« Council Debates Bill Aimed at Abusive Landlords Morton’s, Other Big Chains Coming to Downtown »
December 18, 2007
AIA Proposed Zoning Tweaks: Beware the Domino Effect
A grumpy and defensive lawyer representing the American Institute for Architects got a little more than he had bargained for when he came to pitch the trade group's six proposals for changes to the city zoning code (known as "text amendments") at last week's Community Board 7 meeting. While the objections raised by the community at the three-hour meeting are too numerous to adequately cover in this space, one potential ramification of enacting the AIA's suggestions particularly grabbed our attention. The architects (who stand to benefit if the code becomes more pro-developer) have suggested that a building's height be allowed to be increased by up to 25% up to the height of an adjacent building (something, like all the proposed changes, that can often be achieved by variance). (For example, in an R8 district, a building that otherwise would have been restricted to 60 feet could now be 75 feet if one of the buildings on either side is that tall.) The downside of such a move would be two-fold: 1) The immediate negative impact on light and air of a single application of the proposed change; 2) The far scarier potential for a domino effect longer-term by which a whole block of otherwise two- or three-story buildings gradually could be increased to match the tallest building on the block. Poof! There goes the neighborhood.
AIA Trying to Upzone the Downzoning? [Brownstoner]
Proposed Text Amendments [AIA]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3263
Comments
Give them your hand and they want the whole arm. Human nature, I guess. Or the hog's nature.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 9:34 AM
I think you are misunderstanding the issue. There is a difference between Height and Bulk. One can design a building that is the same total square feet but just taller. I believe, the AIA is not lobbying for larger buildings just more contextual height.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 9:43 AM
Wrong 9:43. AIA is attempting to circumvent building regulations that protect communities and get away with it as in the infamous case of Scarano. The contextual is exactly the problem.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 9:57 AM
You could make the height line-up rule only applicable if the neighboring building was built before the effective date of the text. You might also limit that line-up height to a certain distance from the neighboring building. You shouldn't be able to use a 25-foot-wide neighbor as justification for building a 200-foot-wide building of equal height. Maybe the line-up height should only be available within a distance from the neighbor equal to the width of that neighbor.
Regarding variances, a variance is only supposed to be granted if the site has unique conditions which make development under the site's zoning economically infeasible. Without this 'hardship,' there is no variance case. Of course, there are financial experts, engineers, and attorneys whose entire practice consists of demonstrating such a hardship where none is apparent to the untrained eye, but it's still a stretch to say that a vaiance can often be achieved.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 10:00 AM
It is worthy to note, from what I have read in their presentation, all of the 6 proposed changes can currently be done through a variance appeal to the Board of Standards and Appeals.
Seems like these sweet-heart changes are doing nothing but saving the AIA's clients (our friendly developer bunch), time, expense and greater ROI.
Now, how is that considered contextual? Unless we use the term to refer to the status quo in the current building boom. Money talks and BS zoning walks according to the AIA.
Posted by: Action Jackson at December 18, 2007 10:14 AM
you so confidently responded "wrong" 9:57 but you didn't address the point i was making. there is a difference between the height of a building and the size (bulk FAR) of a building. I don't disagree with you assertion that some architects have abused the current building code and have built buildings that don't fit into certain contexts. The point is that the current zoning code gives limited consideration to context (with regard to height in this case) and the proposed changes would make the zoning code more site specific.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 10:15 AM
Yay, once again the rich and the old farts are trying to whip up hysteria over development.
This is making a mountain out of a mole hill, but the worst part is it hurts those of us who aren't rich.
This proposed legislation is nothing more than an attempt to clarify spot rezoning. For properties on the cusp of a zoning district, you frequently can get a spot rezoning which in effect extends a high density zoning district.
I'll say it again as I always do - every responsible citizen has the moral obligation to fight opponents of high density development. Opponents of reasonable high density development are simply greedy, and their desires ultimately result in diminishing the quality of life of the poor and middle class.
I do hope dear Dante is wrong. What did he say? The greedy would spend eternity with their faces in the ground? Such greed never pays off in the long term - sooner or later those who you oppress will get wise to the injustice of your policies.
Posted by: Polemicist at December 18, 2007 10:22 AM
>
10:15 It's common wisdom. 50 sf bulk doesn't mean infinite hgt, say 50 storeys. It just that: Limited variance consideration.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 10:40 AM
The "domino theory" is an interesting one I had not thought of before, though I think its easily addressed by 10:00's recommendations. (BTW 10:00 - with regard to variances, I think actually these issues are often dealt with through special permits, which do not require a demonstration of hardship.)
At least as far as this height issue is concerned, Polemicist can relax - there is no density issue here. As 9:43/10:15 rightly points out, this about reconfiguring the same amount of density (FAR) within a different envelope. The height is allowed to be more flexible, but the density (FAR) is unchanged.
Posted by: WBer at December 18, 2007 10:46 AM
Why fix it if it ain't broken. It sounds like another loophole for developers to use to abuse our neighborhoods.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 11:16 AM
none of the proposed AIA amendments change floor area (ie: BULK). They are not asking for more floor area: they are asking for some leeway within the zoning resolution (written by lawyers) to do what architects do: design within context.
the amendment in particular is written because the quality housing regulations, while on the whole quite good for the community, oftentimes PROHIBIT contextual design.
It asks for, in certain cases the ability to match heights with the building next door. This creates a uniform and contextual streetscape.
this has nothing to do with Scarano. read the actual proposal before making accusations of architects who dedicate their careers to making new york city a better place.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 11:19 AM
11:19 -- Architects "design within context?!" If that happened more often in Brooklyn, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. The constant disregard for contextual development that some architects (and developers) have shown is part of why this AIA proposal is being met with such suspicion.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 11:38 AM
"none of the proposed AIA amendments change floor area (ie: BULK). They are not asking for more floor area: they are asking for some leeway within the zoning resolution (written by lawyers) to do what architects do: design within context."
Nice play of words...again another BS response from an AIA member, 11:19am
While FAR will not increase, the AIA will gain the ability to rearrange the FAR more efficiently, thus more sellable sq. ft. for the client, where zoning code may not allow them to do so in lower density districts.
So, let's call a spade a spade, or as the AIA lobbyist said "call a duck a duck" at the CB7 hearing.
Lame duck in my book.
-ccgh
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 11:58 AM
11:19 can't help to see it in one way. What trumps your integrity or dedication to your calling and your belief in making NYC a better place is your caving in to developers who only care about the bottom line. "Oh, the developers want it this way..." It's a sad day when the architects, developers and lawyers complicitly design and write legalese documents to circumvent urban regulations or get around them "in context" in exchange for the mighty bottom line. And so the blind leads the blind. At least create a more compelling design. Zoning laws are clear although subject to change and interpretation over time based on community zeitgeist. Complicity and laziness molds the morally corrupt in the business.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 12:06 PM
Does it matter that the rendering that's shown in this post is different than the first post about this issue? I think that more contextual height is good, especially when the building can serve as a bridge between two disparate building heights
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 12:16 PM
caving in to developers- what does that even mean? we have a constant housing shortage in NYC. and, by the way, no one owns a neighborhood.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 1:43 PM
11:58 CCGH - too bad you don't know what you are talking about. The FAR is the FAR - tell me how you sell more than you have? How can you sell FAR more efficiently? Actually have you ever sold FAR before? Didn't think so. Setbacks were made to increase light and air (air?) to the street - good in theory but it doesn't make sense on the north side of a street. It is also arbitrary if the buildings to either side were built before the zoning came into effect. The AIA is only saying that in some circumstances the setbacks don't make sense and that instead of the zoning reslution designing the bulk of a building, it should be treated on a case by case basis.
Believe me when I say the AIA is going to monetarily benefit from this. They are fairly useless and incompetent.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 2:03 PM
If designing within context means matching a new building to an adjacent older one non-compliant to codes (i.e. ADA) or previous ways of living I must say it is VERY hard to design anything in this city other than a flat facade with window openings. Forget the stoops and firescapes. While the city will increase it's population with 1 million people the trend here is to undensify, not taking advantage of the urban network but promoting its expansion. Increase heights, within short first floors may flood.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 2:23 PM
"tell me how you sell more than you have? "
2:03pm
As I said, not more than you have, being able to MAX OUT WHAT YOU HAVE. Read what I said...
Increases to Max base heights, full lot coverage on corners, rear dormers (are you kidding me), etc. all allow architects to rearange the building envelope to max out the FAR for their clients. Period.
This could be done at the BSA or via the Zoning Text changes from the AIA. Why in hell would the public want what should be case by case senarios for variances to the BSA (with the exception of the proposed text change dealing w/ R1-R5 districts). No Community Board review (thus no publc hearings), no Borough pres review (thus less public comment) and whamo, more (and agian, read what I say) SELLABLE space due to maxing out the FAR.
The Trojan Horse being stuffed down the public's Citywide throat are not tweaks or small changes.
-ccgh
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:11 PM
I was at the CB7 committee meeting and I can assure you that no lobbyists for the AIA were harmed. Even though it was apparent their text proposals all are meant to screw you.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:55 PM
i agree that not all architects are able to direct their developers in the right direction: its very difficult, frankly.
the very simple point is this: the amendment was made by architects who WANT TO DESIGN IN CONTEXT, and have been prohibited to do so by zoning requirements.
i've designed several Quality Housing buildings, 3:11, and the issue has never been maximizing salable square footage (and when did that become a crime?), but rather the strictness of the street wall and setback regulations often make it IMPOSSIBLE to make context appropriate design decisions: the decisions are made for you.
its a free country: feel free to oppose the amendments, but just know that you couldn't be more wrong about the intentions behind the proposal.
and i'm not part of the AIA, actually. I just have experienced the same frustrations as the AIA architects have.
at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter: some of us will do our best with what we've got, and other people will bend the rules.
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 6:15 PM
"at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter: some of us will do our best with what we've got, and other people will bend the rules."
I think you may be getting at the gist of what ccgh and others are saying, 6:15pm.
It's those who do bend the rules everyone worries about. Let them go through the BSA, CBs and BP for a proper variance, where context and community buy-in can be properly and fairly weighed. As of right structures are one thing. Building outside of the ZR is another and should have oversight.
I know of many occasions where CBs have supported variances due the improvement they would offer to the street-scape, neighborhood, etc.
If the process, the BSA variance process specifically, "ain't broke, why fix it."
Seems nefarious to me on behalf of the AIA, since it is such a transparent hand off of $$ between the association and whom their members ultimately serve.
Your volley.
Posted by: Action Jackson at December 18, 2007 7:35 PM
Action Jackson:
You should be worried about those who bend the rules. As a design professional, so am I.
A few points on that, though:
1) This amendment is not a way of getting over on the city, as far as I can see. Either it passes or it doesn't. I would like to see it pass because it does enable flexibility. Flexibility, to me, allows for a greater ability to design within context.
2) Someone posted that this amendment was bad because it allowed people to use the FAR to create more sellable units. I don't get that one. First, going higher is not really desirable, cost-wise. Second, most lots don't benefit substantially in terms of layout from this amendment (you always run out of Floor Area first). Isn't the whole point to create Quality Housing, anyway?
3). The domino effect is somewhat disingenuous as an argument. The amendment would never allow any building over the maximum building height of the underlying district. We are talking about 10 feet, and only if you have floor area to enable it (incidentally: this makes for larger rear yards). You would never see an increase of several stories over current as of right taken because of the proposed amendment.
4). BSA is completely broken. Unless you know Doctoroff. Talk about corrupt.
5) I personally don't think its nefarious for an organization to make educated proposals in a public forum. Architects deal with zoning every day, and are therefore intimately familiar with its benefits its failures. And again, I'm not in the AIA.
6) Nobody agrees more than I that 'bad' professionals need to be regulated. What does that have to do with this proposal, though? If you want to stop people from 'mis-interpreting' the Zoning Resolution, the city needs better equipped plan examiners. Mr. Scarano has been running circles around these guys for years. Smarter bureaucrats would have demanded that the language regarding Mezzanines be changed years ago (because, frankly, he's not technically wrong in his interpretation. the buildings get used contrary to the ZR after the fact....but thats why they need to INSPECT!). Smarter bureaucrats would have insisted that, when you dig out rear yards to create 'accessory storage to studios above,' you in fact need to measure the height of the rear of the building from the lowered yard and so on and so forth.
Regards: 6:15
Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 11:36 PM
Point well taken 11:36. Investing time and thought on these issues help articulate the ZR since there's so much at stake for all parties involved. Unfortunately, there are unscrupulous profs on both ends who will always find loopholes in the amendments that can render checks and balances moot. Will inspection weed out corruption?
Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 10:15 AM
6:15pm/11:36 pm
Good points. Good debate. Let's agree to disagree and see how this vetted out with CBs, BP's and ultimately CPC and City Council, though word on the street is CM Avella (Queens), who Chairs the Land Use committee, has asked the AIA to voluntarily withdraw their application, or he'll kill it in committee. Due more to process than anything else, though his CB district supposedly blew up as much as Bklyn CB7.
Posted by: Action Jackson at December 19, 2007 11:22 AM
Agree to disagree? Sounds to me like 11:36 knows what they speak of.
Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 2:03 PM
Um, that's why we'd agree to disagree, since I believe I know what I'm talking about as well...
Posted by: Action Jackson at December 19, 2007 3:55 PM
I love Tony Avella!
Posted by: guest at December 20, 2007 9:56 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.