Development Watch: 53 Java Street

Maly,

Not really the governments place to legislate aesthetics, thank god.

Whether or not you like this building is inconsequential. If you wanted a say in how the property looks, you should have spent your own millions of dollars buying and developing it.

In my opinion, if the govn't DID legislate aesthetics, then it would be really really bad, and really boring.

Zoning does not seek to address the 'troll-esque' properties of the building.

As to the 'hulking' aspect....Scarano was under a pretty intense microscope, so my guess is that his later buildings that finally made it out of audit are probably in full compliance with the zoning resolution...I could be wrong

zoning usually doesn't say you can't build higher than your neighbor but rather puts a max height limit in feet regardless of neighboring buildings...the sliver law is the exception to this and probably does not apply in this district...

Posted by: young archi at May 5, 2009 2:57 PM

cmu.

yes i am an architect.

i didn't weigh in on my opinion of this building, so how can you qualify my 'aesthetic sensibility'?

i am right in a BROAD sense that the community has no right determining the aesthetics of the building.

ever heard of the constitution?

what right do you have to dictate how these people develop their property?

this 'hood is clearly not landmarked (see the 'piece of trash' siding buildings next to it).

of course i've heard of contextual zoning. as I said before: zoning doesn't make you match your neighbor's height (except sliver law, which this is not), it gives you a max height in feet.

obviously, some architects and developers produce ugly, non contextual buildings.

my point is that its not really up to you or I to design those buildings for them.

Posted by: young archi at May 5, 2009 4:24 PM

cmu,

you are a pompous douchebag.

please read my posts before going on unequivocal rants.

i said, quite clearly, that bulk is dictated by zoning, and aesthetics are not dictated by zoning.

I am completely RIGHT, in theory and practice.

where do you get off calling me morally bankrupt, you thoughtless, idiotic piece of s###?

my POSITION, if you had taken the time to read it, is that, unless its landmarked, the community DOES NOT have the right to legislate AESTHETICS (again, i clearly indicated that zoning (ie government) has authority over bulk.

Posted by: young archi at May 5, 2009 5:05 PM

cmu

seriously. you need to stop putting words in my mouth and pretending to know how i design buildings.

you have no idea what i think is aesthetically pleasing nor do you know what my buildigns look like.

Posted by: young archi at May 5, 2009 5:09 PM

dittoburg,

i agree, but i never said the constitution said you could build whatever you like.

14th amendment and subsequent rulings thereon pretty clearly establish an individuals right to own and develop property.

Obviously (as I think I've stated in previous posts) if there is a law regulating building construction (IE building code, zoning, landmarks etc etc etc), you have to follow it (no one's saying developers should challenge zoning on constitutional grounds).

However, as long as you are operating within the context of the Federal, State and Municipal laws and codes, you absolutely have the right to develop your building to its maximum potential in any way you see fit, regardless of the opinions of your neighbors and/or blog postees.

Posted by: young archi at May 6, 2009 10:35 AM

Maly,

You're right, I meant to call you the pompous douchebag.

As to math skills: i never said you were wrong about the 1/3.

How is it morally bankrupt to develop property?

How come I am a pyschopath because I don't agree with you?

Posted by: young archi at May 6, 2009 10:42 AM

Maly,

Also,

You're right, this is getting too heated.

I'm sorry i called you a pompous douchebag (and cmu). However, you really have no basis to judge my professional skills.

Here's the only point that's worth addressing:

Should aesthetics be regulated?

I don't think so (except if they are of historical value (landmarks) or in some exclusive subdivision where you know you are buying into a set of restrictive covenants).

Why don't I think aesthetics should be regulated?
I think it leads to design stagnation and limits new ideas. Not because i like that building particularly. Design by committee is almost always a disaster.

Posted by: young archi at May 6, 2009 10:51 AM