A skeptical columnist: "there’s this fantasy that the Nets and the Barclays Center are part of a Brooklyn Renaissance"

CBS columnist Steve Lichtenstein visited the Barclays Center and came away only semi-impressed, writing Talent, Not Arena, Giving Nets Boost At Home, published yesterday:

Forget the glitz; I wanted to know, was this going to be a building that rocked for a team it truly loved, like in Boston? In the fourth quarter, could the crowd boost their team through adversity, like in Manhattan? Influence the officials, like in Miami?

After sitting through the Nets’ 114-101 victory, I can’t see what all the fuss is about.

Sure the Barclays has a tattoo parlor [really?] and more overpriced dining options (every night is $9 beer night), including a sushi bar, but the in-game experience has a lot of similarities with Newark.

There’s the same loud music drowning out the crowd every time the fans want to let loose after a Nets’ run, the same time-out routines with t-shirt cannons and shooting contests. They did decide to change the name of the dance team and get a new mascot, though this one similarly makes fans wonder what the heck he has to do with the Nets.

He adds:

I will agree that the Barclays Center has its charms, with an impressive architectural design and seating layout.
But the Prudential Center, which opened way back in 2007, was no dump... The Nets, once they find the right fit for all their new pieces, will only get better.
Neither the borough nor the building will have anything to do with it. Still, there’s this fantasy that the Nets and the Barclays Center are part of a Brooklyn Renaissance, that this is karma for the Dodgers’ divorce over 50 years ago.