![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area page were merged into Pacific Park, Brooklyn. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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)
I tagged for cleanup:
These are just a couple of my thoughts for now. Take care. -- Howrealisreal 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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).
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)
Much of this article comes across as biased in favor of the project's opponents. I just removed 8 or so citations to a major opposition blog, which were used as references for this article in violation of WP:BLOGS, not to mention WP:NPOV. As others have stated on this talk page, there is a lot of material about the problems and controversy with this project, but not much about the details of the project itself. This appears to be a consequence of POV editing. Much of the controversy is indeed notable, and its discussion needs to stay. However, the language needs to be toned down in places, and equal attention should be given to the pro-construction side. Describing the features of the project in detail could fulfill some of this balancing function. DarwinPeacock ( talk) 07:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Pacific Park, Brooklyn. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The page says that a lawyer named Matthew Brinckerhoff is involved in a case about Pacific Park. The lawyer's name is actually spelled Matthew Brinckerhoff [1].
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area page were merged into Pacific Park, Brooklyn. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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)
I tagged for cleanup:
These are just a couple of my thoughts for now. Take care. -- Howrealisreal 21:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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).
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)
Much of this article comes across as biased in favor of the project's opponents. I just removed 8 or so citations to a major opposition blog, which were used as references for this article in violation of WP:BLOGS, not to mention WP:NPOV. As others have stated on this talk page, there is a lot of material about the problems and controversy with this project, but not much about the details of the project itself. This appears to be a consequence of POV editing. Much of the controversy is indeed notable, and its discussion needs to stay. However, the language needs to be toned down in places, and equal attention should be given to the pro-construction side. Describing the features of the project in detail could fulfill some of this balancing function. DarwinPeacock ( talk) 07:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Pacific Park, Brooklyn. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The page says that a lawyer named Matthew Brinckerhoff is involved in a case about Pacific Park. The lawyer's name is actually spelled Matthew Brinckerhoff [1].