Oh yeah, you did mention the FAR being removed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if it was completely removed will it lead to more massive skyscrapers rising such as this tower?
The State is trying to get it removed. We’ll see if the support is there (hopefully).
Yeah it is technically possible that it will help. For example, neither Steinway Tower nor CPT have more than 12 FAR. They could be much bigger. But remember they still have to follow individual zoning and air rights, which are still going to be a bitch.
More importantly it will allow the rest of the city to get more dense.
1 Like
Yeah hopefully, and I’ve heard that the governor is proposing to get it removed as well.
I’m sorry if I’m naive but I’m still kinda new to understanding how the FAR thing works, like I think if the higher the number the taller/bigger the tower is.
1 Like
Floor Area Ratio. On a very basic level, the cap on residential FAR means the buildings can not be more than 12 times the size of their lots. “The floor area ratio is the relationship between the total amount of usable floor area that a building has, or has been permitted to have, and the total area of the lot on which the building stands.”
Yes, bigger number equals better. Though the State is trying to get rid of it entirely for residential, or rather remove the cap on it so it’s unlimited FAR.
1 Like
Ah, I see, now I’m beginning to understand it. The lower numbers are the reason why 432 Park, Steinway, and CPT are skinny.
Also, it would be cool and interesting for the unlimited FAR to be in fruition, so I bet we may see a lot of proposals like Miami.
Yes, that is part of the reason they are so skinny. (combined with other reasons, such as air rights and zoning). It’s also the reason why the Midtown East towers are so thick. Because they aren’t residential and their FAR is like 30 because of the recent rezoning.
1 Like
Yeah, I just found out that the ESB’s FAR is 32, which is why it looks really huge.
I’m curious how the Steinway Tower would look if the Steinway hall (the old building) didn’t exist at all.
Well, the existence of the old Steinway Hall is both why this building exists and why it looks the way it does. Originally the developers were going to build a 700 ft tower here, but then they purchased the landmarked Steinway Hall and its air rights, and the tower was able to grow to its current size. In exchange the developers renovated Steinway Hall, and the tower was positioned so it basically rises out of the landmarked building—that’s why it’s so skinny, because the footprint is constrained by the landmarked structure. No sane developer would build something this outrageously thin just because. This tower’s entire form is an outgrowth of NYC’s complicated zoning and landmark laws.
The original 700ft proposal by CetraRuddy, before the acquisition of Steinway Hall:
6 Likes
The current CPT looks like an evolution of this design.
A good decision regardless of the tower to rise out of it. Always like when they do that. I know Macy’s has plans to do that with their big flagship.
I did say it was “part of the reason”. Obviously NYC’s zoning laws are a mess and no 1 factor decides a buildings shape. But in general Billionaires row is extremely skinny because of the limited FAR, air rights, and the current zoning in place in that area.
1 Like
NYC zoning and other controls certainly is complex. But that messiness has the beneficial impact of creating a complex skyline rather than a table top and leaving some of the older texture of the city intact. It’s not a total loss that’s for sure. Whether FAR should go or not will have only marginal impact on these consequences.
4 Likes
^True, I want the cap on FAR gone not really for more super skyscrapers. It will help around the city with more dense development. Not a silver bullet but it will help.
1 Like
This is what Manhattan island would look like if we did not have FAR zoning.
Tall buildings, not set back, close together top-to-bottom; most sunlight, and air circulation would be blocked from reaching ground level. The result would be awful; with dark, narrow streets, and stifling air circulation during hot summer days. The existing zoning regulations are preserving the beauty of the skyline, and air/light levels of the city streets.
6 Likes
^ No, it wouldn’t. But thanks for the fearmongering. Sounds like something a NIMBY would say. 1) FAR would not be going away, especially not for office buildings. 2) This completely ignores the thousands of other zoning rules that buildings have to follow in NYC.
Also
?
What mate? No matter what happens to FAR it won’t affect the size of the streets.
2 Likes
New York City streets are narrow: they would all be darker without the need for buildings to ‘set-back’ as the building gets taller. The FAR keeps the buildings from remaining the full size of the LOT as it gets taller: so our ‘narrow’ NYC streets get good daylight due to the FAR requirement.
Did you think I meant that ‘FAR Zoning’ regulates the width of the streets? If so: that not what I was referring to in that sentence. I see the great benefits our Zoning regulations have provided NYC; the above photo was intended to show what happens in cities without the same FAR zoning regulations.
Maybe the discussion is only about altering the FAR, not eliminating FAR: I may have missed that point.
2 Likes
Nothing. We’re off topic anyway. This is about 111 West 57th. My fault.
2 Likes
There is no hard evidence that real estate development and oligarchy/kleptocracy are connected in any way. And it’s a damn fine thing we have all that sand out in Coney Island so we can bury our collective heads in it.
3 Likes
The claim of no hard evidence is very tricky: “culpable deniability” goes a long way… I like the “coney Island” reference because it is know to be an enclave of Russian Immigrants - very funny.
OK, I try to get this tread back on topic. 
2 Likes
Guys. Somewhere else please.
1 Like
NYC will look spectacular as soon as the lights for Steinway Tower are on. 
2 Likes
In regard to the design - it is a beauty. There is one feature I find a bit disappointing. The NY Post article above has a photo that is taken from the park , front view of the building - looking uptown in orientation,
The photo can be enlarged twice for a very clear view of the crown. The crown is ‘see through’ and one can even see the X cross structural beams. It is not terrible; but inelegant.
It may be that some sort of translucent glass panels will be put there so one can not ‘see through’ the crown.
If not - it’s not a deal breaker.
1 Like