Breaking the Rules in Greenwood Heights?

Actually Action Jackson, you're not NEARLY as familiar with the ZR as you say you are:

This building is in full compliance: you are allowed to have a 'dormer' up to 60% of the street wall width extend to the Max Building Height (minus 1 ft for each % over 50% of the street wall width the dormer is wide) at the street wall line. (see the text below)

Its done all the time, and is perfectly legal, and in fact encourage, by the Zoning Resolution. Before stating unequivocally that an Architect (you have no idea how difficult our licensing procedure is) is breaking the law, you ought to understand the law first.

R6A R6B R7A R7B R7D R7X R8A R8B R8X R9A R9X R10A R10X
(c) In the districts indicated, and for #buildings developed# or
#enlarged# pursuant to the Quality Housing Program in other
R6, R7, R8, R9 and R10 Districts, the permitted obstructions
set forth in Section 23-62 shall apply to any #building or
other structure#. In addition, a dormer may be allowed as a
permitted obstruction within a required setback distance.
Such dormer may exceed a maximum base height specified for
such district provided that on any #street# frontage, the
aggregate width of all dormers at the maximum base height
does not exceed 60 percent of the length of the #street
wall# of the highest #story# entirely below the maximum base
height. For each foot of height above the maximum base
height, the aggregate width of all dormers shall be
decreased by one percent of the #street wall# width of the highest #story# entirely below the maximum base height.

Posted by: young archi at April 10, 2009 12:58 PM

rising crane is right: above 4 stories and an elevator is required.

A penthouse or an attic does not count as a story and therefore no elevator would be req'd.

Posted by: young archi at April 10, 2009 1:02 PM

Action Jackson

You didn't read the zoning text I copied carefully. i have pulled out the pertinent text, which EXPLICITYLY allows dormers to penetrate the MAX BUILDING HEIGHT within the required setback.

'In addition, a dormer may be allowed as a
permitted obstruction WITHIN A REQUIRED SETBACK DISTANCE.'

I do this for a living. That dormer is perfectly legal.

I generally appreciate your posts, just not the ones where you act as though you are an authority on the Zoning Resolution. I don't want to be too offensive, but you really don't know what you're talking about with the ZR, and its disingenuous to act as if you do.

Posted by: young archi at April 10, 2009 1:15 PM

Action: You're confusing separate parts of the text and the building code.

You're confusing bulkhead (another permitted obstruction: not habitable space) with a dormer (habitable space: permitted obstruction in certain districts under certain conditions).

You're also confusing some of Scarano's tricks:

The trick I beleive you're referring too, if there is one, is that (perhaps: its impossible to tell), the attic is not included as floor area. Which is perfectly legal as long as it is used for its intended use (B-2: storage) and the ceiling height is less than 8'-0". Is it/will it? How does anyone know from this rendering?

If it is in fact habitable, they should get a violation for occupancy contrary to C/O.

Long story short: this building is absolutely in compliance with all height regulations because of the DORMER provisions.

As far as FAR (did they/should they have included attic as Floor Area), you can't tell from the filing. If you really want to find out, pull the microfilm from DOB. its public record.

My guess is that it is right, because the job isn't professionally certified and the DOB generally catches Floor Area discrepancies like this.

Posted by: young archi at April 10, 2009 1:35 PM

Action,

Perhaps lost in my babbling is this:

The height is legal. There are no 2 ways about this.

Its not a trick.

The potentially nefarious aspect of this building doesn't impact the envelope at all. Its the equivalent of having a living room in a cellar. Its not legal (usually), but it doesn't have an impact on the street front or context, so is therefore outside of the realm of the discussion.

Is it legal for them to extend the building higher than the neighbor for a portion of the street width?

Absolutely Yes.

Posted by: young archi at April 10, 2009 2:23 PM

1842:

Its not a 'justification'.

It is as of right.

It is, in fact, EXACTLY what the zoning resolution considers to be a dormer.

Zoning resolution does not grant height permitted obstructions predicated on styles of architecture. That is to say: the zoning resolution defines bulk and envelope, and does not give preference to mansard roof over flat roof.

You don't like the aesthetic? fine.

It doesn't' change the fact that the architect is following the zoning resolution to a 'T', and shouldn't be accused of 'pushing it.'

It is NOT a precedent! Hundreds upon hundreds of modern buildings use the dormer provisions, as it is AS OF RIGHT.

Contextual Zoning = context of scale, not context of style.

Its really frustrating to watch people accuse architects of misconduct, or as the post claims: 'breaking the rules'.

This is exactly what the rules allow!!!!! Call the commissioner of the DOB if you don't believe me...

Posted by: young archi at April 10, 2009 5:18 PM

Action,

I never said it was pretty.

I'm merely responding to the fact that several people on this post (yourself included) claimed that the building was clearly against the zoning resolution.

My only point is this: Please don't go around saying Architects are breaking the law when they aren't?

If you had only said: I think this building is fugly, I wouldn't have responded.

Instead, you (and others) said this guy is basically breaking the law. And you said it as if you knew what you were talking about, which makes it seem like its definitely true.

You know what?

Go to architecture school for 5 years, get criticized constantly by professors, don't sleep for more than 3 hours a night during the school year for 5 years straight, graduate, spend 3+ years getting paid peanuts while working all kinds of ungodly hours, then take 7 different exams to get your license, learn the zoning resolution in practice, learn the NYC building code in practice, learn ADA in practice, learn IBC in practice, balance your business and artistic pursuits with your client's need to make a profit, the good of public safety, the context of the streetscape, the fit within the neighborhood, balance material cost vs aesthetic intent, try to respect the past while proposing new ideas, balance your engineer's functional demands vs DOB code and Landmarks aesthetic demands, detail a building to maximize energy savings to reduce carbon footprint, deal with an ornery contractor on site who won't build to your drawings, do it all for a budget and make less money than all other professionals (engineers, lawyers, doctors) and then criticize this guy.

But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't make unsubstantiated claims of breaking the law.

Oh, by the way, i agree there are some ugly new buildings in that neighborhood.

Posted by: young archi at April 10, 2009 7:34 PM

Action,

If you want architects to hear your point of view, attending an AIA meeting is a great way to go.

When I used to work in Brooklyn, Scarano would attend regularly, though I never actually had a conversation with him.

Most of us do the job because we think we can positively impact the built environment....

Posted by: young archi at April 10, 2009 9:39 PM