In Wednesday’s New York Times, Forest City Ratner tried to put a positive spin on Tuesday night’s  contentious hearing at the New York School of Technology in downtown Brooklyn. "I think it’s a wonderful discussion that we’re having," said James P.
Stuckey, Forest City Ratner’s executive vice president for development,
who spoke to reporters outside the hearing. "Given that there’s been so
much discussion about the public process, and so much discussion about
whether or not people are going to be heard – here we are tonight, and
hundreds of people have come out to be heard."

Yah. If Forest City Ratner is willing to modify and streamline their mega-development plan for downtown Brooklyn than discussions like this one will prove to be worthwhile. But if it’s just an exercise in letting the people be heard while the developers and big money interests do what they will then…it’s a sad state of affairs and a bloody waste of time.

Not surprisingly, things got a tad rambunctious at last night’s public hearing about the environmental impact of a basketball stadium and 17 other buildings in downtown Brooklyn as proposed by Forest City Ratner.

Marty Markowitz, was one of serveral speakers who was shouted down. Markowitz, the borough;’s president and the project’s leading cheerleader described the project as "a
wonderful addition to Brooklyn."

But opponents outnumbered supporters. "If and when ground is broken for this
project, there will be no turning back, no second chances. The
surrounding community will feel its effects for decades." Eric McClure, a member of Park Slope neighbors a group that opposes the project, told the New York Times. "Nothing less than the future of Brooklyn depends on a thorough,
comprehensive and effective environmental review."

There seems to be no end to reasons why the project, as it stands now, is a lousy idea. I happen to love the work of Frank Gehrey, especially his early work in Venice, California and I’d be  thrilled to to have something on the order of the Richard B. Fisher Center for the Performing Arts (2003) at Bard College in Brooklyn. 

However, I always felt there was something cynical about the way Forest City Ratner packaged their rather overbearing (possibly ruinous) vision for downtown Brooklyn in the fancy wrapping of a Frank Gehrey building. He knew the Frank Gehry name would entice a lot of people around here.   

Of course it would. Gehry is, in my opinion, a really interesting architect. His work would be a welcome addition to any cityscape (and New York City really should get one). But judging by the Atlantic Center and Atlantic Mall, architectural excellence is not Ratner’s main interest. And issues of scale, contextuality, livability, light, and congestion just don’t seem to factor into Ratner’s frame of reference.

Street congestion, asthma and gentrification were only a few of the
concerns raised. One speaker, Alan M. Rosner, said that the planned
arena’s soaring glass walls would endanger pedestrians on the street in
the event of a terrorist attack. Another, Lumi M. Rolley, who has a
blog devoted to the project, raised the issue of "reflected light,"
which she described as an environmental hazard rooted in Mr. Gehry’s
use of titanium panels in his buildings."

This was the first of two planned hearing, last night’s hearing was sponsored by the Empire State Development Corporation, the
agency charged with guiding the Atlantic Yards project along the long
path toward final approval by the state.