AIA Kills Drive for Zoning Text Amendments
The American Institute of Architects has withdrawn “from formal consideration” its proposed zoning text amendments, according to a post on Queens Crap. The AIA’s push for the amendments—which would’ve increased lot coverage on smaller lots and allowed taller maximum base heights for some buildings in R6 through R10 zones—were criticized by some (most vocally, Queens…
The American Institute of Architects has withdrawn “from formal consideration” its proposed zoning text amendments, according to a post on Queens Crap. The AIA’s push for the amendments—which would’ve increased lot coverage on smaller lots and allowed taller maximum base heights for some buildings in R6 through R10 zones—were criticized by some (most vocally, Queens Councilman Tony Avella) on the grounds that the tweaks hadn’t gotten enough of a public airing. In a letter to Planning Chair Amanda Burden, AIA’s past and present NYC presidents wrote that they “regret that these suggestions will not come to public hearing at the Commission or at City Council, but strongly urge that efforts go forward to identify and correct inconsistencies and deficiencies in the Zoning Resolution.”
AIA Text Amendments Withdrawn! [Queens Crap]
AIA’s Zoning Tweaks Draw Heat [Brownstoner]
CCGH: Of course you are laughing. You live for this. NIMBYs like yourself have no lives and get pleasure out of blocking things and preventing buildings from being built.
I love your laundry list of “talking points”, as if the QCC or HDC is influential, representative of the public, or has ever supported anything having to do with design or good government.
You are lying about MAS. They are not in opposition.
18 Community Boards? That means 41 Community Boards did not sign up for your crusade. One Borough President? That means four did not sign up for your crusade. Community Boards are not representative of their communities; they are Boss Tweed zones for political hacks, with a few senior citizens thrown in for good measure. The Bushwick board, for example (Vito’s board), is dominated by an ethnicity that departed forty years ago.
The fact that a few “community” groups have the ear of Tony Avella means that there will be further delays, and the issue won’t be put to a vote until there is more “community” consultation, which means many months of “reaching out” and appeasing voting members of the council.
Once this consultation ends, the plan will be passed in modified format, and you can commence your crying about more “consultation” and “input”, because of course you think we need machine Commnity Board hacks, not architects or planners, to guide the city’s zoning text and built form.
Translation: AIA got such heat from Community Boards and City Council, Recommendations from Borough Boards to change the text, pressure from CBOs and Preservation Organizations (who are also for intelligent design in the City) that City Planning felt forced to ask them to withdraw the application.
I don’t know I would add 18 Community Boards, several City Councilmembers, the Brooklyn Borough president, Historic Districts Council, Municipal Arts Society, Queens Civic Congress…etc. in with nimby’s who “hate everything.”
While I do find myself funny at times, I’m not sure you realize who’s doing the laughing now.
-ccgh
12:57 and 1:26, right on. 12:08 is an ignorant hack.
3:02 loses to Godwin’s Law by crying NIMBY! NIMBY! NIMBY!!!!!!!!!1!!!ONE!!
I’m so goddamn sick of that crybaby whine.
CCGH, you are hilarious. It’s obvious you haven’t bothered to read the letter, nor do you have any background knowledge of the situation.
The reality is that City Planning is getting heat from the anti-everythings, so they are backing off for now.
Here’s the relevent letter exerpts for the NIMBYs:
Regarding the withdrawal,
“We do so at the specific suggestion of City Planning Department staff, to allow for more time for public discussion of the portions of the Zoning Resolution which limit the ability of architects to create good design.”
Translation: City Planning is revisiting this in the near future.
“I hope City Planning does the right thing and pushes the proposal forward”
Uh, have you not read the post? It has been withdrawn. At least us supposed nimbys can read, jeese.
And no, I’m not both 12:57 and 1:26, just like minded.
And who said anything about hating change or new development.
I think you are confusing issues 3:02pm
-ccgh
12:57 and 1:26 are obviously the same person. Just another reactionary NIMBY member of the “community” that hates new housing and development, and opposed the proposal based on fear of more “change”.
I hope City Planning does the right thing and pushes the proposal forward. A minority of anti–everythings should not dictate the face of the city against the wishes of the majority.
I forgot to add above (to my 1:26pm post) I (and my CBO and CB) were proud to stand beside CM Avella, HDC, MAS and other CBs against this trojan horse. Glad it did not have a change to get through the gates of CPC.
-ccgh
12:57PM, thank you.
Not only did the AIA present to our Board CB7 in Bklyn), which has several architects and tradesmen on committees (so stuff it! 12:08), I also attended the Brooklyn Boro Board meeting as saw the FIRST presentation.
Both places the AIA members (the lead guy at the Boro Board meeting) could not answer basic questions and were completely defensive.
Basic questions were asked by layman and tradesmen alike, and the AIA had no answers.
Ultimately (and the only honest thing they did) was to admit to the fact the text changes would allow their customers (developers) greater flexibility in maxing FAR (not increasing, maxing) and avoid the costly and time consuming process of going before the BSA. Period, end of story.
The fact that they listened to CBOs, our CB and City Council is a good thing, but too little to late. I give them credit for withdrawing the application, but that was only after they came under severe pressure and scrutiny. That tells me something was wriong from Day 1.
And to add to 12:08’s BS post, zoning text changes do not go through normal ULURP review, that was part of the issue. CBs and BPs are not required to hold public hearings like normal ULURPS, thank God our did (and others in the City).
Just by the fact the AIA was attempting to skate by without due process or review (regardless the application type) was the reason CB7 voted it down on principle, not even going into the detailed flaws of the text changes.
Do a wee-bit of research before you make accusations that CB’s (heck BPs) were ill informed and CBOs had no right to weigh in. If I still remember correctly, this is still a democracy were under…for better or worse.
12:08 stole my thunder. (Some of the phraseology even reads like I write; it’s kind of spooky.) The review of the AIA-sponsored text amendment followed the same process as the recent yard and street tree amendments proposed by the Department of City Planning. I didn’t hear any howling about “process” then, which suggests that it’s a false argument now.
As a former member of a community board, and someone who still attends many community board meetings, I can state without equivication that, in general, community boards are poorly informed and frequently biased, often in ways they don’t even see.