Thursday, November 1, 2007

Ain't overdevelopment great?

What do you do when you want to promote the overdevelopment of an area and convince people it's a good idea?

Make a video narrated by a famous English actor highlighting all the "great" projects. Don't bother to ask even one person who actually lives there. (Notice how Atlantic Yards is shown briefly at the beginning then never shown again - it's so obviously out-of-scale with the rest of the area.)

The accompanying article is really balanced too...

B'KLYN REACHES FOR THE SKIES

"This sends a message to the entire city - and even the world - that Brooklyn is in a period of unprecedented growth."

Yeah, we already were aware of that, thanks.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey, lets show that video again of the Atlantic Yards.

Maybe old Crappy can post something on its front page offering it for groups.

Anonymous said...

I saw that Brooklyn video. Everyone should see it.

Funny how the newspapers never put THAT on the front page. Hey, here is an idea! Maybe we can ask them why not!

Perhaps someone should call the 'reporter' who did this piece and suggest they should do a front cover on that video in the style and spirit of Fox News, you know, 'fair and balanced.'

And of course, report back to Crappie their rejection.

We need to drive home again and again, that when it come to development, the media is not to be believed.

They are abdicating their responsibility to the public by being a money taking whore from the developers.

hater said...

Just think of all the infrastructural improvements that could be made if we taxes these developers better? Instead, you and me will get stuck paying for the improved sewer lines, transit, etc... that is, if the city bothers to improve any of these services. Probably not.

Anonymous said...

Underdevelopment if you ask me. It's downtown Brooklyn, where else would you like the growth?

Anonymous said...

These are great developments for Brooklyn and NYC. These types of developments are what we need to keep NY a leading city for culture and business. Why keep underused buildings and drabby neighborhoods as is?

Anonymous said...

How do these developments benefit me? The developers are getting tax breaks - those taxes should have been collected and applied toward maintaining our infrastructure, which will be overtaxed by the use of thousands more people.

Anonymous said...

Small increments of growth in lower density neighborhoods have led to blackouts and sewer malfunctions.

Is the city putting in a new sewer system and upgrading electricity in this "new" neighborhood? And if so, why do they get it and not the rest of the city? We should have upgrades in place before we promote rapid fire growth.

Anonymous said...

"Why keep underused buildings and drabby neighborhoods as is?"

Oh here we go, "this neighborhood is blighted..."

Anonymous said...

These types of developments are what we need to keep NY a leading city for culture and business

-----

Says who? Look at Paris, London, or Rome. 200 and 2000 year old buildings are not doing a shoddy job of keeping those places vibrant.

Anonymous said...

I think a blog like Crappy has a very important role to play - one that can permanently change the course of this city.

Up until now, the developers have had their way with the politians, media, and public relations. Their arguments have a stale classic American flavor - Bigger! Bolder! Faster! Brighter! - that echoes something from the earlier 20th century, if not earlier.

Crappy exposes these arguments for what they are, how they came about, and most importantly, provides counter arguments for a whole new urban view.

The resident, not the developer is the centerpiece. Zero population growth, green energy, and the abolition of discrimination of community services based on class and ethnicity seem to be the general direction of this board.

Now as to what to do to our moribund tired preservation community, that is the tough nut to crack. Perhaps the growth of grassroots will overwhelm them.

I can only hope.

Anonymous said...

How about the resident, as taxpayer and voter, is the centerpiece.

We have lots of 'residents' that a little more than tweeder fodder.

Anonymous said...

Democratic Dictionary

Immigrant:

tweeder fodder.

Anonymous said...

"Says who? Look at Paris, London, or Rome. 200 and 2000 year old buildings are not doing a shoddy job of keeping those places vibrant."

Do you all just make these things up? A little education:

Paris - In the post-war era, Paris experienced its largest development since the end of the Belle Époque in 1914. The suburbs began to expand considerably, with the construction of large social estates known as cités and the beginning of the business district La Défense. A comprehensive express subway network, the RER, was built to complement the Métro and serve the distant suburbs, while a network of freeways was developed in the suburbs, centred on the Périphérique expressway circling around the city. Paris' unchanging borders, strict building codes and lack of developable land have together contributed in creating a phenomenon called muséification (or "museumification") as, at the same time as they strive to preserve Paris' historical past, existing laws make it difficult to create within city limits the larger buildings and utilities needed for a growing population. Many of Paris' institutions and economic infrastructure are already located in, or are planning on moving to, the suburbs. The financial (La Défense) business district, the main food wholesale market (Rungis), major renowned schools (École Polytechnique, HEC, ESSEC, INSEAD, etc.), world famous research laboratories (in Saclay or Évry), the largest sport stadium (Stade de France), and some ministries (namely the Ministry of Transportation) are located outside of the city of Paris. The National Archives of France are due to relocate to the northern suburbs before 2010.

London - The rebuilding during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was characterised by a wide range of architectural styles and has resulted in a lack of architectural unity that has become part of London's character. In 1965 London's political boundaries were expanded to take into account the growth of the urban area outside the County of London's borders. In the decades following World War II, large-scale immigration from Commonwealth countries and beyond transformed London into one of the most racially and culturally diverse cities in Europe.

Rome - The historical centre is identified as within the limits of the ancient imperial walls. Some central areas were expanded in the twentieth century to house the huge increase of population caused by the centralisation of the Italian state. After WWII, Rome continued to expand due to Italy's growing state administration and industry, with the creation of new quartieri and suburbs.

Anonymous said...

umm, yes, council housing in UK is just the thing (I guess you were not old enough to remember Clockwork Orange) but certainly you remember the riots in Paris a few years ago.

The point is new places are not the areas in these cities that makes the money, gets the tourists, indeed, is the cultural and intellectual generator that drives these nations.

People like charm and livibility, small scale, the 'rus et urbs' for you rustics.

Souless ugly high rise barracks are a failure.

Anonymous said...

Keep on building
and cramming in as many new votes as you can
in these "luxurious" warrens!

New fodder to be tweeded
by the "clubhouse".....indeed!