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?
Not all housing is equal. All of the buildings that do this stuff, either by buying up air rights from their neighbors or gerrymandering lot sizes, are doing so to build taller buildings with larger penthouse suites that can command a higher price. They are not doing this stuff to sell more rent controlled or reasonably priced apartments that can service their local community. If it weren't for these loopholes the buildings would be significantly shorter, cheaper, and less profitable, though certainly not unprofitable, for their developers while not substantially reducing the effective housing supply.
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.Not all housing is equal. All of the buildings that do this stuff, either by buying up air rights from their neighbors or gerrymandering lot sizes, are doing so to build taller buildings with larger penthouse suites that can command a higher price. They are not doing this stuff to sell more rent controlled or reasonably priced apartments that can service their local community. If it weren't for these loopholes the buildings would be significantly shorter, cheaper, and less profitable, though certainly not unprofitable, for their developers while not substantially reducing the effective housing supply.
I wonder would the developer be able to sue the city for the costs of removing floors since they approved the plans.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.
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.).
Developers have continued constructing a 51-story apartment tower on Amsterdam Avenue and 69th Street despite a March 14th court ruling that placed the legality of their building permit in question. On Tuesday, two nonprofits tried to stop the construction, but were denied a temporary restraining order (TRO) by the New York State Supreme Court and told to return for a hearing on a preliminary injunction on April 30th.
By then at least four more stories will have been added to the more than 20 that have already been built at 200 Amsterdam Avenue, according to estimates cited in the motion for the TRO. "The Owner's indifference to the [zoning lot's] illegality is…illustrated by its actions since the Court's decision," the motion read. "…in effect, the Owner is now continuing construction without a legal zoning lot. It has redoubled its efforts to complete the building, in disdain of the controlling law."
The supreme court.....is the lowest court?Supreme Court is the lowest state court in NY. This will be appealed.
I wonder would the developer be able to sue the city for the costs of removing floors since they approved the plans.
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 Marchwww.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.
In New York, yes the Supreme Court is the trial level court.
But...it's Supreme!
Yes, only in New York. One of the weirdest things you learn in law school.
The Court of Appeals, sitting in Albany and consisting of seven judges, is the state's highest court. The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court is the principal intermediate appellate court.
Oh I see. It's an Albany expression.
All they needed to do was give the newer courts better names:It was the highest in the 1700s. They added more courts since then, but didn't change the names.
I prefer Perfectly Ultimate Great Supreme Court.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
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.Imagine having 3.1 million dollars to blow on a place and you choose a one-bedroom apartment.
Welcome to NYC.Imagine having 3.1 million dollars to blow on a place and you choose a one-bedroom apartment.
Imagine having 3.1 million dollars to blow on a place and you choose a one-bedroom apartment.
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?
What's so special about New York in order for someone to fork up this much cash on a fucking apartment anyway
So if I understand correctly, this is because the height limit is not a strict arbitrary limit, but is based on the total square footage of the lot?
I'm almost more amazed that someone didn't think of doing this sooner. This is pretty clearly an abuse of the intended rule, though.
What's so special about New York in order for someone to fork up this much cash on a fucking apartment anyway
As someone who works in permitting for a big city.... this makes me laugh and blows my mind and how it got through.
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.Good. NYC has been far too loose with enforcing their zoning requirements and it's been a big factor in driving up prices and making developers rich. Shame this wasn't for one of those supertall luxury towers and only for a 50ish floor building
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?
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.
"You would expect to see a rectangle of some kind. You might expect it to be bigger, you might expect smaller. But you wouldn't expect it to snake across the whole block."