"After, Atlantic Yards?" I'm not really sure, but I think the answer is yes

I'm a little tired of hearing how everything has to remain old, prewar, rundown and small. Brooklyn is a part of New York City, where we build bigger and better than anywhere else. (or used to before you jobless came along hippies). If you dont like the city life, move to Long Island. While in favor of more schools, hospitals, etc, large housing towers and commerical towers are important too, especially the taxes the corporations will be paying.(I'm in favor of killing the tax breaks we overgive though) And I think Ratner should build at least 3 schools and a hospital on his proposed project. I believe Brookyln Tech already stands to be a winner in this project?

More traffic you say? Of course, because more JOBS always goes with more traffic to get to those JOBS! No Jobs, no traffic. And if there's a baseketball game, no one in their right mind drives to MSG... who's going to drive to the Arena in brooklyn. DUH! Come on people, give a brain a break. Again, if you dont like it, move to the burbs, but not near Nassau Coliseum. The MTA is to blame for poor mass transit that no one trusts. Bloomberg should be to blame, not Ratner. If you want to waste your efforts on complaining of development, why not complain that neighborhoods like East NY or Bushwick are being ignored by those with deep pockets?

Ratner like all developers is after 1 thing, money, but you know what, he could have developed in any city, but he chose to develop Brooklyn. And unless you plan and can afford developing as much as he has proposed over the yards, stop complaining. Not to mention, he paid more than market price for properties. There is a reason why this area has such a low RE value, run down buildings, and a vast empty rail yard, and no one wants to invest in them. So we now get to have state of the art neighborhoods (MetroTech Center, Atlantic Center), new buildings, and more space for our growing population to grow up in... remember, only people dying kills population growth. If you ask me, adding inovation to Brooklyn is better choice than say, Pittsburg or Philadelphia.

People, take a lesson: cities like Tokyo, Dubai, Hong Kong, Vegas and even Beijing (very old city) are growing up. We're not growing, we're going with keep the pre-war era. Stop people who just want to make a name for themselves and politicians who are two-faced, from making a decision for you. I'm sure you'd love to walk around in this site once complete. No one in NYC, let alone tourists would want to visit this area now. (remember tourists = good economy = higher paying jobs)

As for affordable housing, if Ratner wanted to, he could forgoe this, but he didn't. And if "affordable" is too high, well, I'm sorry if property values went up so high that you can't afford it, and I'm sorry if you rent and don't own. Now you have to move somewhere you can afford, but you know what, not everything is fair. Unfair is people who can't afford 1 kid, yet they have 6, and don't want to work hard, and collect welfare. Now your already too high taxes support those 5 other kids.

It's an investment in Brooklyn's future. Don't stick with the, its run down and affordable, welcome to crooklyn idealogy we have stuck with for so many years. No wonder my friends from Queens of all places don't come to visit.

I have to say that I grew up in the immediate area amd attended Brooklyn Technical High School.
The area being developed for this project has for many, many years been both an eyesore and a dangerous place for people in the community, despite the fact that there is a police station located right there. I understand that the project is not "ideal" for those who want to continue to live there. However, if you keep doing what you've been doing and never do anything different you will continue to get what you've always gotten. Because I am not rich and I need "affordable" housing, of course I think "affordable condo ownership should be a much larger component of the housing for this project . However, my ideas are self serving. Providing the land to the developer at a fair price and taking the money from the sale of the land to the developer to purchase some of the housing units from the developer and then provide them to the existing residents as low - middle income "affordable" condos may be a better alternative to achieve the housing balance that is needed should be an option. Alot of the land is land for public use and therefore the money from the sale of the land should be funneled back into the same area. Not added to the MTA budget to be used for salaries and bonuses or to improve service on the East side of Manhattan. Why is a new subway line being put in there and services being cut along other lines. But making Ratner pay the right price for the land is the starting point. Not letting them sell him the land for less than someone else has to pay

Who needs a stadium in the middle of one of the busiest parts of Brooklyn? Build Housing, Build schools. Build Community Centers. The traffic will be horrible.
Great, even more pollution.
Public transportation even worse. Soon The N & D trains will look like the L.

I'm a third generation Brooklynite & I'm SICK & TIRED of seeing my Brooklyn being turned in to condos. I'm SICK & TIRED of how expensive Brooklyn is getting. & most of all I'm SICK & TIRED of seeing whole neighborhoods being gentrified.

Why is it so expensive? Well, since areas like Fort Greene, Williamsburg, Park slope & Dumbo are close to the city, which yuppies preferably like, considering it's cheaper than Manhattan. Cheaper to them is expensive to us. & then the demand for condos come in. & there goes the neighborhood. Yes, Atlantic Yards will bring jobs...but who can afford to live in NYC? & It may be good for Brooklyn & the people who can afford it. It is NOT good for the people who live here & have to move to a different state!

After, Atlantic Yards? Whats next? Oh yea, Coney Island.

I am a resident of the neighborhood, since 1984. I've witnessed the bad times, and I'm witnessing the better times now. I've followed this Ratner controversy for some time and here are my thoughts. Ratner is no do-gooder, he is a businessman. His group is responsible for Metrotech; whether you like that complex or not, it turned around an underused, almost blighted area, and the displaced residents were offered equal and most times better relocations. Witness the A.I.R housing in the old PS 9 on Sterling Place renovated to Landmark Commission specs, that Ratner was responsible for as part of his Metrotech deal with the City. It was an abandoned eyesore for many many years before that.
I looked over your web site trying to find the core of a compelling argument to try to empathize with your position. I found nothing except some tiny suggestions for even tinier problems. The parking/staging area is necessary PRECISELY for the reasons you object to it. It will shield the neighborhood from noise and dirt from construction vehicles that otherwise would be double-parked in the street and coming and going all day and all night without it!!!.
This Ratner proposal has been around for a very long time, with lots of hearings and lots of public debate. The fact that you have such detailed plans in your slide show attests to the public transparency of this project. (I assume the many typos are your own, however.) If this plan were as bad and as unthinkable as you make out, the entire City would be up in arms. Instead, you have a large majority of people WHO LIVE THERE supporting the project and the jobs, affordable housing, and the hope for a better life this project will bring to the area. Those in opposition are an increasing minority, and their lack of clear and comprehensive alternatives to the proposal labels them as obstructionists and not bona fide dissenters.
Voices for improvement should be welcome at any time. I encourage those with good ideas to keep fighting for them. As for the obstructionists, your time is up. Atlantic Yards will happen with or without you. Why not put your energy to making it REALLY better, and not just stand in its way?

Mr. Olin should be appreciated for what he is: part of the newly embedded technocratic elite whose ideology is disguised as good taste, competence and, most subversive to our traditions, reasonableness. His firm can be understood as the Skidmore, Owens & Merrill of landscape architecture. Good, solid, reliable working spaces perfectly attuned to corporate sensibility.

My only problem with Mr. Olin is his arrogance and his ambition. On the one hand he believes he knows better than most and thus is unmoved by his critics. And, on the other, he is happy in his role as servant to the rich and powerful. And, why not, as his submissive nature not only guarantees a stream of new work but also gives him ample opportunity to perform new tricks for his masters.

I suspect that Mr. Olin is a man frightened by many things and so, in response to his fears, has constructed an aesthetic and practice predicated on careful management of time and space. For those who see the potential for chaos at any moment, Mr. Olin's designs are very reassuring. For those of us who think chance and contingency have much to do with the joy and excitement of city, Mr. Olin's designs are potentially dystopian.

Of course, the difficult question in urban planning is how to achieve a working balance between control and reliability with our desire for spontaneity and happy accidents. Mr. Olin has many admirable qualities, but I don’t think he’s the man to resolve this riddle. If he were, Ratner wouldn’t have hired him in the first place.

It is good for brooklyn.