yes, the neighborhood needs to be revitalized, but a stadium isn't the way to go about it. personally, i also think that institutions like BAM help. BAM does work with the community -- certainly not as much as the hospital, but i wouldn't expect otherwise. i also don't expect a stadium to help a community.
Jack: "If the Mark Morris Dance Group did not exist in Brooklyn, the world would not stop spinning and life would go on." This is always the argument against arts and arts funding. I can tell by your stance on such things that this back and forth is futile.
When you say "I'm sure whatever friends you supposedly have in the neighborhood are simply concerned about their housing," what you're really doing is calling me a liar. I think that's a little low for back-blogging and therefore I conceed this argument to the confines of your head. Don't stew too much. Happy New Year!
As one of the reviled yuppie carpetbaggers recently buying into Brooklyn, I resent the notion that I, or any other force of change introduced into the area necessarily seeks to diplace or in fact destroy the livelihoods of those who were there before me. I think much of the rhetoric surrounding the preservation stance is stemmed in an overromanticized notion of saving an endangered old neighborhood. My impression of the neighborhood in question is that whatever soul it originally possessed has in fact been overtaken by decades of urban blight. As residents of the area, I would imagine the news of any endeavor to improve the area would be met with positive anticipation first, and then a desire to work through any potential problems, rather than to dismiss it outright as an invasion of foreign and impersonal self interests. Those who seek to settle in Brooklyn, and I don't think I'd be out of line for assuming the Nets to be with me here, ultimately want what's best for our neighbors, because that directly impacts what's best for us.