That zoning lot is hilarious! So I guess the rules work such that if you own lot x,y and z you can build a building on lot x with a total height equivalent to all three lots combined?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
NY Supreme Court judge orders developers of NYC tower to remove upper floors
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
This only works if you think that everyone who buys one of these units is continuing to rent whatever smaller unit they previously were renting in the city. At least some of them are transition from other units to these ones, freeing up supply. The process may not be as efficient as it should be due to people owning multiple units or absentee investors buying things up, but there's no world where adding units raises overall prices. Something's getting freed up somewhere. NYC pretty clearly has a problem with the fact that serving as a de facto global capital means there's near infinite demand for housing units, which only some combination of public housing and rent control can even approach fully solving, but cutting supply can never help that problem.
That all said, the scheme to get around the zoning law is hilariously brazen, even if the zoning law is dumb.
The byzantine zoning laws are one of the reasons why developers are resorting to this nonsense, not to mention NIMBYs. Just because some expensive lawyers were able to loophole their way into getting approval for this building doesn't mean NYC needs to make it even harder to put up new residential buildings to stick it to the greedy capitalists.
wait wouldn't a city dept, had to have approved the building blueprints? Why would this be the developers fault? They submitted the plans to the city (no matter how crazy) and the city approved it.
I wonder would the developer be able to sue the city for the costs of removing floors since they approved the plans.
As absurd as that lot is, can't really agree on the permit being revoked mid-construction unless there's some proof the developer conspired with/bribed the city to get approval.
How long ago was the motion filed to revoke the permit? It'd be one thing if it was prior to construction beginning and the developer went ahead with construction knowing this decision was a possible outcome, but if this all happened after construction broke ground it's kind of fucked (barring bribes/conspiracy, as noted.).
How long ago was the motion filed to revoke the permit? It'd be one thing if it was prior to construction beginning and the developer went ahead with construction knowing this decision was a possible outcome, but if this all happened after construction broke ground it's kind of fucked (barring bribes/conspiracy, as noted.).
OP
OP
Even With Zoning in Doubt, Court Allows Developers to Keep Building 51-Story Tower
By Carol Tannenhauser Developers have continued constructing a 51-story apartment tower on Amsterdam Avenue and 69th Street despite a March
www.westsiderag.com
my guess as an architect and urban planner if the condition was illegal and the client knew it was then he is a fault not the city. My thought it would be like a set of plans where a floor is built without sprinklers so it passes through the system then an inspector dosnt see it. The architect providing a similar building would have know that all floors need a sprinkler so he is at fault.
architecture law works on the assumption that you should have know better.
Even With Zoning in Doubt, Court Allows Developers to Keep Building 51-Story Tower
By Carol Tannenhauser Developers have continued constructing a 51-story apartment tower on Amsterdam Avenue and 69th Street despite a March
Still not great to have this happen after 20+ floors built, but definitely better than after topping off. Though it is undoubtedly better to stop building before reaching the new maximum than it is to demolish already built floors, the foundations/structure have already been built (and therefore paid) assuming the full height.
Like, in this specific instance I'm not really gonna shed a tear for the developer, but the situation is kinda fucked when looking at it in the abstract.
This is strictly a zoning issue though. We've always taking zoning cues directly from the city. We certainly "know" what's allowed by our reading of the code, and will try to get the city to see our POV on the issue, but it is ultimately the city that dictates what we are allowed to build. This is all during preliminary plan review as well, so it's not quite the same as an inspector missing a given element on a plan.
Yes, only in New York. One of the weirdest things you learn in law school.
OP
OP
But...it's Supreme!
Judiciary of New York (state) - Wikipedia
It's different in NY.
Oh I see. It's an Albany expression.
But...it's Supreme!
It was the highest in the 1700s. They added more courts since then, but didn't change the names.
Everything is legal in New Jersey.
All they needed to do was give the newer courts better names:
- Totally Maximally Supreme Court of Appeals, For Reals
- Even More Supreme Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
- Supreme Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court
The lot is right there, you just need to have the vision to be able to see it.
Yeah but you can kind of see the roofline of the building they used in b-roll shots of the building in FRIENDS from the balcony.
So if that Red area was a contiguous rectangle they could have built a high building? Surely that'd be worse for the outlook and encroachment/whatever they're complaining about? A thin/tall building dominates less of the airspace and the lower buildings nearby help to keep that clear.
this may be 'letter of the law' but it seems a dumb law if they aren't restricting height due to any specific reason other than lot size?
this may be 'letter of the law' but it seems a dumb law if they aren't restricting height due to any specific reason other than lot size?
Lol at that lot. The building developers were going for the "technically correct" route. I'm sure they'll appeal.
imagine having a "shitty " million dollar 1000 sq ft apartment that you bought outright- but despite having almost zero amenities except for a scary basement coin laundry and a doorman who is probably a Craigslist murderer, that your monthly condo fees (no parking included) are between $1500-$3000 depending on the building.
welcome to Manhattan. Also their reliance on doormen is hilarious- especially when they go on strike and native New Yorkers wonder how any other city gets mail, packages or visitors.
my sister in law lives like this and has deluded herself into believing there's no viable alternative to a weird loquacious uniformed loner sitting in your lobby who doesn't know how to change a lightbulb and is not allowed to physically prevent trespassing by the union. Also expects a fantastically large tip at Christmas and will passively ruin your life if he doesn't get one.
It's assumed that a contiguous lot would have a traditional footprint- so a fifty five floor building would have bigger proportions and typically be on a more equitable and appropriate block- I suspect the workaround they designed used one rule for footprint and number of floors and skyline permissions , but other zoning for architectural and physical properties and that created a loophole for a building that wouldn't have been permitted even if the lot had been rational- like planting a giant redwood in an apple orchard.
it would be genuinely bizarre if nobody from the city had seen the lot Tetris or realized what they were trying.
I also assume they managed to find a morally flexible inspector for the plans- or otherwise obscured the problem with paperwork and lawyerball- their plan to just keep going may be relying on suing or more shenanigans- but also may be more economical to finish it while construction momentum is happening and then hoping to win appeal- but knowing it would still be cheaper to delete floors than pause construction. That arithmetic will be driving their gamble.
I'm actually pretty impressed with it. It's insane but impressive.
1) These folks have to stash their cash somewhere and 2) unfortunately the island of Manhattan isn't getting any bigger.
Gonna guess kickbacks. Now the department is screwed of course.
I mean, what's driving up prices is the restrictions. The problem isn't that they're not strict enough, it's that they've incentivized only luxury apartments, and those are the people with the money to go after these loopholes and exemptions.
The reality is they need to upzone much more of the city and remove single-family housing zoning. That doesn't mean they also have to do this "maintenance and machinery floors don't count as floors" bull that is leading to the supertalls below Central Park, for instance.
So the problem New York has always faced is uncontrolled zoning would let you build giant tall buildings that would choke out light from street level. Because of this the city created one of the first citywide zoning ordinances in the US. Originally with these 1916 laws, buildings had to "set back" as they got taller, and you could only build to whatever maximum height you wanted once the building only covered 25% of the lot. This is where the characteristic look of Art Deco buildings in the city comes from (Chrysler Building, Empire State.)
This setbacks zoning was eventually phased out. They flirted with instead requiring amenities or plaza space for the buildings, but now it's set up mostly on a multiple of the specific zoning for that area. There are ways to go taller, and this is a pretty terrible if ingenious way of doing it.
It's certainly not why I think the legislators intended; it was supposed to keep new construction proportionate to what is there—so you don't have 50-story buildings in a residential neighborhood.
Last edited:
NYC isn't LA, San Fran though where NIMBY will fight tooth and nail to keep everything flat and undeveloped, while the nature of the onerous amount of hoops to build in nyc has developers building only luxury housing (to the point of a glut)
Why Manhattan’s Skyscrapers Are Empty
Approximately half of the luxury-condo units that have come onto the market in the past five years are still unsold.
www.theatlantic.com
I dunno if you can make the argument they need more upzoning by any stretch of the skyline imagination.
I also wonder what would truly happen if they stripped rent control and other regulations away. The rents would skyrocket, it would take awhile before developers get into the middle class housing game again, and you actually have to build those homes and have em sit before proces go down which takes years. Eventually you would have a manageable number all around and prices would be fairer, but by that time a pissed off populace would vote everyone out who was involved, lol.
That's messed up that the developers have to even do that. Some city zoning codes are bullshit.
in LA, the zoning books haven't been updated in decades so most of the tall buildings you see are actually exceptions to the rules because otherwise nothing but strip malls will get built. One intrepid nimby group has been abusing it, and it's the very same nimby that also opposes updating that same zoning book for decades now.
As a result, they've been able to halt a lot of projects by abusing this exception clauses that the city had to come up with so we can have any semblance of same zoning rules. They halted a half built Target on Hollywood boulevard that was replacing an empty parking lot, and even had a judge order a building that was already completed and the tenants have moved in, the judge ordered everyone to move out and the building is sitting empty afaik.
in LA, the zoning books haven't been updated in decades so most of the tall buildings you see are actually exceptions to the rules because otherwise nothing but strip malls will get built. One intrepid nimby group has been abusing it, and it's the very same nimby that also opposes updating that same zoning book for decades now.
As a result, they've been able to halt a lot of projects by abusing this exception clauses that the city had to come up with so we can have any semblance of same zoning rules. They halted a half built Target on Hollywood boulevard that was replacing an empty parking lot, and even had a judge order a building that was already completed and the tenants have moved in, the judge ordered everyone to move out and the building is sitting empty afaik.