357 replies to this topic

[Orik]

1. Sneak, Orik, Stone, and AB are so far beyond right it's not funny.

Ah, but this reflects fundamental confusion and muddy thinking. "Failure" is not synonymous with "I don't like it." All Orik, Stone, and AB have proven, is that they don't like it.

(I don't hear Sneak saying he doesn't like it, so I exempt him.)

Don't you think that taking a large piece of Manhattan (land fill or not) and turning into what is, so far, primarily a dormitory with no appeal to anyone but its residents, is a failure?

It's not that I like or dislike it (as AB said, the park is nice), but that it's just sort of useless, and that it is busy being useless on some fairly expensive real estate. This is why I commented it would make more sense across the river.

[oakapple]

Those who promote a certain vision of urbanism (roughly the Jane Jacobs vision), reject BPC as generally bad for that vision, although probably not as bad for it as other, earlier development.

I would agree that that is true. But though I (in general) support what Jacobs advocated, this does not mean that everything "not built Jane's way" has failed.

Don't you think that taking a large piece of Manhattan (land fill or not) and turning into what is, so far, primarily a dormitory with no appeal to anyone but its residents, is a failure?

Since that's what most neighborhoods are, I call that the baseline, rather than a failure.

But quite a few people here (who neither live there nor HAVE to be there) have admitted that they rather like the public spaces in BPC. The neighborhood has surely contributed that, if nothing else. This is in marked contrast to the rest of the city, where the waterfronts were mainly dedicated to roadways and shipping. The city has tried to reverse that error where it can, but only with partial success, because many obstacles (like the Henry Hudson Parkway) cannot be overcome.

It's not that I like or dislike it (as AB said, the park is nice), but that it's just sort of useless, and that it is busy being useless on some fairly expensive real estate. This is why I commented it would make more sense across the river.

If it were in New Jersey, most of the city's residents would consider it far less desirable.

[Stone]

1. Sneak, Orik, Stone, and AB are so far beyond right it's not funny.

Ah, but this reflects fundamental confusion and muddy thinking. "Failure" is not synonymous with "I don't like it." All Orik, Stone, and AB have proven, is that they don't like it.

(I don't hear Sneak saying he doesn't like it, so I exempt him.)

I think I was clear to say that I wasn't getting involved in the success/failure discussion.

My initial questions were merely to (1) confirm my recollection of BPC as a neighborhood; and (2) imply why people aren't going to travel there. Sneak was more explicit, pointing that this is a community of residential buildings that, unlike almost all of Manhattan, Brooklyn, etc., don't have commercial spaces.

You're right, I don't like it (BPC) as a neighborhood to visit. (Other than to visit a friend. The few people I know who've lived there, loved it.) I don't know or care whether BPC is a failure as a neighborhood. I don't know whether NEG will succeed as a restaurant. But I'm pretty sure that it isn't going to get a lot of traffic from people beyond BPC or Wall Street spillover. I certainly could be wrong. It's possible that additional places will follow (as with Odeon/Montrachet) and the neighborhood will become more lively -- although without the availability of commercial space, I don't know where they would go). I just don't see folks from the UWS or UES saying, "No, let's not go to Gramercym, LES or the Meat Packing District, let's go to that new place in Battery Park City." And walking from the subway over the highway has little to do with it.

(And from what I hear, Jersey City is like Vegas compared with BPC.)

[Anthony Bonner]

I would agree that that is true. But though I (in general) support what Jacobs advocated, this does not mean that everything "not built Jane's way" has failed.

Except that the BPCA master plan was expressly intended to be "built Jane's way"

Source

[oakapple]

I would agree that that is true. But though I (in general) support what Jacobs advocated, this does not mean that everything "not built Jane's way" has failed.

Except that the BPCA master plan was expressly intended to be "built Jane's way"

That's fair enough, but the failure to build it the way the planning documents said, is not failure in the absolute sense.

[ghostrider]

During the summers the park at BPC gets a sound stage & a pretty nifty series of late afternoon concerts by the riverside as part of the R2R Fest. It's one of NYC's more pleasant experiences, to my way of thinking, & something you don't find in Stuy Town.

I haven't stayed for dinner yet but with NEG around, this year I might.

[Anthony Bonner]

I would agree that that is true. But though I (in general) support what Jacobs advocated, this does not mean that everything "not built Jane's way" has failed.

Except that the BPCA master plan was expressly intended to be "built Jane's way"

That's fair enough, but the failure to build it the way the planning documents said, is not failure in the absolute sense.

but the reason why it was meant to be built in that style is because there is overwhelming evidence that redevelopment projects that don't integrate themselves into the greater city eventually fail.

Note I have not said "BPC has failed" but rather "If it does not eventually integrate itself into the greater city it will fail" and the way it will fail is that those new buildings will slowly deteriorate, rents will fall, so the buildings won't be reinvested in, and eventually it'll become a low income area. Probably at some point it'll get razed.

That's what happened with most developments like this that didn't have some MetLife style benefactor who had an interest in maintaining the status quo.

ETA: I have to admit I do struggle to think of a place that has successfully knit itself into a larger city.

[Stone]

Since it's not bankrupt, even surviving 9/11, it's hard to see how BPC is a failure.

[Anthony Bonner]

Since it's not bankrupt, even surviving 9/11, it's hard to see how BPC is a failure.

The whole thing can't really fail like that anyway since you as a taxpayer guarantee the debt its issued. But some of the buildings have had to file

[Stone]

Yeah, but still.

[Anthony Bonner]

I think it speaks to how hard it is to create a vibrant urban neighborhood from scratch that we can all agree its a very pleasant place with a lovely park and nice amenities, but yet argue for 57 pages about whether it succeeds or not.

[Lex]

Note I have not said "BPC has failed" but rather "If it does not eventually integrate itself into the greater city it will fail" and the way it will fail is that those new buildings will slowly deteriorate, rents will fall, so the buildings won't be reinvested in, and eventually it'll become a low income area. Probably at some point it'll get razed.

Stuy Town succeeded for 60 years. The current owners are struggling with debt but that's due to the way Met Life suckered them into paying too much for the property. And prior to the sale, Met Life was making money off the place.

[Anthony Bonner]

Note I have not said "BPC has failed" but rather "If it does not eventually integrate itself into the greater city it will fail" and the way it will fail is that those new buildings will slowly deteriorate, rents will fall, so the buildings won't be reinvested in, and eventually it'll become a low income area. Probably at some point it'll get razed.

Stuy Town succeeded for 60 years. The current owners are struggling with debt but that's due to the way Met Life suckered them into paying too much for the property. And prior to the sale, Met Life was making money off the place.

MetLife only wanted it to return a percent or two in real terms + rock steady inflation protection, and they ran it like that. A normal developer has a higher cost of capital than MetLife had/has so they can't/won't run something that way. Without MetLife it might have become Pruitt-Igoe.

[Lex]

Thanks. I didn't understand that until you explained it.

[SethG]

I think, not having participated in this discussion but having read along, that there is something to agree with in everyone's opinion. But the crucial difficulty, or at least where I disagree, is with Oakapple's contention that to describe BPC as a soulless wasteland is simply to say "I don't like it," i.e. an expression of opinion empty of meaning. And to somehow prove the point he repeatedly asserts that many people happily live in BPC, the parks are nice and full of happy, well-fed toddlers, and that the neighborhood is proximate to Wall Street.

I would happily concede BPC has much going for it, and I am not oppposed to visiting the area. But one need only walk its streets to know that BPC is a soulless wasteland, missing the vibrant urbanism that makes NYC special for many people. This is a real and valid criticism and not empty of meaning. That is my only point.

Whether this makes it a "failure" depends on your definition of failure. It is a failure in the way that I identified. I think Bonner isn't really saying it is an economic failure, but rather has tried to poke some holes in Oakapple's vision of the place as a smashing success that the rich are clawing to get into.

I'd go to BPC to try the restaurant if it's good. I'm not sure my wife would ever consent to go with me, though.