Far Upper West Side Gets in the Downzone

1.

Halleluja!!!

2.

Typical UWS complaining. All development is evil.

3.

Doesn't that just mean luxury living in UWS will be MORE expensive? Why is that a "victory" for the UWS? UWS is the grimiest Manhattan neighborhood. They NEED more new development.

4.

Those kinds of decisions reminds me of the socialist Soviet Union in the old days. Why can't a develop pay his/her money, buy a property and develop it if people want to buy? I understand that we need to protect old, historic buildings. But why can't developers build taller buildings on the UWS that has lots of tall buildgins - certainly above 125 feet. This does not make any sense.

Expensive condo project provide a lot of revenue to the city and bring wealthy residents here.

5.

residential nimby positions are narrow & small minded. too bad we can't cut in half the services this area of the uws side receives in police, fire, & MTA services.....just as these folks certainly denying an expansion of Manhattan housing.

you cannot expect Hastings on the Hudson notions and charms, that template to be placed on a world city. verticle growth is bad? oh, is sprawl better?

if i recall..of the housing in this area, a significant amount of it is public housing?....god forbid real income earners that can spend money in the community move in.

great, dense areas of public housing & mostly rent stab housing are now calling the shots on economic growth. i say cut their services in half and teach'em a lesson.

6.

I think its time to get rid of Community Boards. They don't represent the "community", they only represent crazies who have too much time on their hands.

125 feet is insanely low for Broadway on the Upper West Side. Broadway is the densest street in the densest borough in the densest city.

There are already at least 3 300+ foot buildings and even more 200+ foot buildings along that stretch of Broadway. Many of these much taller buildings are from the 1920's. Funny how the Community Board doesn't consider these apartment buildings part of the neighborhood "context."

I fervently hope that City Planning will ignore these wackos and institute more realistic contextual zoning.

7.

Oh yes, this is stalinist move by Community Board N. 7. We need more beautiful people in the UWS.

8.

What they really need is bill on the UWS to limit the number of retail banks.

Really stinks that these banks keep opening, anytime a corner property become available on Bway or one of the through streets. Yuck!

9.

Funny thing is these NIMBYs probably think they are being all progressive, zoning out new housing and new tax base, when they are basically the urban equivalent of Tom DeLay.

A bunch of right-wing idiots who want to control everything and everyone and think anyone who isn't exactly like them (old, ugly and feeble-minded). The Upper West Siders might as well live in Paramus. They probably would love to live in the burbs, they just can't be extracted from their rent controlled-till-death hovels, so they try and recreate the burbs in the City (low buildings, easy parking, no pedestrians, no diversity).

10.

Those who live in UWS should send an email to their city council and protest this and shold be more active and attend their community board meetings to make sure they are not overrun with old timers that were born in the beginning of this century and feel that any new development is evil.

11.

You are all nuts! We are not opposed to new development -- I for one like the new building at the end of my block (107th) -- but it was built in a "contextual" way -- zoning here and below 96th requires set backs after 15 floors to fit in with the older development. For some reason the zoning board missed 96th to 106th, and we are seeking to correct.

If you want to see the kind of building we support, check out the new builing at 92nd an Bway, or 110 and Bway.

And who says rich people are better? Bunch of self-centered yuppies who care nothing about community and will flee at the first sign of trouble -- yeah, great asset to the hood!

12.

Frank - contextual is a nimby way of saying they don't like tall buildings. The fact that you live on the UWS says you are a yuppie too. Or, you are someone who takes advantage of rent control/stabilization. I think anyone who is on these handout programs ought to disclose it and be open about it.

there needs to be an equally opposing force to these cb's and bored/unemployed nimbys. Businesses in the area should step up and promote these developments, sympathetic residents too.

13.

Frank - the older development did not follow any zoning rules. What is so different now? Why limit the height of the buildings? Are you sayng that taller buildings cannot fit in with the older ones? There are plenty of very tall buildings in Midtown and on Upper East Side that fit quite well with the older and lower-rise buildings.

We are not talking about "the rich people" per say. Obviously, with the real estate prices where they are, only those who have the money can afford a new condo on UWS. And the zoning restrictions you're advocating is the primary reason the new construction is so costly in New York.

14.

realist - you rock! It's sad that the most active people in the community are those that have lived for 20-30 years in thier rent stabilized apartments are simpy afraid that "the rich will move in and make everything more expensive"

15.

The Dakota was out of "context" when it was built in the 1800s. Thankfully there wasn't a community board to contend with back then. It is all about arbitrary rules to prevent development. Change is very, very bad on the UWS.

16.

I'm a bleeding heart commie liberal and I think this kind of reactionary zoning is a bad idea. New buildings at any height can be awful. I saw some buildings in harlem last weekend that were some of the worst, least "contextual" buildings I've ever seen and they were less that 40' tall. Size really doesn't matter when it comes to crappy architecture. Good scale, good proportions, attention to street life and quality architecture make good buildings and good neighborhoods.

This city is getting bigger. More people want to live here(I am among them) and we need to find a way to both build more and build smarter. Limiting the heights of buildings will only create less of something that we all need. I completely agree that the community boards act in a very narrow self interested way to "preserve" something that may never have existed at all.

Oh, and for all you people who talk about "contextual" architecture please think a little more seriously about what buildings are supposed to be. This city would suffere greatly under architecture guidelines that mandages only brownstones where we already have brownstones and row houses where we have row houess and mid rise buildings where we have mid-rise buildings. Our architecture should reflect our community goals for the future not a misplaced longing for smaller buildings and a simpler time.

17.

Frank, the buildings at 107/Broadway and 92/Broadway are much bigger than the Community Board's proposed zoning allows. 107/Broadway is about twice the height as the proposed regulations.

I can't belive City Planning is crazy enough to support such downzoning.

18.

Those Ariel buildings are the best things to happen to that stretch of the UWS in a long, long time. Those 400 or so no-life misguided and selfish complainers do not speak for me or for 98% of the people I know in my neighborhood who think that they're idiots.

You can't stop progress, folks. Thank goodness.

19.

This is the most rational and respectful debate I've ever seen on curbed. The opinions voiced here are heartening as well.

20.

NYC as we know it would not exist if these growth-stunting restrictions were in place in the past. Let's hope the City Council has enough sense to stop this madness.

In theory community boards make good sense, but in practice they typically are self-serving, bureaucratic nightmares consisting of a few vocal people who claim to represent the interests of the entire "community"

21.

That's only about 13 stories, isn't it? Seems absurb. Does anyone know anything about the process by which City Planning considers community board recommendations?

22.

You guys are missing the nuances of politics here -- local board says 12 or 13 stories, planning commission comes back at them with 20, final compromise will be 15 and then setbacks -- or something like that.

Columbia's building at SE corner of 110 and Bway was originally proposed as much taller -- but I know insiders there -- was a ploy to get maximum height allowed. This goes on all over the city all the time.

23.

Frank - the question remains: why do you care whether 110 and Broadway is now lower than it was originally planned? Would few extra floors make such a big difference for you or your family? How will it improve the area that the building is lower now?

I just don't get this whole idea of resisting development. I would understand if you were not happy with the design or the way the building looks. But we live in the city of skyscrapers. If someone wants to build one and people want to live in your neighborhood, what do you care?

It's not like they are building a prison in your backyard...

24.

For the same reason that you would not want a prison in your backyard if you owned a nice house -- zoning is a HUGE help for maintaining quality of life in a neighborhood AND the value of your real estate. People in any neighborhood in any city or town are buying into a way of life they hope will be maintained and enhanced.

(...and I never said anything about my own feelings on 110 & Bway -- please read and comprehend what I have said before commenting. Thanks. For the record, I am fine with it -- but keep in mind that they built a school as part of the building, so the neighborhood gained a new asset that most apt developers would never be willing to give.)

Not resisting development -- just encouraging GOOD development.

25.

Frank is absolutely right. It's about quality of life. We UWS'ers are not resistant to change but we like the fact that there's a certain human scale to the architecture - that it DOESN'T look like the Upper East, east of Lex, with its tacky, 40- and 50-story high-rises towering above the brownstones. People who don't live in the neighborhood find this hard to understand but that's what makes it a bit more gracious place to live than other parts of Manhattan.

26.

Maintaining reasonable building heights is something that major cities like Paris, London and Rome all practice. It makes sense that the UWS, having the most "European" architecture of any neighborhood in NYC, should strive for the same sense of balance and harmony among its buildings....

27.

Frank, you can't build Upper East Side towers under the current zoning. The reality is that the Community Board zoning proposal would actually be a departure from the current Broadway context. It would in fact be blatantly noncontextual. The current context of Broadway is not 11-floor slabs. It is a mix of buildings from taxpayers to 200-400 foot apartment buildings.

28.

Rich, NYC is not Rome. It's crazy to say NYC should be subject to the same height limits and historical preservation rules as Rome. We are a brash, young city, not a living museum like Rome. The Upper West Side isn't particularly old nor historically notable and there's no reason crappy taxpayer structures on Broadway can't be transformed into apartment buildings with higher height limits than the Community Board proposes.

29.

27 (aka anon -- get a name, dude!) First, I never used the words Upper East Side, someone else did, but this is exactly what the Ariel Buildings are -- 40 story towers in a neighborhood of 15 story buildings! Nowhere north of the Lincoln Center area are buildings erected that tall (except the projects over the Cross Bronx Expressway!)

And Rich, no, NYC is not Rome, but without some sane zoning, it will soon be Mexico City or Sao Paolo or Bangkok or some other 3rd world dump you would not want to live in! And we do have some history and it's time we preserve it!!!!!! Obviously you never saw the original Penn Station!

30.

Rich -- thousands of apologies -- meant that for Crawford -- mea culpa.

Rich gets it -- wish more of you did.

31.

But Frank, if the neighborhood really is a neighborhood of 15 floor buildings, then why is the Community Board claiming that 11 floors max is contextual? Are you saying you think this is all political gamesmanship (see your earlier posts)?

32.

Crawford-- read what I said earlier -- yes -- it's posturing and politics -- they ask for 12, gets countered with 20, and something in between is the compromise. This is the way things work -- which is a BIG reason why I am not using my Urban Planning degree from a certain school in the hood as a career -- cause I don't ahve the patience!!!!

Just look at the whole debacle with the WTC memorial -- half a billion, then an entire billion -- it will be built eventually, and most likely at a cost somewhere between those 2 extremes.

33.

I just graduated from Columbia and am still living in the area (albeit slightly uptown). I think that some of these new developments - as much as I hate to say it - really help out the area. When I first moved into Morningside Heights the area between 100th and 110th was like a void between the Upper West Side & the Columbia area - fast food joints, dollar stores, etc. But with the Opus Building on 107th and now the Ariel towers better restaurants and stores are moving in. It's a mixed blessing - I'm more likely to go to this area because it's more vibrant, but could never afford to live there.

But the whole complaining about the proposed development in Park West Village just pisses me off. I understand why Park West Village was built - to provide some affordable middle-income housing in a previously blighted area - just like it's counterparts both in Morningside Gardens and throughout the city (Lenox Terrace, Lincoln Center, etc). But look at what's gone on there. I was praying that Morningside Gardens would vote no on proposition one so that the towers would remain affordable, yet they became greedy and now they sell for nearly market rate. If Park West Village was co-op and not rental, those people would probably be doing the same. They just don't want development because their units aren't owned by them - not because of the whole "keeping affordable housing/keeping neighborhoods" in Manhattan that those urban pioneers used to have. And the eyes on the street that some new developments will have (since PWV is set back from the street) will make the area safer.

34.

Anon - you are right, as usual.

Here is a picture for Frank:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=126436

How can he say that there are no tall buildings in this area where there are several high rises on Upper West Side above 96th street?

Should all new buildings look like old crappy buildings on Columbus and Upper 90s with ugly fire escapes?

This decision by the community board has nothing to do with preserving the character of the neighborhood. It's about rent-stabilized tenants who are afraid that the rich people will come to their area and make averything more expensive. It's all about fear.

35.

The building on the corner of 96th & Broadway is an anomaly from the 70s. About everything else in the 80s, 90s and 100s stays below 16 or 17 stories. Think of it this way: No one would dare build a high-rise in the far West Village because it would destroy the human scale of the area.

Huge high-rises are fine in business districts like midtown but they don't belong in residential areas where there's a different standard...

36.

Rich, the West Village's zoning laws are precisely the reason why no one but the extremely rich can afford to buy there.

37.

Rich,

That "crappy" building on 96th and Broadway is a condo built by Zekendorf in 1983. That was the first building I ever lived in since moving to NYC. Not only an unattractive building, the developer used cheap PVC plumbing and the faucets were rusting and falling apart within the first six months. The same developer is building 15 CPW at significantly higher expense today. I guess quality of design, materials and construction are a function of zip codes and the times.

The reason you don't see tall development in the West Village is that it is an historic district. I personally don't mind taller new buildings on the UWS if they are well designed and constructed in context. However, the tradition of using setbacks to maintain light and air at street level is very important. Traveling down Lexington Avenue in the thirties with its super high buildings is depressing.

38.

Leo -- when did I say there are no tall buildings on the UWS???? The picture you selected is the worst angle that building at 96 -- not that I like the building. But the truth is, it emphasizes my point -- we want compatible buildings and designs that work with the existing neighborhood structures.

You folks should all try living in the 'burbs and having this discussion - OY!

39.

that building looks bad from all angles

40.

From reading this and other threads, developers (and booster brokers) sound like the biggest whiners and drama queens! It's not "socialist" for a community to stick up for itself. It's something called culture and it makes New York what it is, as much as business does. You can't just act as if communities don't exist--they're not just some obstacle to some developer's interests, they're the essence of life in the city, or anywhere! Money does not trump everything.

41.

The least "contextual" buildings in this part of town are the housing projects built by the government. The great thing about new york is the mixture of styles and building heights. We shouldn't try to emulate Paris. We're not Paris. Any argument made that these buildings break the "context" of the neighborhood is lacking in any real logic. I am against these restrictions on building. They make housing more expensive and discourage new development.