Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This comment does a good job summing up some of the thinking behind the rink.
No doubt everyone would like to hear more from KNIC about where they are at with raising the capital they need to proceed. I was frustrated when the KNIC rep, John Neary did not give any more info at the meeting last night at Monroe College. But the willful ignorance on display in this editorial is really appalling. This sentence in particular is just absurd:
"When there was not enough demand for a single, seasonal ice rink in Kingsbridge, it is ludicrous to build a massive facility with nine rinks in another part of the neighborhood.
To pretend that a plan to build the largest ice center in the world has anything to do with current local residents' interest in ice sport is absurd. The KNIC center is not "they are here, let's build it" -- it is about "if we build it they will come." Of course we local residents can participate in in ice sports if we chose, but they are not building it because there is existing interest. They are building because professional and amateur ice sports at the highest level throughout the world need such a center. Universities, high schools and other ice sport clubs in the greater metropolitan region are in desperate need of ice time and are traveling great distances to come. KNIC has connections to the Rangers and the new women's professional hockey team -- the Riveters. The Rangers currently practice in Westchester -- seems likely they could move to the Bronx if the facility is world class. I'm guessing the Riveters could move their whole operation to KNIC. The best amateur skaters in the world may choose to move to NYC if a world class facility is here for training. Regardless -- major ice skating events will certainly happen in such facility. These and hundreds of other opportunities is what makes the ice portion of the plan work -- not how many people in the Bronx want to skate.
That being said -- once such a facility is here, no doubt kids growing up in the Bronx will be more likely to compete in ice sports. We have every reason to expect that 10-20 years down the road and NHL MVP or a medalist at the Winter Olympics will be a Bronxite.
The most immediate impact locally is not primarily related to ice sports, though the plan does include excellent programs for youth. The most immediate impact is the historic community benefit agreement. 52,000 square feet and $8 million to build out that space for community needs. This is huge. All these other ideas you think might be better could easily be housed in some of this space. The CBA has the enforceable mechanisms in place to make these ideas real -- if they are what the community supports.
Even still, they should put this somewhere else. NYC already has plenty of things that draw people here. We dont need more ice sports attractions really.
THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING THIS OUT OF VANITY.
I mean seriously why stick this here if you intend is to build something to attract people? Why you need it in NYC. If the center is in and of itself going to bring people in, then you can put it anywhere.
That kind of depends on which part of midtown or lower Manhattan you're talking about. It's approx 30 mins to Union Square and 40 minutes to the stock exchange area.
No way is it that fast. I'm in the south bronx and it takes me at least 30 minutes to union square. On a bad day during rush hour when there is train traffic then its a lot longer.
Manhattan was not that expensive in the 90s. And I believe it was chinese americans buying in the Little Italy. Same with Flushing.
The Chinese did not start gentrification. It was Sex in the City. The Chinese from China see this, and are just following the trend.
Sex and the City did not start gentrification. The federal government in the 90s gave companies huge tax credits if they would invest in DECAYED urban areas. That started gentrification and it was BEFORE Sex in the City.
Manhattan was not that expensive in the 90s. And I believe it was chinese americans buying in the Little Italy. Same with Flushing.
The Chinese did not start gentrification. It was Sex in the City. The Chinese from China see this, and are just following the trend.
This is totally wrong. Gentrification in NYC has been going for nearly 50 years my friend. Sex and the City came out almost 35 years later when NYC started to gentrify. By time the release of Sex and the City in the late 90s, the Village was already gentrified out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
Sex and the City did not start gentrification. The federal government in the 90s gave companies huge tax credits if they would invest in DECAYED urban areas. That started gentrification and it was BEFORE Sex in the City.
Federal government helped expand gentrification in the 90s. This was under the Clinton administration if I remember who pushed urban initiatives. Gentrification in NYC happened before this though. There was a man who spoke about the East Village in the 60s about how young folks bought town houses, art gallaries and wine shops. The area used to be Italian, but Italians moved to the burbs. Mainly suburban whites moved into the area. This was in the 1960s.
This is totally wrong. Gentrification in NYC has been going for nearly 50 years my friend. Sex and the City came out almost 35 years later when NYC started to gentrify. By time the release of Sex and the City in the late 90s, the Village was already gentrified out.
Federal government helped expand gentrification in the 90s. This was under the Clinton administration if I remember who pushed urban initiatives. Gentrification in NYC happened before this though. There was a man who spoke about the East Village in the 60s about how young folks bought town houses, art gallaries and wine shops. The area used to be Italian, but Italians moved to the burbs. Mainly suburban whites moved into the area. This was in the 1960s.
Well to be technical midtown once had a lot of poor people in it (including African Americans). They moved them out to put in all the office buildings. So gentrification and development has been an issue for many decades, but this latest round accelerated since the Clinton initiatives.
No way is it that fast. I'm in the south bronx and it takes me at least 30 minutes to union square. On a bad day during rush hour when there is train traffic then its a lot longer.
No way is it that fast. I'm in the south bronx and it takes me at least 30 minutes to union square. On a bad day during rush hour when there is train traffic then its a lot longer.
It takes 2 minutes to get to 125th, than an additional 5 minutes to get to 86 Street, than another additional 5 minutes to get to 59th, 4 minutes to get to 42nd Street grand central, additional 6 minutes to get to 14 Union square, 6 minutes to get to Brooklyn Bridge city hall. This is what I recorded one time. About 30 minutes to get to bowling Green. This was on the 4 or 5 train leaving 138 grand Concourse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
