Y’all remember the scene in Willy Wonka when Gene Wilder, facing yet another selfish and petulant child doing something impermissible, says in a monotone “No. Please. Stop,” clearly uninterested in preventing another faux tragedy, or simply resigning himself to its inevitability?
That’s how I felt when coming upon the Timeswrite-up of the Atlantic Rail Yards scheme by Ghery that some have the temerity to call development, though such an appellation for the dystopian vision presented actually manages to do a disservice to developers, something I didn’t think theoretically possible. Now I really understand why the Congress for New Urbanism chose to honor Frank Ghery. What is it about rail yards that inspires such ungainly and ill considered schemes? Too much space, too much time to oneself? We all suspect that to be an architect is primarily an onanistic endeavor, but I don’t know that we also thought that it was would be so obsessive and repetitive.
Ouroussoff derides Battery Park City as being uninspired, bureaucratic drivel, and, continuing a theme started last week, takes more potshots at Jane Jacobs (because she’s and her ilk have done so much ruin our streetscapes, with theri hammerlock on zoning and development decisions). But somehow shiny, sloppy glass baubles will prevent this from being the BPC on the BQE? Perhaps I just don’t understand the sublime well enough.
It’s notable that Ourousoff conveniently forgets the one consistent criticism that holds after a half century of ‘instant city’ developments — that homogeneity is the most dangerous threat to the urban experience. There cannot be found a single example in the country where ceding so much authority to one designer and developer has resulted in a compelling and attractive urban space. You have to remember, Ratner doesn’t give a shit about the life of the city. This is evident about 7.8 million times, in each square foot of the MetroTech complex, which did its damndest to turn Brooklyn into Tysons Corner. Somehow, though, a ‘conversion’ has taken place, this time it’s going to be all better. You know, it used to be that when one fucked up on a scale of that magnitude, the next effort would be expected to be a little more, um, modest.
But then, Ratner has friends in the right places. Namely, in his soon to be tower on Eighth Avenue, conveniently known as the Times Tower. If you were wondering if perhaps this cozy relationship has occluded the objective vision of the Times, well just take a look at the coverage of the surprise bid submitted on the last day by competing developer Extell Development. The first sign of this comes early, when a comparison is made to the Cablevision bid to usurp the Jets stadium. A valid comparison, if you erase from your mind that Extell is actually active in residential development, and that the creation of the plan was in conjunction with residents (and opponents to the Ratner plan), things the Dolan’s really have little interest in.
And then there’s the ‘oh aren’t they cute’ description of the designers: Certra/Ruddy, described as “a husband-wife architectural team who live in Brooklyn” which makes them sound a little bit like the have a drafting table in the kitchen. I’m not going to try and sell you that they are a firm of great quality, but they do have credible experience in designing residential projects in the city (including one that will be in easy view from Ouroussoff’s new offices). Lastly, the Times notes that they were given a little preview, but we don’t get a glossy multimedia show (which is hardly what the Ghery presentation is, but that’s what they call it). We don’t even get a single image. Given the potential for conflict, you would think they would bother pointing out that they weren’t able to get an image for publication, because one might think they were trying to downplay the proposal for their buddy Ratner.
So, for how long should the Times apply the disclaimer that Ratner is a development partner? That’s an interesting question, and perhaps it would take someone with more analytic skills to determine the value of his investment to the Times and the reciprocal benefit of good press. Half of the Times Tower is being developed on spec. meaning no major tenants were identified when it was initiated. Given the overall cost, this is not an inconsiderable effort (it is the largest privately funded spec development in the city, as the WTC development was funded by insurance proceeds). The ownership of the building is split, so the Times bore no risk on the spec half (and Ratner had not promise of revenue), but was guaranteed funding for their shiny Renzo Piano design. It seems like a ‘can’t-miss’ prospect. Though, given the whitewash he gets, I’m not so sure Ratner got the short end of the deal.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Is that the Times editorial independence in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?
Y’all remember the scene in Willy Wonka when Gene Wilder, facing yet another selfish and petulant child doing something impermissible, says in a monotone “No. Please. Stop,” clearly uninterested in preventing another faux tragedy, or simply resigning himself to its inevitability?
That’s how I felt when coming upon the Times write-up of the Atlantic Rail Yards scheme by Ghery that some have the temerity to call development, though such an appellation for the dystopian vision presented actually manages to do a disservice to developers, something I didn’t think theoretically possible. Now I really understand why the Congress for New Urbanism chose to honor Frank Ghery. What is it about rail yards that inspires such ungainly and ill considered schemes? Too much space, too much time to oneself? We all suspect that to be an architect is primarily an onanistic endeavor, but I don’t know that we also thought that it was would be so obsessive and repetitive. Ouroussoff derides Battery Park City as being uninspired, bureaucratic drivel, and, continuing a theme started last week, takes more potshots at Jane Jacobs (because she’s and her ilk have done so much ruin our streetscapes, with theri hammerlock on zoning and development decisions). But somehow shiny, sloppy glass baubles will prevent this from being the BPC on the BQE? Perhaps I just don’t understand the sublime well enough. It’s notable that Ourousoff conveniently forgets the one consistent criticism that holds after a half century of ‘instant city’ developments — that homogeneity is the most dangerous threat to the urban experience. There cannot be found a single example in the country where ceding so much authority to one designer and developer has resulted in a compelling and attractive urban space. You have to remember, Ratner doesn’t give a shit about the life of the city. This is evident about 7.8 million times, in each square foot of the MetroTech complex, which did its damndest to turn Brooklyn into Tysons Corner. Somehow, though, a ‘conversion’ has taken place, this time it’s going to be all better. You know, it used to be that when one fucked up on a scale of that magnitude, the next effort would be expected to be a little more, um, modest. But then, Ratner has friends in the right places. Namely, in his soon to be tower on Eighth Avenue, conveniently known as the Times Tower. If you were wondering if perhaps this cozy relationship has occluded the objective vision of the Times, well just take a look at the coverage of the surprise bid submitted on the last day by competing developer Extell Development. The first sign of this comes early, when a comparison is made to the Cablevision bid to usurp the Jets stadium. A valid comparison, if you erase from your mind that Extell is actually active in residential development, and that the creation of the plan was in conjunction with residents (and opponents to the Ratner plan), things the Dolan’s really have little interest in. And then there’s the ‘oh aren’t they cute’ description of the designers: Certra/Ruddy, described as “a husband-wife architectural team who live in Brooklyn” which makes them sound a little bit like the have a drafting table in the kitchen. I’m not going to try and sell you that they are a firm of great quality, but they do have credible experience in designing residential projects in the city (including one that will be in easy view from Ouroussoff’s new offices). Lastly, the Times notes that they were given a little preview, but we don’t get a glossy multimedia show (which is hardly what the Ghery presentation is, but that’s what they call it). We don’t even get a single image. Given the potential for conflict, you would think they would bother pointing out that they weren’t able to get an image for publication, because one might think they were trying to downplay the proposal for their buddy Ratner. So, for how long should the Times apply the disclaimer that Ratner is a development partner? That’s an interesting question, and perhaps it would take someone with more analytic skills to determine the value of his investment to the Times and the reciprocal benefit of good press. Half of the Times Tower is being developed on spec. meaning no major tenants were identified when it was initiated. Given the overall cost, this is not an inconsiderable effort (it is the largest privately funded spec development in the city, as the WTC development was funded by insurance proceeds). The ownership of the building is split, so the Times bore no risk on the spec half (and Ratner had not promise of revenue), but was guaranteed funding for their shiny Renzo Piano design. It seems like a ‘can’t-miss’ prospect. Though, given the whitewash he gets, I’m not so sure Ratner got the short end of the deal.