How a Lone Tenant is Holding Up a $70 million Condo Deal in NYC

[Crawford]

Taller, thinner buildings provide more sunlight than shorter, bulkier buildings, but NIMBYs are always advocating for the shorter, bulkier option. So obviously "lack of sun" is just another thing they're throwing out to see if it sticks.

Also, what's wrong with shadow? I prefer walking on a shadowed street as opposed to sidewalk with direct sunglare.

NIMBYs prefer the same. There's a funny pic of NIMBYs protesting a new building on the Upper East Side on the pretense that it will "take away sunlight". Meanwhile their protest was deliberately moved to a shady portion of the sidewalk, due to the shading presence of a large, bulky building.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by Gantz

This shouldn't be up to the city to decide. Let the property owners decide themselves if these conversions are worth their time and money. I think you'd be surprised.

I'd be ok with that, but there are so many long narrow lots in this city with barely any side yards in the outerboros (not to mention plenty of attached buildings all over). Unless they used daylight tube lighting, I have no idea how they could possibly meet the light & air requirements unless the DOB waives them (which I doubt will happen).

Originally Posted by Gantz

Buildings can be constructed in such a way that lets sunlight through, as you mentioned, setbacks. Regardless, sunlight should not be a reason why zoning regulations exist. It is a fairly trivial reason that not at all one of the determining factors for most people's QOL. And frankly, such people to whom the sun is THAT important, probably shouldn't be living in NYC to begin with, but maybe consider Arizona instead. Cloudy skies certainly contribute a lot more than any zoning regulations.

Yes, and guess what these setbacks you gave as an example are dictated by? ZONING. These setbacks don't exist because building owners think they make the building look prettier and more distinct. They exist because the zoning text dictates setbacks from the street for a certain distance from the curbline, and setbacks at different heights in order to comply with the sky exposure plane.

So the zoning text is clearly concerned about sunlight. If it were up to the owners & developers, they would maximize building over the entire lot with zero yard space around the building (side yards, back yards, front yards). You say "sunlight should not be a reason why zoning regulations exist", but you probably lack the imagination to see a city full of tall rectangular monoliths crowding up to the narrow sidewalks on both sides of a street if zoning didn't exist. Or you don't care, except to meet your high population density desires. Not sure.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Taller, thinner buildings provide more sunlight than shorter, bulkier buildings, but NIMBYs are always advocating for the shorter, bulkier option. So obviously "lack of sun" is just another thing they're throwing out to see if it sticks.

Also, what's wrong with shadow? I prefer walking on a shadowed street as opposed to sidewalk with direct sunglare.

NIMBYs prefer the same. There's a funny pic of NIMBYs protesting a new building on the Upper East Side on the pretense that it will "take away sunlight". Meanwhile their protest was deliberately moved to a shady portion of the sidewalk, due to the shading presence of a large, bulky building.

Except for the fact that these taller thinner buildings exist due to zoning regulations. They are required to build on setback on top of a shorter podium (which itself is set back from the streets). Without zoning regulations, you don't get a bunch of tall skinny towers. You get a bunch of shorter massive highrises that crowd entire blocks and loom over narrow sidewalks.

[mrnyc]

skinny towers and setbacks are a good thing. i like light. i like the variety of the looks it gives buildings.

the bugger is the new building streetlevel setbacks from the sidewalk. i dont have a problem with that if its put to use, like these infill hotels that use it as cafe space, but when the space isn't used its a wasteful eyesore and potential homeless hangout.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by dchan

Yes, and guess what these setbacks you gave as an example are dictated by? ZONING. These setbacks don't exist because building owners think they make the building look prettier and more distinct. They exist because the zoning text dictates setbacks from the street for a certain distance from the curbline, and setbacks at different heights in order to comply with the sky exposure plane.

So the zoning text is clearly concerned about sunlight. If it were up to the owners & developers, they would maximize building over the entire lot with zero yard space around the building (side yards, back yards, front yards). You say "sunlight should not be a reason why zoning regulations exist", but you probably lack the imagination to see a city full of tall rectangular monoliths crowding up to the narrow sidewalks on both sides of a street if zoning didn't exist. Or you don't care, except to meet your high population density desires. Not sure.

Except for the fact that these taller thinner buildings exist due to zoning regulations. They are required to build on setback on top of a shorter podium (which itself is set back from the streets). Without zoning regulations, you don't get a bunch of tall skinny towers. You get a bunch of shorter massive highrises that crowd entire blocks and loom over narrow sidewalks.

I think we are talking about two different things. Setbacks only exist in NYC in areas with very relaxed zoning, that allows very high FAR. Areas with very strict zoning in NYC have very short squat buildings with no setbacks whatsoever. In majority of NYC, setbacks are not practical precisely due to zoning regulations.
I do not lack imagination either. I just happen to travel to other megacities around the world and see how they build things. Most of your objections about sunlight, mononliths crowing up sidewalks, etc are completely unfounded and demonstrably false. The worst type of urban fabric I encountered is actually masterplanned Le Corbusier tower in the park, NYCHA/commieblock developments and parking podium highrise among nothingness and highways.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by Gantz

I think we are talking about two different things. Setbacks only exist in NYC in areas with very relaxed zoning, that allows very high FAR. Areas with very strict zoning in NYC have very short squat buildings with no setbacks whatsoever. In majority of NYC, setbacks are not practical precisely due to zoning regulations.

Not really. Zoning is zoning. It dictates how far a building is set back, the minimum yard space on all sides, the amount of parking, the FAR for the lot, the number of dwelling units permitted, etc. It defines these aspects differently for different zoning areas, but it defines them nevertheless.

For high density areas, zoning creates setbacks partly due to the sky exposure plane issue, and partly due to the maximum amount of dwelling units permitted on a lot.

And you are incorrect in stating that setbacks do not exist in very strict zoning areas (R1 & R2). It depends entirely on what the specific zoning text states for the area. Some restrictive zoning areas require a setback to comply with the "character" of the rest of the houses in the area.

Also, not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Can you explain? Thanks.

I do not lack imagination either. I just happen to travel to other megacities around the world and see how they build things. Most of your objections about sunlight, mononliths crowing up sidewalks, etc are completely unfounded and demonstrably false. The worst type of urban fabric I encountered is actually masterplanned Le Corbusier tower in the park, NYCHA/commieblock developments and parking podium highrise among nothingness and highways.

We might just have a difference of opinion on this issue here. I prefer sunlight, and you might not. For me, sunlight is the difference between a warmly lit apartment with southern exposure vs. a rather coldly dim apartment with only northern exposure.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

skinny towers and setbacks are a good thing. i like light. i like the variety of the looks it gives buildings.

the bugger is the new building streetlevel setbacks from the sidewalk. i dont have a problem with that if its put to use, like these infill hotels that use it as cafe space, but when the space isn't used its a wasteful eyesore and potential homeless hangout.

It depends on the specific neighborhood and building, I suppose. If the ground level stores are occupied and thriving, and people in the neighborhood actively use these spaces, then they're pretty nice. But if they are empty, the homeless may see it as carte blanche to occupy the space because it's free.