Talk:Atlantic Yards
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
||
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City Public Transportation.
|
Contents |
[edit] Merge
Don't Merge The arena is one element of a more complex project, and deserves its own article, just like there are separate articles for New Jersey Meadowlands, Meadowlands Sports Complex and Giants Stadium. Milchama 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support Don't Merge. The area is approx. 6 times larger than the proposed arena sight. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 00:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Can we get rid of the tag already? There hasn't been much response over this proposed merger. I have significantly edited the Brooklyn Nets Arena article so its about the arena, and not the controversy over the Atlantic Yards (although I left some of that in, although the bulk of it should be on the Atlantic Yards article.) Milchama 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup tag
I tagged for cleanup:
- The lists are too long, there should be a better way to get that information across
- Perhaps there could be better organization of the content
- A lot of content needs to be copyedited (maybe it was cut and pasted?)
- There needs to be a universal references section
These are just a couple of my thoughts for now. Take care. --Howrealisreal 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with this article is that info about the controversy over the project outweighs information about it. More details are needed about how many buildings will be included, how much housing (affordable and not) will be included, and the types of retail that is being targeted for the commercial space. Milchama 17:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Excellent graphic
Today I came across this graphic, which I thought ought to fit well on this page, but didn't see a good place in the text to hang it on. I'm sure we can get permission, but I don't see where it should go on this page. If an editor sees a good place to add it, leave a message on my talk page, and I'll see if I can get it licensed under the GFDL. Cheers, Vectro 16:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Major rewrite / split into multiple articles
I did a major rewrite of the article, but then immediately reverted it realizing how this is a very controversial project. You can see it here. The main points of the rewrite is to change the focus on the article from the public opinion surrounding the project to the actual project itself. I know that the opinions are an important part of the project, but should not be the bulk of the article. I made a new article, Atlantic Yards public opinion, to serve that purpose. I also made an additional article, Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area, about the history of the area, before and during the Atlantic Yards plans were made public. I also think a Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn article should be made, as they have been a major driving force in the public opinion against the project. Looking forward to your opinions on how we should reshape the article. Milchama 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think Atlantic Yards public opinion definitely has enough for its own article. But then I see statements like this from Brooklyn Nets Arena:
Supporters of the project often cite the promise that 50% of the 4,500 apartments will be low-income. A few days after announcing that figure, the number of apartments was raised to 7,300, and the definition of "moderate income" was set at $109,000 per year. The average income in Brooklyn is $35,000, and the number of apartments that will supposedly be available for residents who make less than that will be 900. Of those 900, many of them will not be on the main Atlanitc Yards site, thus segregating the new residents by income. City Councilmember Charles Barron has asserted that the project will be "instant gentrification.
- ...and I'm tempted to put it in the housing section of Atlantic Yards. That's part of the problem - a lot of the plan is still in flux, and public opinion may change with it. (It's easy to tell where my politics lie, ain't it?) Wl219 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- The opinion part of the Nets Arena article can be tackled next. The immediate item to be worked on is certainly this article since it lacked organization and intertwined fact and opinion. I switched it back to my rewrite, but feel free to continue discussion and changes. Milchama 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The "major rewrite" removed much objective information. I have made some quick changes, but the differences need to be closely looked at to arrive at a complete, accurate, objective article. Tommyill 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- As the author of the rewrite, I appreciate your input. As I continue to stress, the article should be about the development, and not about controversy surrounding it. Please continue to make changes and add comments, as long as the article is about the Atlantic Yards, and not the Atlantic Yards Controversy. Milchama 15:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments from BrooklynWiki dated 12/26/06: I did a lot of work on this page, and I came back to it to find that it was basically rewritten by what looks to me like a publicist for the developer. The article now looks like an advertisement for the project. I am a partisan in this fight, and I admit that I think it should not be built, but I have tried to be fair, and the recent edits show no such concerns.
- I did the rewrite, and my goal was not to make it look like an advertisement. In fact, I don't think it is. The article was very sloppy with little organization, with a very strong anti-development slant. The article is about the proposed development. It is not about a fight to keep it from happening (although that is one element of the story of the Atlantic Yards). I just edited it to clearly describe what Ratner plans on putting there, and what land is to be used, including the Vanderbilt Yards and the properties which they want to buy out or use emminent domain on. This article, as I continue to say is about the Atlantic Yards and not the Atlantic Yards Controversy. In the event that the Atlantic Yards isn't built, then the focus of the article could be more about the community groups that stopped it. The article should be about the facts, with opinion taking up only a small percentage of it. Milchama 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It is incorrect to emphasize the 1/3 of the proposed site that is comprised of the railyards. This is consistent with the developer's misrepresentation of the neighborhood. It is more accurate to emphasize the remaining 2/3s of the project area. To overemphaize the smaller part sounds partisan, whether or not that is your intention. Even supporters of the project differ in their representation of the area. I've heard Bertha Lewis describe the area as gentrified and then Stuckey describe it as blighted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.162.229.11 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC).
I don't want to put the name and address of the condo pictured because there has been too much emphasis on this remaining resident's personality. There are other individuals and businesses that are suing the ESDC over their use of eminent domain, but this building is striking both because it was recently renovated (which I believe disproves the developer's argument that the area is blighted) and because the property would sit at center court of the proposed arena, assuming the developer wins the eminent domain case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.162.229.11 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC).
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. If the person who lives there has been making a big deal about losing their building, that should be noted, otherwise, it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Also, proper citation is needed that the particular building, and not the yards is the site of the arena. Milchama 21:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lawsuit section
The lawsuit section is too long, and merely a cut and paste of the legal argument. I think we should have a 1-2 paragraph summary, with a link to an external, neutral site (not DDDB), with the main details. Milchama 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
