« Brooklyn as a Tourist Destination What Price Vacant Land? »
November 19, 2007
AIA Trying to Upzone the Downzoning?
In the wake of a series of "downzonings" around the city over the last couple of years (including such neighborhoods as Park Slope, Fort Greene and Clinton Hill), the New York Chapter of the American Institute for Architects has submitted a proposal to the Department of City Planning for text amendments to the city's zoning code that, the lobbying group argues, would make the code more contextual; critics say it's just a way to eke out a few more dollars for the AIA's developer clients. At issue are six changes, five of which would impact medium- and high-density districts (like R6 to R10) and one of which would affect low-density districts. One suggestion by the group is to allow 100% lot coverage on corner lots, instead of the existing 80%; another is to allow multi-family buildings on lots that are less than 18-feet wide; a third is to allow rear dormers. Probably the most controversial is a proposal to increase the maximum base height of a new building by 25% in cases where there are taller adjacent buildings. This would mean, for example, in a R6B zone, the height restriction would rise from 40 feet to 50 feet. According to Aaron Brashear of the Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Heights, the proposals "fly in the face of what the majority of the contextual rezonings in the city have attempted to accomplish: lower density and lower height which equal more light and air." The public comment period runs through January 7 but it's unclear at this point whether the proposal is subject to to a full ULURP review. You can be sure there will be strong words tonight at a public forum at Borough Hall that begins at 6 p.m.
Proposed Changes to the Zoning Resolution [AIA NY]
Zoning Amendments Might Produce Bigger, Bulkier Buildings [GL]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2960
Comments
Zoning text amendments are not subject to a full ULURP review. However, it is standard practice for the application to be sent to all the community boards. Tonight's presentation to the Borough Board leads me to believe that body will vote on this application, perhaps next month. In fact, I thought that the Borough Board was voting on the street tree and yard text amendments -- www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/green_initiatives/index.shtml -- tonight but I don't see it on the agenda.
Posted by: g man at November 19, 2007 10:09 AM
The city is growing, people are moving in great numbers to make a better lives for themselves from all over the country and the world. A lot of students come here to earn an education from the many, many universities. A lot of new college grads come here to find their entry level job with the many fortune 500 companies here. People without a higher education coming here because you can still make a lot of money in the service industry and the list is as diverse as the people coming here.
So, what does the city and the white trailer trash of Brooklyn do? They are once again trying to restrict who can live here. God damn, someone shoot these asshat Brooklynite NIMBYs. This shit of a borough would still be a shit of a borough if it wasn't for the very people that these asshats are trying to limit.
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 10:27 AM
I don't live in the affected nabes, but this sounds a bit like a bait and switch to me. In the diagram above, if the AIA is so concerned about the street wall and the cornice heights of the existing construction and continuing those lines in the new building, the smaller footprint of the top story could be shifted so that the setback is in the rear of the building. Bam! Downzoning AND a streetwall. It's win-win!
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 10:28 AM
So if it's a Borough Board meeting tonight, their will be no public review session or commentary? And the BP may cast his vote without any public input? That smacks of inside dealings between the AIA and CPC, then rushing it through the ULURP process.
After looking at the on-line presentation from the AIA, these are not minor text changes, and in many ways, I have to agree with the critics that this is undoing a lot of what the rezoning have done.
Seems these are changes solely to make up for the rezonings, increasing density while attempting to be veiled as "additional contextualized designs."
Perhaps the AIA has a different definition of "contextual" than the CPC has in the books to date.
Bad news all the way around. The BP (heck, all BPs) should hold off making any decisions until this can be discussed in a proper public forum.
Seems a lot of people in communities across the city fought very hard for contextual zoning...the kind that has lower building heights and density.
Posted by: Action Jackson at November 19, 2007 10:33 AM
Down-zoning makes no sense. If people are REALLY concerned about the appearance of their neighborhood and the beauty of the buildings, they should have some sort of architectural review to prevent all the crappy fedder buildings, to prevent buildings without a cornice, to make sure building heights are a minimum of 10' so the outside windows don't look pancaked and cheap, and etc..
Down-zoning? Why are dumb people so influential in our lives? Oh wait, that's right, it's usually the kicking and screaming minority opinion that has the most sway.
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 10:35 AM
"it's usually the kicking and screaming minority opinion that has the most sway."
You're right. The rich and well-connected never have any sway! It's not fair!
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 10:53 AM
AJ, if you or anyone else wants to comment on the application, I recommend contacting your local community board and learning when they will review it. The borough board isn't just the borough president. It is also the city council delegation and the chairs of all affected community boards, which in this case I bet is all of them. Done right, each chair's vote is based on a recommendation that comes out of the community board review and vote.
Of course, a borough board vote was just conjecture when I made my first post. Please note that I said, "perhaps next month." I would be very (!) surprised if there is a vote tonight. However, tonight may be the only (if any) opportunity for the public to comment at a borough board meeting.
Posted by: g man at November 19, 2007 10:59 AM
In case you didn't notice, the truly wealthy don't really have much faith in the ponzi scheme known as the stock market. They invest in real estate. You know what restrictive zoning does? It creates a perpetual shortage of virtually every asset class and raises the price of entry into the market.
This insures that the truly wealthy have little competition and have almost no risk in developing real estate. Right now, development in NYC is probably the least risky investment in the entire country, arguably even less risk than US treasury securities with the current devaluation of the dollar.
It is true the a largely insular, conservative upper middle class supports these zoning laws - but the rich do so for very different reasons.
Posted by: Polemicist at November 19, 2007 11:02 AM
g man:
It was my understanding that the Borough Board meetings were not open to public comment.
Please correct me if I am wrong. And i do plan on contacting my Community Board, as I'm sure they would like a say in the matter, as well as giving the community the right to voice their thoughts or concerns.
Posted by: Action Jackson at November 19, 2007 11:02 AM
10:27,
Love the expletive-free and grammatically sound first paragraph, and how you then set us up for the unexpected tough guy smackdown in round two, with words and phrases like...
white trailer trash, goddamn, NIMBY, shit (2x!) and asshat(s) (2x!)
Personally I would have included "fucktard," maybe even twice! Take care, and tell all the guys at AIA that you really do deserve a bonus this year!
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 11:04 AM
AJ, Pursuant to Section 85(b)(3) of the New York City Charter, the borough board cannot vote except at a meeting open to the public. That is consistent with Article 7, Section 102 of the New York State Public Officers Law. There are items on tonight's agenda that need to be voted on, so the meeting should be opened to the public.
I had been thinking of stopping by myself. I heard that some of the southern Brooklyn neighborhoods were not happy with the yard text amendment proposed by City Planning. But as I mentioned earlier, that didn't seem to have made it on to the agenda. Perhaps I lost track of a month.
Posted by: g man at November 19, 2007 11:17 AM
g man, updated info I just received via an e-mail from one of the listservs.
Note:
Tonight (Monday, 11/19) is a public hearing and a Borough Board meeting. There will be a presentation and discussion only, with no vote taken. Public will be allowed speak at the hearing. This is one of the arena's to voice any public concerns (con or pro). It will be at Brooklyn Borough Hall starting at 6:00pm.
Posted by: Action Jackson at November 19, 2007 11:21 AM
Does this mean they feel they no longer have the option of just violating the zoning and self-certifying, or going to the BSA?
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 11:26 AM
AJ, good job. Which listserv? fyi, the borough board meetings tend to start late. Bring reading.
Posted by: g man at November 19, 2007 11:28 AM
One major reason the AIA is seeking these changes is to "Allow flexibility to encourage variety and design excellence, consistent with sound planning and urban design principles."
Sounds like they are just trying to cram 10 more pounds in the same 5lb bag. What the AIA should be trying to do is more PR to try and deflect responsibility for what they have already designed and built.. I can't wait to see the new improved modern Brooklyn after all those beautiful rear dormers and fantastically designed rooftop bulkheads finally get unleashed on the public.
AND NO INCREASED FAR? Trojan horse shit.
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 11:44 AM
When the AIA, or Developers (or any wealthy lechers) start talking about doing what is best for us all. EX: Affordable housing, etc.
The first thing that should come to the mind of the rest of us is "Oh shit, here we go again. I hope they use some Vaseline"
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 12:27 PM
What exactly would be the point of rear dormers?
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 12:28 PM
Rear dormers = enclosed balconies.
A rear balcony is a permissible intrusion into the rear yard. Dormers are not. So enclose a balcony and presto-chango now you have another bedroom, I mean dormer.
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 1:12 PM
"What exactly would be the point of rear dormers?"
I'm guessing to reduce impact of the view plane from street level. Of course this comes at the expense of those who live at the rear of properties or back yards, etc.
It seems the majority of the changes the AIA is lobbying for will negatively impact the overall quality of light and air, something needed as this city becomes overbuilt.
A uniform street wall is a nice idea, but not at the expense of the quality of life of those who are in properties of lower density and height.
Posted by: Action Jackson at November 19, 2007 1:14 PM
These proposals seem pretty fair to me. I don't see any reason to want setbacks when adjacent structure don't have them. Or force developers to build gaps between buildings on corner lots to meet the 80% coverage. Also, removing the site yard requirements for houses is realistic in New York - this ain't suburbia.
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 2:10 PM
g-man, the Borough Board reportedly isn't voting on the yard and street tree amendments because the resolution from CB15 was so wack that Markowitz just dropped the whole subject. Reportedly, the community board expressed fears that children might be kidnapped right out of the front yard if fences weren't allowed to be higher than four feet.
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 2:26 PM
Does a dormer count as FAR? If not, its adding floor area.
On the other counts, these do seem by and large about design flexibility, which, yes, helps developers. It can also help architects design better buildings. And if does not increase density or substantially change the purpose of contextual zoning, it could be OK (can anyone provide a count-by-count summary of why these might be bad ideas)?
Posted by: WBer at November 19, 2007 2:31 PM
The AIA is NOT proposing any changes to the allowable floor area in any district. Anyone on this board that thinks so is just feeding into his or her own paranoia. Yes, I am an architect, though not an AIA member. Most of these changes pertain to uncommon contextual situations and I seriously doubt that anyone will notice an impact on their environment either way. 1:12: your interpretation of rear dormers is completely wrong. A rear setback is currently required and would be maintained under the proposed changes.
The key components of this proposal, I believe are the allowance of multiple dwellings in lots 18' wide or narrower (this is for new buildings only, and how many vacant lots like this are there? Few), as there will be now difference in the size of the building whether there are one, two, three, or fifty apartments. The building code egress requirements will most likely keep these new buildings at one or two family anyway, so stop complaining.
The provision for waiving side lot requirements in low density areas (through a difficult BSA process, no less) is very important, as there are numerous vacant lots in Red Hook, Bed-Stuy, Bushwick, etc... that are currently UNBUILDABLE under current zoning rules. If this change is not made, it will guarantee that these lots are vacant forever. Fine if it's a community garden, but not if it's a trash-strewn dangerous vacant lot in a neighborhood in need of affordable housing.
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 2:37 PM
"The AIA is NOT proposing any changes to the allowable floor area in any district."
Um, who said that? There was no mention, that I can read, anywhere about screwing with the FAR. Believe me, folks would really be screaming.
Awfully defensive for a non AIA member. Have to point that out.
Posted by: Action Jackson at November 19, 2007 2:44 PM
"The AIA is NOT proposing any changes to the allowable floor area in any district. Anyone on this board that thinks so is just feeding into his or her own paranoia."\
For you civilians, there are two bulk controls, floor area (FAR) and the building envelope -- height, setback, yard, etc.
The latter generally allows more space than the former, to give architects design flexibility -- ie. not every building is shaped the same because it fills the envelope, because the FAR is lower.
If you have a zoning lot merger and unused floor area is transferred from adjacent buildings, however, the FAR on a given lot can be exceeded, and the building envelope is the only real bulk control. Hence, more FAR may, in fact, be built by stuffing the envelope.
It was to prevent zoning lot mergers from leading to outsized buildings that the contextual zoning rules were implemented to begin with. Particularly since under the generic districts there are two sets of rules with different advantages, and by illegally picking and choosing buildings built structures far larger than was in fact allowed (ie. the building on 16th Street and the similar one on Prospect in lower Park Slope).
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 3:03 PM
(There are numerous vacant lots in Red Hook, Bed-Stuy, Bushwick, etc... that are currently UNBUILDABLE under current zoning rules. If this change is not made, it will guarantee that these lots are vacant forever.)
Or until an acceptable price is offered to the owner of the building next door for a teardown followed by construction of a building of reasonable size.
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 3:10 PM
The trend in new Brooklyn and Queens low rise development seems to be demanding that the front of the building be set back from the street in order for a space to be paved and used as parking. If the rules change won't you, architects, be going against what your clients wish?
Don't corner buildings already have exemptions from rear yard intrusions (commercial overlays for one)?
I'm all for changing the rules in order to meet the demands of the next century (Green Roofs, Solar panels, ect) but let's not pretend that this has anything to do with building a better looking/running city. It's all about maxing out the FAR as demanded by the people who hire you, and in the South Slope that has been a less than desirable bunch of opportunists. I know Architects in general have had to bear the brunt of the public's anger. They certainly don't make the kind of money other professionals do. They have possibly joined the ranks of lawyers when it comes to paying for the sins of the few within their profession.
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 5:29 PM
Action Jackson, Guest 11:44 is the paranoid one claiming this is an increase in FAR.
Posted by: guest at November 19, 2007 11:09 PM
"Guest 11:44 is the paranoid one claiming this is an increase in FAR"
Point taken, but 11:44's comment is "out of context" (pun intended).
As said above, this is about height, bulk and it's affect on a community's light and air quality vs. more build-able space for a potential new development. Over & out.
Posted by: Action Jackson at November 20, 2007 12:37 AM
I would not mind taller buildings if new construction wasnt quite so ugly.
Could the board approve these changes and offset them with limitations on some of the most unappealing building methods used by short sighted developers?
Posted by: slick at November 20, 2007 1:41 AM
Slick,
We're debating changes to zoning text, not building aesthetics...though the AIA would lead you to believe so.
Unfortunately there will still be those Fedders style shit boxes out there, regardless of how this all goes down withe the BP, CPC and City Council.
Posted by: Action Jackson at November 20, 2007 9:36 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.