In Slate today, Brooklyn born novelist Jonathan Lethem wrote an elegant and angry essay against architect Frank Gehry and developer Bruce Ratner’s plans to build a new sports stadium, hotel, apartments and retail stores in Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards.

“The proposal currently on the table is a gang of 16 towers that would be the biggest project ever built by a single developer in the history of New York City. In fact, the proposed arena, like the surrounding neighborhoods, stands to be utterly dwarfed by these ponderous skyscrapers and superblocks. It’s a nightmare for Brooklyn, one that, if built, would cause irreparable damage to the quality of our lives and, I’d think, to your legacy. Your reputation, in this case, is the Trojan horse in a war to bring a commercially ambitious, but aesthetically—and socially—disastrous new development to Brooklyn. Your presence is intended to appease cultural tastemakers who might otherwise, correctly, recognize this atrocious plan for what it is, just as the notion of a basketball arena itself is a Trojan horse for the real plan: building a skyline suitable to some Sunbelt boomtown.”

Lethem says that seven out of eight of the community groups supporting the project receive funding from Ratner. He says that the public has been kept out of the planning process.

More personally, he takes issue with the aesthetics and design in the Gehry proposal. One skyscraper, named “Miss Brooklyn” by the architect, is an ungainly and amorphous melted candle of deformity and gracelessness. (my words). Lethem asks Gehry:

“Any chance you want to take a harder look at your plans? When unveiling the latest, you explained the appearance of the spearhead tower, which you’ve named “Miss Brooklyn” (spurring the inevitable quip, We’ll miss it, all right). You explained: “When we were studying Brooklyn, we happened upon a wedding, a real Brooklyn wedding. And we decided that ‘Miss Brooklyn’ was a bride. She’s a bride with her flowing bridal veil—I really overdid it. If you had seen the bride, you would—I fell in love with her.” Pardon me, but bleeechh. I don’t know whether many great buildings have been founded on notions at once so metaphorically impoverished and so slickly patronizing. But somehow I doubt that any have.”

Lethem predicts that if Gehry stays connected with this ill-conceived project, that his legacy in New York will be judged badly.

“My suspicion is that persisting with this work means you’ll be remembered in New York City for a scarring struggle, resulting (I hope) in failure—or, if you build, a legacy of vituperation and regret. Your prestigious presence in this mercenary partnership reminds me of Colin Powell giving cover to the Cheney-Rumsfeld doctrine: If he’s on board, we’re meant to think, it can’t be as bad as it looks.”

Lethem’s political analogy is correct. Back room builders and politicians, to promote an agenda of regressive and exploitative development, now own the name “Frank Gehry” in a PR mission to sell the public junk architecture. Like the flags waving in the background of Fox News, Gehry’s name on a project is a way to make palatable the civic destruction, governmental bribery and tax loophole mendaciousness of our new robber barons.