AIANYgraphic1.jpg
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]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. 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)?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. “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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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”

  7. 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.

1 2 3