1. Ebbets Field Demolition
2. Brooklyn Dodgers Ghosts Of Flatbush Dvd
3. Ghosts Of Flatbush Hbo Sports Show Schedule

He also has produced and directed three films for HBO, including Magic and Bird: A. He produced and directed, Brooklyn Dodgers: The Ghosts of Flatbush, which. As a producer on the news magazine show, Real Sports w/Bryant Gumbel,. Ghosts Of Flatbush Hbo Sports State The Development Hell trope as used in popular culture. The state wherein an announced creative project becomes stuck at the preparation stage for years.

HBO SPORTS WEBSITEBROOKLYN DODGERS: THE GHOSTS OF FLATBUSHRated TVPG:Running Time: 117 minutesGenre: SportsBrooklyn's high-flying Dodgers are the focus of this documentary that examines the heyday and impact of one of baseball's most recognizable teams from 1947 to 1957. From the watershed moment in which Jackie Robinson became the first African American to play in the major leagues, the team set a new standard for integration and became a symbol for a cohesive American culture. But just ten years later, the Dodgers left Ebbets Field behind and relocated to the West Coast, shocking a borough and forever changing the professional sports landscape.

Ebbets Field Demolition

This film explores that history-making period-including the team's epic battles against their archrival Yankees-and features interviews with Rachel Robinson, Duke Snider, Carl Erskine, Clem Labine, Johnny Podres, Peter O'Malley, Larry King, Pat Cooper, Louis Gossett Jr. And many others.

Brooklyn Dodgers Ghosts Of Flatbush Dvd

HBO SPORTS WEBSITEBROOKLYN DODGERS: THE GHOSTS OF FLATBUSHRated TVPG:Running Time: 117 minutesGenre: SportsBrooklyn's high-flying Dodgers are the focus of this documentary that examines the heyday and impact of one of baseball's most recognizable teams from 1947 to 1957. From the watershed moment in which Jackie Robinson became the first African American to play in the major leagues, the team set a new standard for integration and became a symbol for a cohesive American culture. But just ten years later, the Dodgers left Ebbets Field behind and relocated to the West Coast, shocking a borough and forever changing the professional sports landscape. This film explores that history-making period-including the team's epic battles against their archrival Yankees-and features interviews with Rachel Robinson, Duke Snider, Carl Erskine, Clem Labine, Johnny Podres, Peter O'Malley, Larry King, Pat Cooper, Louis Gossett Jr. And many others.

Thank you for sharing that information with US, D6+!Also, welcome to OUR Forum. I always enjoy seeing new members join US. Please feel free to add to any discussion of the thread topic and perhaps share some memories you may have of OUR BROOKLYN DODGERS.c.Thanks, DODGER DEB. This Forum has provided me with priceless info and memories. The popularity of this Forum, compared to the vast majority of Forums on Baseball Fever, speaks volumes of the passion for the Brooklyn Dodgers by people like yourself and many others Keep up the great work. In connection with HBO's two-part documentary, 'Brooklyn Dodgers: The Ghosts of Flatbush', this article, written by Richard Sandomir, appeared in the NYTimes on Friday, June 29th.Comments?c.DODGER DEB, when reading Richard Sandomir's comment that Walter O' Malley loved money ( which is the understatement of the current and previous century), the first thing that came to mind is the irony that a bank currently stands in the spot on Montague St.

Where the Brooklyn Dodgers Offices stood.As for what Ralph Branca mentioned, I clearly disagree with his opinion. The bottom line is no one forced Walter O' Malley to move the Dodgers out of Brooklyn. He made the decision, despite the Dodgers having higher attendance than the vast majority of National League teams year after year.

If O' Malley wanted to pursue an even more lucrative opportunity in baseball, he should have sold the Dodgers to someone willing to keep the team in Brooklyn. Then with part of the money from the sale, purchase a team that wasn't well supported. Moving that team to greener pastures. It's disturbing to say the least that many high profile people have placed the primary blame on the Dodgers moving on others, instead of focusing on O' Malley. DODGER DEB, when reading Richard Sandomir's comment that Walter O' Malley loved money ( which is the understatement of the current and previous century), the first thing that came to mind is the irony that a bank currently stands in the spot on Montague St.

Where the Brooklyn Dodgers Offices stood.As for what Ralph Branca mentioned, I clearly disagree with his opinion. The bottom line is no one forced Walter O' Malley to move the Dodgers out of Brooklyn. He made the decision, despite the Dodgers having higher attendance than the vast majority of National League teams year after year. If O' Malley wanted to pursue an even more lucrative opportunity in baseball, he should have sold the Dodgers to someone willing to keep the team in Brooklyn. Then with part of the money from the sale, purchase a team that wasn't well supported.

Moving that team to greener pastures. MATHA, I agree with you that it's too high a price to pay for having an afternoon of protest against Walter O' Malley. The Baseball HOF would lose all it's credibility if O' Malley was elected to it.Like you expressed in this Forum previously, the moving of the Dodgers out of Brooklyn by O' Malley was the beginning of the end of MLB being the most popular sports league in this country. The NFL began to capture a large part of Baseball's sports market share, especially in 1958 as a result of the epic OT win by the Baltimore Colts over the NY Giants. In this current era, MLB isn't on the same radar screen with the NFL. Especially when it comes to TV Ratings and merchandise sales.Interesting, someone on another internet message board expressed the opinion today that the NFL is much more popular in Cincinnati than MLB.

Whether this is the case or not, the fact that it's even debatable helps sums up the decline of MLB, relative to the MLB. Especially since the history of MLB in Cincinnati dates back to 1869. Denis Hamill, Pete's brother, after having seen The Ghosts of Flatbush at a preview, wrote this review in Sunday's NY Daily News.:applaud::applaud::applaud:Don't forget to watch on Wednesday!c.DODGER DEB, thanks for posting the link to Denis Hamill's article.One small correction from what was written in the article, Walter O' Malley died in 1979, not 1978.After yesterday's Brooklyn Cyclones game against the Jamestown Jammers at Keyspan Park, they showed the 'The Ghosts of Flatbush' documentary in the Brooklyn Baseball Gallery. Because this was my first time looking at the exhibits in the gallery, I decided to wait until Wednesday Night to watch the documentary.Today, Stanley Crouch wrote an article in the NY Daily News that's also well worth reading. The name of the article is:A turf war for the agesDodgers' move to L.A. Left Brooklyn broken, but real story is one of pride and prejudiceW/ o saying, I disagree with Crouch's opinion in the second to last paragraph.

I'll put it in quotes:' As interesting is the story of how Dodger owner Walter O'Malley was defeated by Robert Moses, New York's master politician who would not let the baseball team build a new stadium in Brooklyn. He had other plans '.The reality of the situation was Walter O' Malley, not Robert Moses, would not let the baseball team build a new stadium in Brooklyn. It was O' Malley, who unfortunately for all of us, had other plans.On the other hand, the last paragraph of this article sums up the essence of what tragically transpired:'The decisions that sent the Dodgers west are shown not so much as manipulations of the system but as another of those moments when two titans met, their massive egos rising like horns. Not a drop of blood was shed, but the heart of Brooklyn was broken and the unifying myth of a people's team went down the drain along with the spontaneous glory, discipline and sportsmanship that once made professional American athletes so much more valuable to the human spirit than they are now'. DODGER DEB, thanks for posting the link to Denis Hamill's article.One small correction from what was written in the article, Walter O' Malley died in 1979, not 1978.After yesterday's Brooklyn Cyclones game against the Jamestown Jammers at Keyspan Park, they showed the 'The Ghosts of Flatbush' documentary in the Brooklyn Baseball Gallery. Because this was my first time looking at the exhibits in the gallery, I decided to wait until Wednesday Night to watch the documentary.Today, Stanley Crouch wrote an article in the NY Daily News that's also well worth reading. The name of the article is:A turf war for the agesDodgers' move to L.A.

Left Brooklyn broken, but real story is one of pride and prejudiceW/ o saying, I disagree with Crouch's opinion in the second to last paragraph. I'll put it in quotes:' As interesting is the story of how Dodger owner Walter O'Malley was defeated by Robert Moses, New York's master politician who would not let the baseball team build a new stadium in Brooklyn. He had other plans '.The reality of the situation was Walter O' Malley, not Robert Moses, would not let the baseball team build a new stadium in Brooklyn. It was O' Malley, who unfortunately for all of us, had other plans.On the other hand, the last paragraph of this article sums up the essence of what tragically transpired:'The decisions that sent the Dodgers west are shown not so much as manipulations of the system but as another of those moments when two titans met, their massive egos rising like horns. Not a drop of blood was shed, but the heart of Brooklyn was broken and the unifying myth of a people's team went down the drain along with the spontaneous glory, discipline and sportsmanship that once made professional American athletes so much more valuable to the human spirit than they are now'Thanks for making that correction on the 'BIG O's' passing date, D6+. I meant to do it, but just forgot.Appreciate your also posting the other article by Stanley Crouch, D6+.I agree, that last paragraph just about 'says it all', about what WE lost!c. /BThanks for making that correction on the 'BIG O's' passing date, D6+.

I meant to do it, but just forgot.Appreciate your also posting the other article by Stanley Crouch, D6+.I agree, that last paragraph just about 'says it all', about what WE lost!c.My pleasure, DODGER DEB.There's an article in the July 6th addition of the Los Angeles Times that relates to the ' Ghosts of Flatbush' documentary. It was written by Larry Stewart, the TV-Radio Sports Columnist in that newspaper. The following is the link.

After I provide the link, I'm going to comment on a number of things mentioned in the article:Backed into a corner, O'Malley began thinking of moving the team to Minneapolis. But in 1956 he got a call from Rosalind Wyman, then a young Los Angeles City Council member.She had read that O'Malley might be considering moving the team, and called to suggest L.A.That's what got the ball rolling.Wyman and County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn played key roles in completing the play and Wyman and Hahn's son James, the former L.A. Mayor, are among those interviewed in the documentary.Says Wyman: 'Officials in the city of New York — they should have been strung up. I mean, that was the dumbest decision ever made in municipalities — to lose two baseball teams.' Memo to Rosalind Wyman: In 1995, the Los Angeles area lost two NFL teams. On top of that, Los Angeles was awarded an NFL expansion franchise in the latter part of the 1990's.

Providing Los Angeles met certain conditions within a 6 month period. Los Angeles failed to do so, leading to the NFL's decision to give Houston the 32nd Franchise in the NFL. In essence, Los Angeles lost 3 NFL franchises in a relatively close period. Wyman, I would like to see your answer to this statement!The animosity felt toward O'Malley to this day in Brooklyn comes through loud and clear in the film. But longtime Los Angeles sports columnist Melvin Durslag responds by saying, 'Get with it, these are the rules of combat.' Regarding what this piece of trash Melvin Durslag said, I hope you enjoy your 13th straight season w/o an NFL team in Los Angeles.

As well as the ownership of Frank McCourt of your LA Imposter Franchise.Rachel Robinson, talking in the film about her late husband's feelings after O'Malley became the majority owner, says, 'Jackie felt Rickey was forced out.' Former Dodgers general manager Buzzie Bavasi is more blunt: 'Walter hated Jackie's guts and vice versa.'

Jackie Robinson was a class act and tremendous character in every sense. Mega props to Jackie Robinson for retiring instead of being a pawn in Walter O' Malley's scheme to hijack the Dodgers 3000 miles from Brooklyn.Bavasi says in the film: 'Walter thought the Dodgers were an institution in Brooklyn, and that anything he wanted he could get. But he forgot that Mr. Moses was not a Brooklyn man. There's no way he could've turned down L.A. Imagine somebody giving you 352 acres in downtown New York.' People who put social responsibility over greed would have kept the Dodgers in Brooklyn, where they still were amongst the most profitable franchises in MLB.A more minor omission is that there is no mention that the new Dodger Stadium, despite being state-of-the-art, originally had only two drinking fountains, a situation that was soon remedied.Knowing what Walter O' Malley stood for, it's fair to say that it wasn't by accident that only two drinking fountains were in his new stadium.

Ghosts Of Flatbush Hbo Sports Show Schedule

It is politically incorrect to cite 'white flight' but that is a major factor in the departure of the Dodgers. My father, who was not a baseball fan, was born in Crown Heights in 1927. He went to college, got drafted, returned and finished school, married, got a professional job and moved to Long Island. He never looked back.The generation born in the 20's had passed the age where live attendance at Dodger games was a regular event. TV had become common and was draining fans while the cable TV goldmine would have to wait until the 80'.s. The word 'gentrification' was 30 years in the distance. Pete Hamill's A DRINKING LIFE details the many sociological changes brewing in the Brooklyn of the 50's.Oh yeah, the Dodgers used to be the Superbas.

They moved to Brooklyn's Washington Park in 1899. Ebbets Field was built by greed and abandoned by greed.stevegallanter.wordpress.com.which brings us around to the idea that, if you're a supporter of Robert Moses (let me make it clear, Robert Moses was one of the most despicable human beings who ever lived in my opinion but it's wrong to blame him about the theft of the Brooklyn franchise) was absolutelyh corrct.

The best location for the Dodgers was and would have been Flushing Meadows, home of the soon to be announced 1964 World's Fair with ample parking, at the confluence of three highways linking Long Island with varius parts of the Metropolitan area, a subway station and a LIRR station within the complex.What it comes down to is O'Malley wanted desperately a big handoot from the taxpayers of the City of New York. You're right that I'm looking at the situation from afar, but I don't think I'm looking at biased reporting. I think the anti-O'Malley stuff out there is the biased reporting. Virtually everything I;ve read about Ebbets Field is that it was antiquated and poorly maintained.

It was described as being out-dated when Larry MacPhail was running the team. He was already consideriing the possiblity of moving the Dodgers out of there in 1940. I don't know if the Atlantic/Flatbush project was, but I doubt that without a parking garage to go along with it that O'Malley was probably more interested in fans arriving by train than by car (which was probably another negative about it as far as Robert Moses was concerned).I think two factors caused the Dodgers to leave: O'Malley didn't think the Dodgers would be able to keep up with the Braves and that O'Malley was disatisfied with Ebbets Field. I think the City of New York probably could have done more to ensure the Dodgers stay in Brooklyn but that it wasn't important enough.I think it is easy to shrug your shoulders at eminent domain and Title I laws in New York during that period because Robert Moses had little trouble getting around them when he supported a project. If he were a supporter of the Dodgers building a new ballpark in Brookly that it would have gotten done.It's one thing to use eminent domain to build a project such as a highway or a school or a hospital and yes one can always quibble about a location.

It's another to use it to build a privately owned baseball park for a large family owned business that was making a mint! Also, there is little question there woiuld have been taxpayer suits up the gazoots that would have delays the project for a decade or more. If you don't believe it, do a google search on Ratner, Bruce A. It's another to use it to build a privately owned baseball park for a large family owned business that was making a mint!

Also, there is little question there woiuld have been taxpayer suits up the gazoots that would have delays the project for a decade or more. If you don't believe it, do a google search on Ratner, Bruce A. Where the Atlantic Yards project has a pretense of building housing within it (whether or not that's a smokescreen to get around the eminent domain laws and use Title I funds is another story).But as I've said before, what is too bad is that the AL had scheduled a meeting to approve the transfer of the St.

Louis Brown to Los Angeles and it would have passed. Too bad the meeting was scheduled for 08 December 1941.so Admiral Yamamoto and Emperor Hirohito probably deserve more blame for the theft of the Brooklyn franchise than Moses!This is where I think that Brooklyn Dodgers are talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they say the Dodgers weren't able for Federal help because they are privately owned (a legitimite veiewpoint, in my opinion) but then say the same francise was stolen from Brooklyn when that same private owner decides to move to a better situation for homself and his team (this is not a legitimite viewpoint, in my opinion).I've read some contemporary newspaper articles about the Browns in December, 1941. I'm not conviced that the AL would have OKed move even if the war didn't intervene because of travel times and tradition.

Even if the Browns made to LA in the 1940s I think the Dodgers still would have moved in the 1950s. Possibily to Texas.If keeping the Dodgers in New York and moving them to Queens was a priority they would have found a way to sell the land to O'Malley so he could have the privately owned stadium that he wanted.

What are you going to dispute?I'm not going to get into a dispute with you at the moment, if only because I'm a bit too busy with current issues to refute someone's longtime precepts on the topic. Like I said, it'd be like proselytizing (a huge waste of time), and you seem to have all the knowledge on it, perceiving most opposing perspectives as false 'dogma,' no matter what anyone says to the contrary.One point, though: Can anyone name a time in professional baseball in which greed did not play a part? I didn't think so. That the Dodgers were not the biggest money maker in baseball during this period?

That Dodger attendance was not over 1,000,000 which was the acceptable okay point at that time? That every Dodger game was not on free television? That to condfemn the private property O'Malley wanted to condemn in violation of NY's eminent domain laws would not have cost the taxpayers of NYC $10,000,000 in 1957?And please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.But no, it wouldn't've cost the NYC taxpayers $10M. Hell, even if it did, it would've paid for itself within a few years. Much like the bridges and tunnels that were supposed to stop collecting tolls after paying for their construction. Instead, anyone who uses them (especially Long Islanders) are still held hostage by NYC's greed and corruption.it's hard to imagine the Metropolitan NYC region without the bridges and tunnels and highways he built.But like all people with absolute power, he went too far.

Moses hated people, but he loved the public. For a guy who never drove a car in his life, he never catered to those who also didn't. If he'd had his way, it'd be hard to imagine today a Greater NYC without a Cross Manhattan Expressway, another bridge from Oyster Bay to Rye, and yet another from Port Jefferson to Bridgeport. And lest we forget, it was once hard to imagine lower New York without two tall twin towers. I think two factors caused the Dodgers to leave: O'Malley didn't think the Dodgers would be able to keep up with the Braves and that O'Malley was disatisfied with Ebbets Field. I think the City of New York probably could have done more to ensure the Dodgers stay in Brooklyn but that it wasn't important enough.I think it is easy to shrug your shoulders at eminent domain and Title I laws in New York during that period because Robert Moses had little trouble getting around them when he supported a project. If he were a supporter of the Dodgers building a new ballpark in Brookly that it would have gotten done.Can't disagree with that either.

If keeping the Dodgers in New York and moving them to Queens was a priority they would have found a way to sell the land to O'Malley so he could have the privately owned stadium that he wanted.Exactly!Welp, so much for not debating. I admit, I got sucked into it.

I'm still short on time but long on words. Unfortunately, the former has to take precendence for now. All I'll say is we all have a right to our respective points of view.Finally, let's not continue with the political rhetoric. It's first and foremost important to remember that this is strictly a baseball-discussion forum. And this thread is about the HBO documentary on the Dodgers 1947-1957, not all that has or hasn't taken place since, nor lengthy diatribes about the 'faults' behind HBO's research. Btw, I really would like to give away copies of it, so perhaps a discussion on why the Dodgers left NY and the greed / power / corruption / bullheadedness / et al of O'Malley and Moses can be directed to a different thread.

There are many threads in this Brooklyn forum on the topic. It is politically incorrect to cite 'white flight' but that is a major factor in the departure of the Dodgers. My father, who was not a baseball fan, was born in Crown Heights in 1927. He went to college, got drafted, returned and finished school, married, got a professional job and moved to Long Island.

He never looked back.The generation born in the 20's had passed the age where live attendance at Dodger games was a regular event. TV had become common and was draining fans while the cable TV goldmine would have to wait until the 80'.s. The word 'gentrification' was 30 years in the distance. Pete Hamill's A DRINKING LIFE details the many sociological changes brewing in the Brooklyn of the 50's.I just posted this in your blog, but I figure it can't hurt to post it here, too, as an addendum to the previous post. On the topic of getting to Atlantic and Flatbush by car, no doubt it would've been more difficult for motorists to get to Atlantic and Flatbush than it is to get to Roosevelt and the Grand Central/Whitestone.Of course, it would've been nothing for Moses to burrow (no pun intended) up from the Gowanus Expressway to meet back up with the BQE going north. Nor would it have been beyond his reason to dig a highway path from the Belt Parkway along Conduit to Atlantic, which would have merged with the Interborough Parkway and continued along the 'Atlantic Parkway.' After all, building highways was his thing.At the same time, getting to Atlantic & Flatbush is very easily accomplished by subway and the LIRR.I guess what I'm saying is Robert Moses could've easily given O'Malley what he was asking for.in Brooklyn.

If I'd had to deal with the contemptuously condescending Moses for half a decade, I'd probably have taken my ball and gone elsewhere, too. No doubt, the site at Flushing Meadows was already in place since 1938, and it cost virtually nothing to prepare the land for a ballpark 25 years later. And I must admit, by the early 1960s, Moses was falling from grace, to which his unfinished projects can attest (Sheridan Expressway, Prospect Expressway, Clearview Expressway, Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway, etc.).On the other hand, the exchanges between O'Malley and Moses began well before the Dodgers finally won in '55, when Moses was still in full control of what and what didn't get built.

Did Robert care about the cost in the Bronx when he literally cut a straight deep swath through bedrock upon which neighborhoods had been generational? Did he care about the folks who once lived on Horace Harding Blvd? Looking at a map, and considering all Moses had built already, it doesn't seem like a reach to think he could've built a highway from JFK along S. Conduit and straight across the already-widened Atlantic Avenue. To this day, I wish a highway like that existed.I believe that, by the mid-1950s, Moses had already cost the city taxpayers plenty, and, imo, the highways I would propose would've been viewed by the city at the time as yet another Robert Moses highway-building project in south Queens and Brooklyn.

Needless to say, to this day, it's a pain in the neck to get from JFK to downtown Brooklyn by car. As Ed intimated above, if Moses had felt it was important enough, those highways would've been built and O'Malley would have most likely built his dream park in Brooklyn instead of LA. Had Moses not been adamant about 'Flushing or Nothing,' we may be following the Los Angeles Senators and the Minnesota Giants. I'm not saying O'Malley was an innocent bystander, and sure, he could've brought the 'New York Dodgers' to Queens, but the fact remains that he (and every other land owner in New York) had to get on his knees in front of holier-than-thou Moses to plead his case. Being dismissed time and again, I find it understandable why O'Malley had had enough.

Even Mayor Wagner, as you know, had no power to tell Moses what he could and couldn't build. Moses had the final word for over four decades.

Unfortunately, Moses wasn't greedy for money. His greed was for power.As for the exits and entrances, they would have most likely been the usual short exit and even shorter acceleration ramps he'd been designing in the city for years (unlike Long Island, Westchester, SW Connecticut, and Niagara Falls, which had, for the most part, enough land to build those dreaded clover-leaves we all despise and are still too short). Anyone who's ever driven to the Brooklyn courthouses knows that for Moses, egressions and ingressions were trivial matters. One look at the FDR Expressway, the Cross Bronx Expressway, or that monstrosity of an interchange with the Van Wyck, Grand Central, Jackie Rob, Queens Blvd, Main Street, and Union Turnpike, and it becomes evident that getting on and off were the least of Moses' design issues. Either that, or he was on some serious medications, heh.However, to return to your original point in the above post, you're right, the Northern Blvd bypass was much easier to build than the highways I would've advocated. As well, as I hinted earlier, it's much easier to get to Flushing from both NYC airports than it would've been (and still is) to get to downtown Brooklyn. So, in that regard, I'll agree that Flushing was a good choice, especially since air travel quickly became the transport of choice (rather than the trains and buses).

Ironically enough, that same jet age made it possible for teams to routinely travel to and from the west coast.Btw, I didn't know that fact about the meeting that would've taken place were it not for WWII. That, imho, is a truly fascinating fact! Btw, I didn't know that fact about the meeting that would've taken place were it not for WWII.

That, imho, is a truly fascinating fact!The AL meetings did take place a few days after Pearl Harbor. The convential wisdom is that the AL teams would have OKed a Browns move to LA except for the war. Newspaper accounts from the period don't make it sound like such a slam dunk though.

It sounds like may have been a topic that would have been studied to death, and in the pst war period the Browns made two well publicised attempts to move to LA but the PCL put up so many roadblocks that moving to LA would been a bad financial move for the Browns. Even if the Browns had moved to LA I think the Dodgers may have moved there as well, especially if the Browns continued being a bad team. No doubt, the site at Flushing Meadows was already in place since 1938, and it cost virtually nothing to prepare the land for a ballpark 25 years later. And I must admit, by the early 1960s, Moses was falling from grace, to which his unfinished projects can attest (Sheridan Expressway, Prospect Expressway, Clearview Expressway, Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway, etc.).On the other hand, the exchanges between O'Malley and Moses began well before the Dodgers finally won in '55, when Moses was still in full control of what and what didn't get built. Did Robert care about the cost in the Bronx when he literally cut a straight deep swath through bedrock upon which neighborhoods had been generational?

Did he care about the folks who once lived on Horace Harding Blvd? Looking at a map, and considering all Moses had built already, it doesn't seem like a reach to think he could've built a highway from JFK along S. Conduit and straight across the already-widened Atlantic Avenue. To this day, I wish a highway like that existed.I believe that, by the mid-1950s, Moses had already cost the city taxpayers plenty, and, imo, the highways I would propose would've been viewed by the city at the time as yet another Robert Moses highway-building project in south Queens and Brooklyn. Needless to say, to this day, it's a pain in the neck to get from JFK to downtown Brooklyn by car. As Ed intimated above, if Moses had felt it was important enough, those highways would've been built and O'Malley would have most likely built his dream park in Brooklyn instead of LA.

Had Moses not been adamant about 'Flushing or Nothing,' we may be following the Los Angeles Senators and the Minnesota Giants. I'm not saying O'Malley was an innocent bystander, and sure, he could've brought the 'New York Dodgers' to Queens, but the fact remains that he (and every other land owner in New York) had to get on his knees in front of holier-than-thou Moses to plead his case. Being dismissed time and again, I find it understandable why O'Malley had had enough.

Even Mayor Wagner, as you know, had no power to tell Moses what he could and couldn't build. Moses had the final word for over four decades. Unfortunately, Moses wasn't greedy for money. His greed was for power.As for the exits and entrances, they would have most likely been the usual short exit and even shorter acceleration ramps he'd been designing in the city for years (unlike Long Island, Westchester, SW Connecticut, and Niagara Falls, which had, for the most part, enough land to build those dreaded clover-leaves we all despise and are still too short). Anyone who's ever driven to the Brooklyn courthouses knows that for Moses, egressions and ingressions were trivial matters. One look at the FDR Expressway, the Cross Bronx Expressway, or that monstrosity of an interchange with the Van Wyck, Grand Central, Jackie Rob, Queens Blvd, Main Street, and Union Turnpike, and it becomes evident that getting on and off were the least of Moses' design issues. Either that, or he was on some serious medications, heh.However, to return to your original point in the above post, you're right, the Northern Blvd bypass was much easier to build than the highways I would've advocated.

As well, as I hinted earlier, it's much easier to get to Flushing from both NYC airports than it would've been (and still is) to get to downtown Brooklyn. So, in that regard, I'll agree that Flushing was a good choice, especially since air travel quickly became the transport of choice (rather than the trains and buses). Ironically enough, that same jet age made it possible for teams to routinely travel to and from the west coast.Btw, I didn't know that fact about the meeting that would've taken place were it not for WWII. That, imho, is a truly fascinating fact!Just out of curiosity, did you read the article I linked to above? The question really comes down to what one thinks are the obligations of a municipality to a sports franchise owner. I believe, and always will, the Los Angeles offer to O'Malley was totally unfair to the taxpayers of that area for a variety of reasons and quite frankly there was really not all that much NYC could have done short of giving in to Mr.

O'Malley's demands that he had to own his ballpark (which was not the norm at the time as all the other franchise shiftees ended up playing in municipal owned Stadii. To me it will always rank, and I don't think the HBO special made that clear, as one of the darkest moments in baseball history when a fan base were told to go take a hike despite making the owner the richest owner in baseball.At least, that's my opinion (without any historonics).I have a hard time that O'Malley was a rich owner while in Brooklyn. The only rich owners in the 1950s were men who were already independently wealthy.

I don't think any owner whose main source of income was a baseball team was getting rich in the 1950s. I have a hard time that O'Malley was a rich owner while in Brooklyn. The only rich owners in the 1950s were men who were already independently wealthy.

I don't think any owner whose main source of income was a baseball team was getting rich in the 1950s.Let's put it this way; he was doing quite well.after a bitter fight with Branch Rickey, he had acquired a very large chunk of the Dodgers and as noted through this era the Brooklyn franchise was the biggest money maker in baseball and again where our views diverge, there was little danger of that changing in the near future of that era thanks to that growing medium called television.That hasn't changed in this country. Where do you think the bulk of NFL revenue comes from? Let's put it this way; he was doing quite well.after a bitter fight with Branch Rickey, he had acquired a very large chunk of the Dodgers and as noted through this era the Brooklyn franchise was the biggest money maker in baseball and again where our views diverge, there was little danger of that changing in the near future of that era thanks to that growing medium called television.That hasn't changed in this country. Where do you think the bulk of NFL revenue comes from?The Dodgers were making a lot of money, but they also had a big overhead mainly because their extensive farm system. They also had a lot of World Series money.

With an aging lsoing the World Series money had to be a concern for club officials. Yes, I read the thesis. Nothing like revising revisionism to create equalization.The fact remains, though, that regardless of the opposition or support either 'side' was receiving at the time - Moses still had absolute power and the final word in the mid 1950s. I will continue to assert that all Moses had to do was to say yes and it would have been. I said it before I'd ever read Caro's The Power Broker, and I was still saying it long before HBO's 2007 documentary.No, Moses didn't force the Dodgers to move to the city of Los Angeles, and, in fact, he eventually got what he wanted with the building of Shea Stadium, but the only thing the arguably most powerful man in NYC history had to do was approve O'Malley's constant pleas to build a new park in Brooklyn at the former engineer's adopted location.Sure, driving to Atlantic and Flatbush from Long Island, as one interviewee claimed, was indeed a 'shlep.'

However, driving to Atlantic and Flatbush was and is still easier to get to by car than it is to Bedford and Sullivan. I fully believe that the biggest mistake O'Malley made in his numerous claims to the all-powerful wholly Moses was to NOT include a request for an Atlantic Expressway through Queens and Brooklyn. It certainly wouldn't have been as major a project as was the Cross Bronx and would have affected many fewer people. In fact, Atlantic Avenue is still wide enough for a limited access highway (thanks to the median once used for trolleys and subways).

Instead, O'Malley didn't think of it, and Moses had his own ideas. And for over 40 years Robert Moses got what he wanted without any authority to whom to answer (despite whatever consensus supported his denials).Imo, both were guilty of being bullheaded, but add my suggestions for the Atlantic Expressway and perhaps a spur up 3rd Avenue from the BQE - the primary appeals I believe O'Malley failed to make - and it just may have happened. No matter how it's sliced, though, the fact remains as is asserted in the documentary.

Indeed, all Robert Moses had to do was say YES.Btw, finances of 'corruptorate' (my own word) figures are not my strong point. Taxes and tolls are paid, the lawmakers come up with them and the taxpayers pay them. The numbers are simply too high for me (and most of the general population) to comprehend. I do know, however, that, partly due to the New York Mets, the pendulum swung back soon enough.

So, perhaps the taxes and profits gained and/or lost by all concerned in this saga shouldn't be part of the equation this many years down the road.Btw, does anyone want a copy of The Ghosts Of Flatbush free of charge? Just PM me.:cap.