Planned parking-free apartments near Barclays Center stoke fear

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

A developer promises he’s doing the community a favor by not including parking at his planned 55-unit apartment building across the street from the Barclays Center, but Prospect Heights residents say he’s only making things worse.

Martin Domansky claims he wants to do away with required on-site parking at his proposed apartment building on Flatbush Avenue and Dean Street to discourage car owners from moving to the traffic-clogged streets near the soon-to-be-finished home of the Brooklyn Nets.

“We want to make it a better neighborho­od,” said Domansky, who is planning a $20-million five-story luxury rental complex that will replace the blue, triangle-shaped Bergen Tile factory, which closed in 2008.

Domansky will need a variance to skirt city regulations requiring him to build roughly two dozen parking spaces — and he claims he couldn’t provide the spots if he wanted to because his lot isn’t large enough to accommodate the planned building as well as street-level spaces or an underground garage.

But neighbors of the rental complex claim its tenants won’t stop driving because the building lacks parking — they’ll just park on the street instead, taking precious spaces away from other drivers in Prospect Heights who will soon compete with arena crowds for spots.

“Getting people to take mass transit is a good thing,” said Richard Goldstein, the president of the Carlton Avenue Block Association. “But not having a parking facility at the site will exacerbate the parking problem in the neighborho­od.”

And neighbors fear that problem will only get worse once the 19,000-seat arena — the centerpiece of developer Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards mega-project (which includes a proposed apartment building next door to Domansky’s) — opens for concerts and Nets games this fall.

The arena will only have parking spaces for 1,100 cars, but an estimated 3,000 cars and 80 trucks will visit the site before and after basketball games, according to an environmental impact statement for the project.

In November, City Council approved a controversial plan to sell parking permits to neighborhood residents. But the proposal stalled in the state Senate, where Republican leaders say they won’t sign off on the program because it amounts to a tax on something that has always been free.

Councilwoman Letitia James (D–Fort Greene), who backed the plan, said Domansky’s project would set a dangerous precedent.

“Parking is going to be important once the arena opens,” James said. “I would hope that he reconsiders his position.”

Domansky applied to the city’s obscure but powerful Board of Standards and Appeals to forego the parking requirement at his building, according to, which broke the story.

He said he plans to start construction in August and open the tower in 2014.

Reach reporter Daniel Bush at or by calling (718) 260-8310. Follow him at
Updated 5:30 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Eric McClure from Park Slope says:
Mr. Domansky is right. Providing off-street parking will only beget more cars. If some residents do want to have cars, the minimal added competition from those residents for free on-street parking will only serve to convince people on the fence about owning a car to give theirs up.
Feb. 23, 2012, 6:03 am
mike from GP says:
“Getting people to take mass transit is a good thing,” said Richard Goldstein, the president of the Carlton Avenue Block Association. “But not having a parking facility at the site will exacerbate the parking problem in the neighborhood.”

Goldstein is wrong. Parking lots make traffic congestion worse, not better, since they generate car trips. If some residents are concerned about not having the ability to park, they should support the introduction of the DoT's ParkSmart program instead.
Feb. 23, 2012, 7:43 am
D from Brooklyn says:
Plenty of people are moving to Brooklyn precisely because it's possible to get around easily by subway, bus, and bike. There are also plenty of Zipcar lots in the area, allowing people to rent a car for bigger trips.

I guarantee you that this building will sell out in no time and not a single person who moves there will be concerned about the lack of parking. All they need to do is look at the existing traffic in the area to realize that driving just isn't worth it 99% of the time.

We need more building developers to apply for this variance.
Feb. 23, 2012, 8:48 am
liam from kensington says:
Requiring parking is one of the worst requirements on the books. It does encourage driving and car ownership in a neighborhood that is incredibly well served by alternate transit options - a host of subway lines, bike lanes and bus routes. It also leads to buildings like the ones on 4th Avenue where the parking garage ends up eating up retail space. Requiring parking subsidizes driving and the city should have no part in that, since it's the least efficient way to move people/goods.

Mr. Goldstein fails to realize that the difficulty of parking itself limits the number of people who want to drive, and it is a self-regulating mechanism: if parking becomes too much of a pain people stop trying to own cars; if you create more parking more people will buy cars, creating more traffic, which will eventually get bad enough that people stop trying to own cars. Adding capacity just increases congestion in the long run; it's been very well documented.
Feb. 23, 2012, 8:51 am
Nick from Park slope says:
You are all crazy. People will bring their cars regardless of parking spaces and it WILL clog the streets. The barclay's center's lack of parking is a case in point. Everyone knows there will be a huge influx of cars despite very limited parking. This is 2012 and people have cars even despite MTA's lovely service. I take the subway to work every day, yet I still have a car that I used for travel other than routine commuting.
Feb. 23, 2012, 9:20 am
Jacob from Clinton Hill says:
Requiring parking to ease parking demand is like loosening your belt to combat obesity. The solution to difficulty parking is not to increase supply, it is to decrease demand. This can be achieved through policies like Residential Parking Permits, where the city actually charges for the privilege of storing private property (cars) on precious public space (the street).
Feb. 23, 2012, 9:22 am
Charles from Bklyn says:
Special treatment for rich and connected developers, but the middle class always has to abide by the laws and rules. Sound familiar? (Atlantic Yards). This project is a disgrace to American democracy and fairness. Thanks goes out especially to the mayor, the borough president, eminent domain lovers and all the insiders who will reap the rewards drawn and taken directly from the former wealth of the middle class in this area. Pathetic, people; they are sitting in their offices laughing at you!!!

And to the people above discussing the issue of parking spots, stop being tools and get some perspective in life. This is not about parking spots.
Feb. 23, 2012, 9:30 am
P from Brooklyn says:
I applaud Mr. Domansky's forward thinking on this issue, and wish more developers would take his lead. This development is blocks from one of the largest transit hubs in the city, and that will be more of an attraction to prospective tenants than easy parking.

Mr. Goldstein and Councilmember James concerns here are based on outdated thinking and flawed assumptions. If anyone is actually interested in the real economics of subsidized parking, I highly encourage reading the work of UCLA professor Dr. Donald Shoup.
Feb. 23, 2012, 9:44 am
Dave from Park Slope says:
So, Nick, what you're saying is most of the time, your car is in free storage on the public streets, sitting there unused? You should have nothing to worry about, then.
Feb. 23, 2012, 9:48 am
Exhaust-ed from Brooklyn says:
It amazing to me that at one place $1,000 per square foot is the price to occupy a space (a condo), but just 5 feet away, aka the curb it must be free or close to free. The sense of entitlement of the public realm by car owners is a little ridiculous.
Feb. 23, 2012, 9:51 am
Kevin from Flatbush says:
Are the people who made the EIS which concludes that 3,000 vehicles will travel to the Barclays Center the same people who decided all the parking was needed by the new Yankee Stadium? Because they weren't exactly right about that prediction - those garages are 50% empty on game days and completely empty the other 283 days a year. People want to take the train so they can enjoy those $13 beers! Also, Yankee stadium has much less extensive transit connections than the Barclay's Center. The vast majority of people will arrive by train and subway as thy do at MSG.

Parking minimums should be eliminated city wide. It drives up the cost of housing which is already too expensive. Certainly anywhere within 1/2 mile of a subway stop. The Barclays Center is directly above what, 8 subway lines and only 2 blocks from 3 more lines.
Feb. 23, 2012, 9:53 am
Scott from Park Slope says:
It's a little hard to say for sure either way. What will the fan base of the Brooklyn Nets look like? Will it consist mainly of people who live in the area (Clinton Hill, Prospect Heights, Boerum Hill, Park Slope, etc?) or will it be a predominantly suburban crowd?

If the former, the developer is correct because the area is saturated with mass transit options and the people in the area know and are used to that. If the latter, there will be at least a couple years before suburban Nets fans learn that driving in to see games makes no sense when they see the traffic they have to fight through to get there; in the meantime, the lack of parking and increasing competition for the few street spots will be pure misery for current residents. And the effect will ripple across Brooklyn as people next to the arena have to park a few blocks over, and then those people have to park a few blocks over, and so on.

Either way, traffic on Flatbush and Atlantic is about to get exponentially worse, either from a greater number of cars generated by games or a greater number of pedestrians meandering across intersections, tipsy after too many beers at the game. Any cars that are parked on the street will be vandalized and urinated or vomited on. It's going to be a crazy couple of years until equilibrium is re-established. Hang on.
Feb. 23, 2012, 10:22 am
MRB from Fort Greene says:
Some residents may continue to drive. But considering you've got Atlantic-Pacific right there, MANY (I'd wager 75%) will rid themselves of their cars or find private garage parking offsite.

The availability of parking will not be unconsidered when people purchase units - I suspect most people will purchase here BECAUSE they can get rid of their cars.
Feb. 23, 2012, 10:32 am
common sense from bay ridge says:
Just as those who have driven to Yankee Stadium know how miserable of an experience it is, and wish to avoid doing again, not many people will drive to the Barclays Center twice.

Also, the trick is drink cheaper beer before and after, and nurse that $13 beer while at the game.
Feb. 23, 2012, 10:40 am
Kevin from Flatbush says:
@ Common sense -
or go to a Mets game.... but that is an entirely different sort of misery.
Feb. 23, 2012, 10:49 am
Jack from Jersey City says:
When people say they want more parking, what they really mean is they want more FREE parking. Maybe the solution is to start charging hourly rates for street parking, and suddenly see how ridiculous it is to claim there is a parking shortage.
Feb. 23, 2012, 11:20 am
Paco from Cobble Hill says:
Where there is free parking, there are cars. Where you pay for your space like any other piece of real estate, there is rationality.

I'm surprised that councilmember Tish James, such a strong proponent of safe streets, would be favoring more cars coming in to further clog our streets.
Feb. 23, 2012, 11:45 am
Scott from Park Slope says:
Free street parking doesn't really benefit the rich, since they will choose the expensive convenience of parking garages and designated spaces over the catch-as-catch-can of alternate side parking the middle class and poor contend with. So limiting on-street parking only affects the poor and middle class.

In a city with such excellent public transportation, it's reasonable to ask why anyone would need a car at all. The answer is children, the elderly, and the handicapped. Try once taking two children on mass transit and you'll know how difficult that is; children require diapers, snacks, toys, and other accessories. They require strollers. Try to pack that along on buses, or worse yet, subways, and you'll realize that's not much of an option. Same with the elderly, or the handicapped.

It's true that many people who don't fit into those three categories don't take mass transit because it is too easy to drive. They ought to take the bus or subway.

But stating that all cars are in all circumstances unnecessary ignores the many reasons why and how people travel. Would all drivers in Brooklyn love to have a designated parking space so they could park with confidence 100% of the time and not worry about tickets and not occupy street space? Yes, I'm sure they would. Can they? No. Should only the 1% have the freedom to come and go as they please at all? Well, I'm sure the few 1% who view this paper would say so, but most of the rest would differ.
Feb. 23, 2012, 5:27 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Keep in mind that the AY complex was rushed through to get approval. Any requests for a thorough review were usually denied. Many of those who have asked for more stuides were constantly shouted down by Ratner's paid supporters, and were treated as if we were against developement. Putting a project like this in a densely populated area, will lead to such consequences of making traffic and parking worse, though that was already an issue even before. Seriously, who in the right mind would want to place an arena near the borough's most busiest intersection? As Tish James said over at the Klitgord Auditorium back in 2006 at that hearing, "This project isn't transit oriented, it's traffic oriented."
Feb. 23, 2012, 6:48 pm
Gr from Slope says:
Scott, I have kids and no car. I manage to do everything you say just fine. I take my kids on subways and buses all over the place.

Saying that a car is necessary for the elderly, handicapped, and anyone with children is just as ignorant as anyone who says that a car is never necessary for anyone. Millions of elderly New Yorkers, as well as the handicapped and people with children, do not have cars. Somehow they manage.
Feb. 23, 2012, 9:37 pm
scott from park slope says:
GR: then you must not have small kids who can't walk. Nobody has more than 2 arms. Saying you're able to juggle multiple toddlers plus bags plus strollers you have to fold up and muscle onto crowded buses and subway cars while not losing any of the little ones, and do that by yourself...well, I just don't believe you.

As far as the elderly and handicapped go, saying they can get around on public transportation just fine speaks more to the conceit of someone who has two good legs and is fit enough to climb many sets of stairs without a thought.

Maybe there are cases where having a car, even in the city, makes so much more sense than the circumstances that intersect with your personal daily experience; and those cases have nothing to do with climate denial or gung-ho antidiluvian pro-car attitudes.

I am an avid cyclist, outdoorsman, pedestrian, and public transit booster. I was quite disappointed when the trolley revival in Red Hook fizzled. I am a staunch proponent of the PPW bike lane and supporter of Straphangers and Transalt. But for some cases cars still work best. And if that were not so then there would be no such thing as Zipcars.
Feb. 24, 2012, 9:16 am
trans alt from my bike says:
Yes Scott, only the super rich should have cars in NYC, and they should pay dearly for it.
Feb. 24, 2012, 9:33 am
Gr from Slope says:
I have a 2 year old and a 6 month old.

Please speak for yourself and only for yourself.

I didn't say they can get around "fine," but I did say they manage. Plenty of stations are not handicap accessible, which is a terrible shame. But it does not then follow that that results in the handicapped or elderly getting in cars. Some do, some don't. Most, in fact.

There's no one-size-fits-all solution.
Feb. 24, 2012, 9:47 am
ty from pps says:
There were elderly and children in this city long before there were cars.

I'm not saying the world hasn't changed... in fact I'm saying the exact opposite. We have clearly become dependent on something that wasn't even common in this town until 60 years ago. It's worth looking at OTHER solutions to transportation and so on... not always always always starting with the premise that cars are the primary answer to any difficulty.

Do cars fill a gap in the modern urban environment? Absolutely. It would be crazy to think we could surround the city with a car-free wall. But the *current* gap in transportation infrastructure is much wider than cars can fill. We need a more comprehensive approach so cars are NOT the answer.
Feb. 24, 2012, 10:17 am
Scott from Park Slope says:
GR: I have a 3yr old and 18 mo. old. If you claim that packing them up and down stairs in the subway with their bags and with strollers plus your own bags is easier than putting them in a car at street level is easier or better, then you're either lying, a masochist, an extremist, or all 3. Neither is the bus much of an option when it's standing room only. Whip those kids onto the bus, between standing adults, fold up the stroller, then manipulate your bags onboard too and shepherd them with your feet to make sure they don't impede anyone else's movement. Again I say, you can't claim on any level of reason that that is better for yourself or for the rest of the travelling public than discretely packing them into a car and going where you need to.

If the MTA, in particular the subway, were fully handicapped accessible, with elevators at every stop, then I'd agree with you: no need for cars. But it's not. It's just not.

If your personal travel points are handicapped accessible such that you don't face the challenges every one else does, then great. If you don't regularly travel more than 2 blocks from your elevator accessible condo, congratulations. If you are healthy enough and fit enough to pack 60 lbs of kids bags up and down any number of flights of stairs, then good for you. But beware extrapolating your personal conveniences or advantages into a blanket prohibition on those who don't share them.

Please speak for yourself and only for yourself.
Feb. 24, 2012, 11:53 am
Scott from Park Slope says:
Ty: I agree with you. Our transportation needs have evolved, and the means to respond to them have not kept pace. Big Oil and Detroit have conspired to make it so. For example, we need a better way to move cargo around that does not require Semis. We need to improve public transportation to absorb more commuter and casual traffic. Cycling is an excellent solution to part of that question. NYC could look a lot more like Amsterdam's cycling scene and it would be better for it. And most people who drive into NYC do not really need to; there are plenty of light rail and mass transit options they could and should avail themselves of.

But even with all that ceded and duly considered, there remains a niche for the family car. Driving has been far too privileged in transportation infrastructure planning. That is clear. But until we build a public transportation network that accommodates every use-case, then we need roads.

For the young, healthy, and ideologically driven, the status quo is fine and dandy. For others, driving works better. Traffic should be calmed. Speeds should be reduced. EVs and hybrids should be given priority over heavily polluting vehicles. But roads and private vehicles still play a role, and we should look at that clear-eyed instead of through agenda-filtered glasses.
Feb. 24, 2012, 12:13 pm
Gr from Slope says:
Scott, I am not claiming that one or the other is easier. "Easier" is relative. I am saying that plenty of people in NYC simply have no choice but to do it. I can not afford a car, so relying on public transit to get around, even with two small kids, is a necessity. I am sure I'm not alone. 54% of New Yorkers do not own cars. Are all of them singles without kids?

Nothing is absolute. Yes, it's sometimes easier to pack the kids into a car and load up the trunk with strollers, groceries and a day's worth of shopping. But then again, parking is a pain, especially compared with taking a bus almost directly to my destination, getting off, and then turning around and coming home.

It is also not "easy" for me to spend hundreds each month on gas, maintenance, insurance, etc.

Plenty of people raise families in NYC and in cities around the globe where driving is either not easy or simply not desirable.

I am not extrapolating my personal experiences onto everyone else. I am saying what works for me, although I am sure there are others who do the same for many reasons.

But when you say that I must be lying or a masochist, aren't you really the one who is extrapolating your personal experience onto everyone else?

Also, the fact that I rely on the subway and bus is most certainly better for the rest of the traveling public. Although I use Zipcar for big trips, the last thing NYC needs is another family driving everywhere all the time. There is nothing discrete about driving here or in any city.
Feb. 24, 2012, 12:59 pm
ty from pps says:
Scott -- That's why a new apartment building ADJACENT to a large public transportation hub DOES NOT NEED PARKING. Folks will choose where they live based on what they need. The people have needs, not the building.

Do you not think they'll find tenants/owners because there's no private parking?

Wouldn't two Zip Cars within a block fill the needs of most folks that need a car once in a while? And the myriad rental agencies for longer needs? And taxis and black cars for a return trip from the supermarket or wherever?

Not everyone has a need to own their own car. Not everyone wants to own their own car. Why build a building with parking if it's not necessary or wanted?
Feb. 24, 2012, 1:20 pm
Michael from NYC says:
In this case the developer is in the right. This is a very central location with many transportation hubs with a couple blocks.
Feb. 24, 2012, 1:28 pm
Scott from Park Slope says:
Ty: You are entirely right. Not everyone needs to own their own car. Zipcar can suit those who occasionally do need a car. People who can afford the rents/mortgage in residential highrises near Atlantic Yards can really afford to do whatever they want for transportation.

Then, there's the rest of us. Between those who can afford choppers to pick them up from rooftop decks and those who can't afford to do anything but take the bus or subway, there are still legitimate reasons to own family cars, even in Brooklyn, even in the vicinity of Atlantic Yards.

Whether it makes sense for this particular development to provide parking or not is not certain; if Nets fans turn out to be mostly those who live in the neighborhood and who generally take MTA anyway, then no, it does not make sense to provide parking. If Nets fans tend to be those from Bay Ridge, East New York, or the suburbs and who will not take public transportation no matter how good it is, then providing parking will take some pressure off the area's parking dilemma.

But truth be told, neither nay or yay on parking in this development will make much difference in the end. The Barclays Center is about to magnify the already egregious traffic and bring all kinds of noise and activity that area residents are scant prepared for.

That said, it is not accurate or measured to claim that there is absolutely no case *whatsoever* for anyone in NYC to own a car, ever. There most certainly is. And that's even so for those who are eco-warriors and boosters of transportation alternatives.
Feb. 24, 2012, 2:28 pm
Scott from Park Slope says:
GR: OK, that's forthright: you can't afford a car. No, it's not hundreds of dollars every month, even with New York license fees, gas taxes, insurance premiums, etc. But I hear you--it might still be beyond your means. If you could, though, put your kids in the car in front of your building and drive them to visit family in under 1 hour vs. considerable physical exertion, toil, and 2 hours extra travel time each way, I wager you'd feel a bit differently about the utility of cars in certain cases.

It is true that many people in NYC (still) and around the globe get by without cars. It's also true that many people live within walking distance of their families and never leave their neighborhoods. That is not, however, the reality for more and more Americans in our mobile age. Unless you opt to never see your family because you *refuse* to drive, then there just might be a reason to do so.

As for what's better for the rest of the travelling public, I'd suggest taking a snap poll of how many of your fellow transportation riders are thrilled you bring your kids and their equipment onto the bus/subway. Or, maybe, notice their glares.

Please consider that there are legitimate times and situations for some of your neighbors to own and use cars. They must use them safely and responsibly; they ought to prefer non-car alternatives when they can.

But saying that because you personally can't or won't that no one else ought to be allowed to is an absolute statement that does not stand up to reality.
Feb. 24, 2012, 2:43 pm
Scott from Park Slope says:
GR: OK, that's forthright: you can't afford a car. No, it's not hundreds of dollars every month, even with New York license fees, gas taxes, insurance premiums, etc. But I hear you--it might still be beyond your means. If you could, though, put your kids in the car in front of your building and drive them to visit family in under 1 hour vs. considerable physical exertion, toil, and 2 hours extra travel time each way, I wager you'd feel a bit differently about the utility of cars in certain cases.

It is true that many people in NYC (still) and around the globe get by without cars. It's also true that many people live within walking distance of their families and never leave their neighborhoods. That is not, however, the reality for more and more Americans in our mobile age. Unless you opt to never see your family because you *refuse* to drive, then there just might be a reason to do so.

As for what's better for the rest of the travelling public, I'd suggest taking a snap poll of how many of your fellow transportation riders are thrilled you bring your kids and their equipment onto the bus/subway. Or, maybe, notice their glares.

Please consider that there are legitimate times and situations for some of your neighbors to own and use cars. They must use them safely and responsibly; they ought to prefer non-car alternatives when they can.

But saying that because you personally can't or won't that no one else ought to be allowed to is an absolute statement that does not stand up to reality.
Feb. 24, 2012, 2:43 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
As much as some of you hate those that drive cars, there is still a group that needs them no matter what. Some of us live in areas where transportation is almost impossible to get unless your daily schedule goes with it. Like the WNBA, it's not disappearing anytime soon. Unfortunately, it's not cheap to live in areas with good transportation as much as I would like to live there. BTW, I have advocated for affordable housing or at least affordable rents near transit hubs, but realtors will make sure that never happens. The claim about building residential property with parking premiums is throughout the entire city, but this is only for what's residential, not commercial, and the parking can only be for residents living there, so it's not for the public to use. In other words, there have been a lot of residential projects that have included parking in them. The only other acception is for hotels as long as it's for the guests only. The only garages and lots commercial developement can give is for loading docks only. However, when you bring up the AY especially with a new arena, there will always be those going to games that will drive even with the transportation that is there. I know this especially when being on the Major Deegan Expwy whenever there is a Yankees game there and the traffic is packed on both sides.
Feb. 24, 2012, 4:13 pm
Mike says:
Because it's *so* relevant what someone from the suburbs thinks about how easy or hard it is to get around Brooklyn without a car.
Feb. 24, 2012, 4:26 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
For the record, I was never for the project, I was always against, and I still am right now. I have been at that intersection, and it's bad already without it being completed. The transit hub there is no better. Norman Oder, who writes the AYR, says that taking it at peak hours is already tight as it is right now, and with this project, it will be even worse after. In reality, this project just brings in more water to those that are already drowing in the amount that is already there, which is how I picture it. On the experience of going to sporting events, I know a lot of places in this area where many will still drive despite the available transportation. Perhaps some of you can explain why MSG has taxi stands on both avenues despite the fact that beneath it is a major transit and rail hub below. Again, traffic was always an issue since Ratner first brought up this project, and that continues to be the issue now.
Feb. 24, 2012, 4:38 pm
trans alt from my bike says:
Like the WNBA, Tal Barzilai from PLEANSTVILLE is irrelevant.
Feb. 24, 2012, 4:42 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
The usual downplaying by the bike zealots. The only thing you and your Streetsblogger friends hate about this project is the traffic, but anything else, you support it all the way. There is a reason why many professional sports facilities were built near major highways after the postwar era, though some even earlier. The reason for that was to keep traffic residual to only that place rather than having it spread out through neighborhoods, which is what this will cause. Last time I checked, this location was 20 blocks in from either the Atlantic or Flatbush Avenue exits from the BQE, so I can imagine long lines and residents there complaining that it will be a nightmare in that area after that arena is completed. Again, if the traffic in that area is bad now, it will just get worse.
Feb. 24, 2012, 6:18 pm
ty from pps says:
Tal -- Are you trying to embarrass yourself?
Feb. 24, 2012, 6:33 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Ty, you were actually describing yourself when you said that.
Feb. 24, 2012, 9:26 pm
old time brooklyn from slope says:
you want a car - it is your right and not up to some candy a ssed hipster to tell you how to live - i will drive and park where i want and when i want -if peoples were still using a horse and buggy these cooler then thou's would be getting undies in a not over horse poop. want a bike get a Harley
Feb. 25, 2012, 9:39 am
trans alt from my bike says:
We will tell you how to live, you just wont realize it until you have no place to park your pollution spewing car.
Feb. 25, 2012, 10:34 am
old time brooklyn from slope says:
i love a good gas guzzler and lots of money is made from hot bikes - you can tell me all you want but i will still blow smoke in your face lol
Feb. 25, 2012, 11:34 am
ty from pps says:
old time brooklyn -- Actually horse poop was a HUGE problem.

Don't be so narrow-minded.
Feb. 25, 2012, 11:47 am
trans alt from my bike says:
You will be blowing smoke (pollution) in my face as you are driving back to Long Island, where you can actually park your gas guzzler. After your $200 trip to the gas station.

Motorcycles are fine by me.
Feb. 25, 2012, 12:59 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
For the record, I don't drive a gas guzzler, I drive a compact car, so you just got debunked there. I actually do hate gas guzzlers myself, and see no need for them. Nevertheless, this project will make the traffic in this area a lot worse as if it wasn't bad already. It was very unfortunate that Ratner and the ESDC were able to push this project through without ever getting any actual reviews despite all the concerns against it. Even worse, this is an area that is NOT even close to a major highway, so the traffic will NOT be residual to just that area.
Feb. 25, 2012, 9:31 pm
ty from pps says:
Tal -- This need to be near a highway is a RIDICULOUS position. This location is akin to the location of Madison Square Garden.
Feb. 25, 2012, 9:58 pm
Greg from Park Slope says:
It's the same on 4th ave with all those new 12 story high rises with no parking. These people bring their cars from all over. Check out the license plates from FL, OH, CA, et al. And look at the traffic now without a game/event going on. It's already out of control
Feb. 26, 2012, 10:57 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Ty, just about every professional sports facility is located near major highways. Just look at NYC area alone. Your statement on it being akin to MSG is false. MSG is actually just a few blocks in from the West Side Highway and right by the Lincoln Tunnel. However, this is the only one in the city that was never built with its own parking except mostly for players and coaches, though they could be using a nearby garage for that. Meanwhile, the new Yankee Stadium is by the Major Deegan Expwy while Citifield sits in between the LIE, GCP, and Van Wyck Expwy. Going out of the city, Nassau Coliseum is between the Southern State Pkwy and the LIE while being off the Meadowbrook Pkwy. Going over to NJ, there is a sports complex where Metlife Stadium is and it's right off the NJ Tpk. Even some of the newly built places are off of or near highways. Red Bull Arena is right off the I-280, and Prudential Center is right by the McCarthy Highway, which can both be easily accessed from the NJ Tpk or even the Phillpsburgh-Newark Expwy when using the Holland Tunnel. If you don't believe me, just look at the on Google Maps. This isn't the just the case here, many other cities in this country are doing the same by having them near major highways as well, and just look at them on Google Maps if you still don't believe me.
Feb. 26, 2012, 11:27 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
One other thing, I did hear that the NBA Board of Governors will need to vote on the Nets moving to Brooklyn in April. If a good number of them go against it, they may actually kill the move. I really hope that will happen, but that's probably right now the only chances to end this nightmare. Perhaps a protest outside their office can convince them to go against it. Then again, to some like Ratner, if you don't succeed, you can always try again the next time it comes up.
Feb. 26, 2012, 11:30 am
ty from pps says:
So dumb. MOST people in NYC don't have a car! Let me repeat.... MOST PEOPLE IN NYC DON'T HAVE A CAR.

Do you think everyone is driving to Madison Square Garden? Really? I went to a Ranger game last week... and guess what? I joined MOST of the game-goers on the SUBWAY after the game.

Do you think everyone is driving to Lincoln Center?

Do you think everyone is driving period?!

Tal -- You are so outdated in your thinking and a symptom of "car culture" that is incompatible with a city of 8 million people. Why is the Yankees stadium parking garage not full (and not even close to it) on game days if driving is soooooooooo important? Guess what? People get there by train (subway and commuter rail) and bus.

How will MOST people get to Barclay's Arena? BY SUBWAY and BUS!

If there was a BETTER way to get to a Jets or Giants game than driving, wouldn't more people avoid driving? The answer is YES. But I know you'll disagree based on your crusty braincells that refuse to accept a different paradigm.

Yes -- you should go protest in front of the NBA offices. Keep you out of trouble.
Feb. 26, 2012, 11:53 am
old time brooklyn from slope says:
still in the slope and living in a cousins buining dirt cheap (he makes a fortune off the transplants from cup of coffee, idaho - most of the brooklyn peeps who own properry in the slope laugh all the way to the bank - so longuyland is not an optyion (lli is a circle of hell) - driv 'em if you got 'em . mazel tov
Feb. 26, 2012, 12:56 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Ty, even with transportation available, there are still a group of people who drive to sporting events. We cannot take that out of the equation. I am not arguing that most in NYC don't have a car, but that doesn't mean that they all don't, because there are those that live in areas where mass transit isn't available for them. It's good if you can find other ways to get to games, but that's not always the case for everyone else. My claim in an earlier comment on what's allowed in property with reguards to zoning is true, because in just Manhattan, while parking garages are no longer allowed to be included in commerical property unless it's for loading docks only, they can still be in residential property and hotels as long as they are private only. Still, this arena will negitively impact this area by making the traffic worse, and that was proven through independent studies where the ESDC never bothered to do prior to approving.
Feb. 26, 2012, 2 pm
ty from pps says:
Well, it sucks to "have to" drive through this area then... sucks to be you too, Tal.
Feb. 26, 2012, 3:35 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
I would love to see you answer this question. If Yankee Stadium has three subway lines and a commuter rail stop, then why is the Major Deegan in both directions always nighmare whenever they have games there? Why aren't these people just taking those instead of driving? The same goes for the traffic around Citifield despite having both a subway and commuter rail stop as well. BTW, the reason must of the studies were done indepently was because the ESDC was rushing to get it rubber stamped, which meant ignoring actual reviews.
Feb. 26, 2012, 5:24 pm
ty from pps says:
We'll see Tal. We'll see. I hope Barclay's Center is a HUGE success AND I hope traffic in that area is totally clogged with all of the idiots that "need" too drive there.
Feb. 26, 2012, 7:12 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
I highly doubt that. For decades, Brooklyn has rooted for the Knicks, and they didn't even root for the Nets when they were a NY team durring their ABA years. For the most part, fans will not convert to the Nets just because they move there, and I am just talking about Brooklyn here. Unless the team actually plays better, their seaons and attendance will be no different than before they move, and just look at the Grizzlies and Hornets after moving, because the Nets will probably go that way, and even Dwight Howard can't help them there. Nevertheless, the claim that it will be a benefit for the area has been proven false countless times by Neil de Mause, the author of Field of Schemes. I'm not wishing the worst here, I'm just being realistic, because this is not the movie Field of Dreams, where he got his title from.
Feb. 26, 2012, 8:43 pm
ty from pps says:

Tal -- I hope you're right! I hope the Nets fail in their new home and move to Arizona or Nebraska. I hope they can't rent the arena for any other events. Hopefully it will be an empty shell. If we're all lucky, the rest of the site will be a stalled construction zone full of rats, gangs and children getting tetanus from rusty metal.

If all that happens, we won't have to worry about traffic! Cars will be able to fill the streets and drive all over the place. Right?
Feb. 26, 2012, 9:06 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Ty, my opposition to this arena is mainly because it's a product of both eminent domain abuse and corporate welfare. Those alone are a reason to oppose it. Still, I find it a bad idea to even place something like this where the traffic is already bad right now.
Feb. 27, 2012, 3:31 pm
Lindus from Prospect Heights says:
I have now lived in New York/Brooklyn for over a decade and a half and have never had to own a car to get around. The area that is mentioned has at least 2 indoor parking garages just a block away and many more inside a 5 block radius. If someone absolutely want a car nobody is going to prevent them but in the area it is practically unnecessary as all they need is available inside walking distance.
Feb. 27, 2012, 4:16 pm

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: