This is a really intellectually dishonest and ridiculous strawman. Nobody said there should be no planning, or that all development is a good idea.
But certainly the pendulum in New York City has swung to the extreme of not allowing enough development to keep up with population growth or housing demand. Historically, the city was building 5 times as much housing as it does now during the golden age of the 1910s and 1920s when most of the beautiful neighborhoods of the city were being built out.
And in terms of good planning, the 1961 zoning ordinance is outdated and arbitrary. It represents ZERO of the best practices and principles of the planning profession. You won’t find a planning school in the country that would hold up NYC’s zoning mess as good planning, but many classes where it’s mentioned as a disaster. It’s a leftover fossil from a time when the city was shrinking in population, a time before we knew about climate change, a time when it was considered good policy to knock down historic buildings for giant parking lots, when urban planners wanted zoning in order to prevent “demographic decline” and “undesirable elements” from moving into white middle-class neighborhoods. 200 Amsterdam still has the same zoning it did 58 years ago because of political inertia and NYC’s broken political system, not because of any desire for “planning.” And it’s disingenuous to argue otherwise. Certainly the opponents of this building couldn’t give a shit about defending the integrity of NYC’s zoning resolution except insofar as it helps them stop any new construction in their backyards.
No need for such caustic language. My point was narrow. First I was careful to use the word “sometimes.” Did you notice. And second my comment was directed to 200 Amsterdam where whatever zoning was in place was misused, at least in my book. Whether the overall zoning rules are too constructive was not on my table when I posted.
Stop taking things that people like AOC say and broadly applying it to everyone who criticizes the rich.
Just because someone thinks that the rich can have too much money (they can), or that capitalism has its flaws and needs to be regulated (it does), doesn’t mean they are a socialist or a communist.
We have a really really nasty habit in this country, where someone says something that sounds familiar to what the most hated person says on the other side has said, and we automatically assume that they are that person.
Stop attacking people who have said things that AOC has said. If you dislike AOC then keep your dislike directed towards AOC. The world is full of nuance. Stop projecting.
In agreement on your overall point. I have been participating in community board opposition and observing real estate development in NYC for many years; and have on one occasion succeeded in blocking the construction of a new condo on Prince Street in SOHO. The records on that DOB denial of a variance would be an interesting and informative case study on the subject: but I digress. I believe I have enough experience on the subject to say I have compiled a ‘data rich’ observational study on ‘community opposition’ to new construction in NYC, and therefore I can say with confidence that the prime motivation is generally self-interest. Self interest such as: I want to preserve my view, property value, parking, light, status quo of community etc. However, try taking that SELF INTEREST complaint to the podium at the local community board meeting. That is what all the fuss about 200 Amsterdam is primarily about, self interest; with some genuine secondary interest in all the other publicly stated reasons for opposition. That is all well and good, that is what people do, that is what makes the world go around: but a little more intellectual honesty would sure help clarify the ‘actual’ root of the problem/issue. IMHO.
As a former moderator at Wired NY I saw this type of discussion pop up on project specific threads regularly. My attitude was to leave it alone unless the ‘way off’ topic continued to rage on for extended pages loosing site (no pun intended) of what the actual thread was about. I say this has been an interesting digression so far: but the current mods attitude or policy may be different - well see.
Why the discussion is veering this way is beyond me.
Y’all, this zoning has nothing to do with rich people versus average people. 200 Amsterdam is being built in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city, and is being developed by rich people, sold to rich people, and opposed by rich people. Regulating people’s rights to build buildings which are not any different from previous buildings built in a similar location seems like a farce designed to lock in people’s property values so they don’t have to deal with the brutality of the NY resale market.
I agree that there needs to be rules about things like gentrification, extreme eyesores, etc… but this is one of the blandest developments in the city and is being attacked so much even though the opposition can give no real example of why this building actually hurts the neighborhood or their quality of life… they just keep repeating that it’s “against the rules” but what does that matter if it doesn’t affect anyone? Zoning rules are only in place to protect people, if they do not achieve that they shouldn’t be on the books in the first place— when they sue over petty things like this they are trivializing the complexity of development in this city by melodramaticizing their petty problems while other neighborhoods are truly facing disaster
These buildings are great for the city and for basically everyone who lives here because they provide a huge source of tax revenue from rich people who generally don’t pay a very fair amount of taxes… each one of these condos is providing tens, and in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars to the city which can be used to fund the city’s endless projects like the MTA and NYCHA.
When the building has reached this stage of near completion it is a good time to take a look at the interiors: also an interesting facet of the project not extensively covered in these architecual forums… Here is a view of one of the living rooms. What this ‘new construction’ building stock is achieving that is vastly different from most of the existing condo buildings in the area is lots of natural light pouring into the apartments, and expansive views, large rooms: most of the prewar apartment buildings in the area have rather dark interiors, limited views, and generally smaller rooms in the apartments.
Marie Antoinette’s famous quote was “let them eat cake”… I guess today, that would have been the royal refrain while sitting there by the marble fireplace, gazing out to that expansive view from 200 Amsterdam Ave - ‘let them eat McNuggets’.
Urban Dictionary…“Let them eatcake ” is the most famousquote attributed to Marie-Antoinette, the queen of France during the French Revolution. As the story goes, it was the queen’s response upon being told that her starving peasant subjects had no bread…
I agree with your perspective: only jesting. However, when you look at that living room in 200 Amsterdam and then turn around and walk the streets on NYC and see the vast amounts of homeless and working poor: something seems very wrong with that kind of socio-economic disparity. I will now return to my usual activity of viewing NYC Architectural Icons that I will never be rich enough to purchase.
I would like to see that crown terminate in a super thin spike: something like 111 West 57th Street. Overall that is a nice looking profile, the stepped setbacks forming a progressively smaller profile as the tower rises to the top. This is a simple, but very artful looking, architectural design for a high rise. Good design.
I never attacked anyone (members). I deleted posts pertaining to AOC/Democrats/Poor vs Rich… because all it will do is derail this thread into politics. It entices strong views. For the sake of moderation, best to delete certain posts that I know will lead to rubbish in this thread.
I don’t like to delete posts btw, but sometimes if one post causes a chain of responses that have nothing to do with 200 Amsterdam, it’ll ruin the threads original purpose.
YIMBY will not be city data or current events on SSP under my watch.
Now there is a difference between adding color to this thread in the sense of humorous posts versus posts that will outright lead to negativity. Context!
Now as it pertains to NIMBYS, I mean, this is Yes In My Back Yard, so clearly a lot of here do not favor NIMBYism in some forms. So long as it doesn’t decent into cursing, I don’t have a problem with discussion AS IT PERTAINS to a development, the NIMBY outlash.
Folks have their opinions, and this isn’t China, we will not just censor folks free speech on a development.
A tear down won’t happen. And the litigants haven’t asked for it as far as I know. But there have been a few cases where FAR that was inappropriately built had to be removed. That is theoretically possible here but the city and courts have been so slow in making decisions that such a result might not be in the cards. And some potential loss may have been absorbed by the developer in an interim agreement among the litigants. I don’t know what is likely to happen if the plaintiffs prevail.
Wouldn’t it be further complicated for those opposing this development when this tower has residents in it? Would add a massive legal mess in the whole equation.
