The BSA is a voting body that decides on, among other things, noncompliance with zoning. How can courts “undo a BSA deal” when they are literally voting on whether or not noncompliance with zoning should be approved? They are empowered to override zoning. That’s their entire mandate. They wouldn’t be hearing something that conformed to legal requirements.
Granted, there could be some way to sue the BSA, but it must not be a very fruitful path, as the BSA rules all the time on projects that enrage NIMBYs, and I’ve never heard of a post-BSA legal challenge.
Re. other former comments, there is no precedent for this ruling. The East Side case decades ago has nothing to do with this. That developer was basically a crook who mass-falsified submitted zoning docs, so obviously once the city found out, they had to act. And I’m not a lawyer, BTW.
And that’s the point. These lawsuits almost always ultimately fail. At the same time, they do drive up development costs, scare away most developers, and maintain views and unit scarcity.
I see this as a political viewpoint battle; more than a technical zoning law discrepancy. I am reminded of council member Eric Adams’ publicly proclaiming “go back to Ohio” or AOC blocking the Amazon relocation plans: basically ‘New’ big developments brings in too many ‘New’ people. Thats my non-legal, far fetched prognostication on the matter. See here Eric Adams condemning the new super tall towers being built in Downtown Brooklyn. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/21/adams-brooklyn-gentrification-iowa/
My point being that there seems to be a lot of ambiguity in the zoning rules: so this may just be an attempt to put a ‘stall’ on major RE development in NYC.
Whatever the reasons, or outcome, the opponents of the project have won. The delays on this building will be long in duration, and high in cost. This sort of debacle will give pause to other similar such development plans: so many hurtles, so many risks. Well, what’s a POOR developer to do…LOL.
Sorry, but the city would be a heck of a lot better off if Ms. Freud moved to Boca, or, you know…
She takes selfishness to a new level. Her descendants will bear the burdens of her ego. A crack kingpin does less long-term damage to the city’s economic health. The city and developer will win the case, but it’s a Pyrrhic victory, as costs soar and new housing discouraged.
The fact that her argument is mainly about the shadow the building casts on the block is astoundingly stupid. The entire neighborhood is full of hulking apartment blocks that cast ten times more shade than this tower
Shadows? Not really. That’s the Post talking. Main arguments were about the zoning lot. Harm? Not much. That area of the UWS is full of 40+ story apartment houses. I live in one. There is no shortage of big buildings. The developer just pushed the envelope too far. If mistakes were made you can pass the hat around. A little perspective rather than automatic criticism of one side suits this part of the world better.
Many of the opponents are in Lincoln Towers, which are actually much more massive, noncontextual and cast more shadows than this tower. But they can rest assured no one will be suing to tear down their homes.
I know a very wealthy NIMBY on CPW who lives at the top of the bulkiest, most noncontextual building on CPW. It’s the only 1960’s-era structure on lower CPW and is an absolute hulk. She led much of the opposition to the u/c Extell tower. Pretty sure the irony is completely lost on her.
The zoning lot is how they argued it’s illegal, but the zoning itself can’t bother anyone — she has stated on multiple occasions that the reason she dislikes the tower is because of the shadows. Just look at the old posts on west side rag.
Shadow boxing usually doesn’t work. Those arguments fell flat with all the opposition to 57th Street. The only contention with weight here was the zoning lot. There would have been no consequences for 200 without it. I care little about shadows. This area is full of them anyway. I care a lot about everyone being subject to legal norms. If you want to change the norms agitate for city council legislation or legitimate administrative rule making. The latter actually worked for those against this building, but only for future structures with both either weird zoning lots or super tall “utility” rooms. That’s the best sort of forum. The court question now, other than the consequences of the long delay, is whether the rule changes were needed or the rules already barred zoning lots like the one at 200 Amsterdam.
I’m still highly upset by the Amazon debacle. What a bonanza- squashed by a bartender-turned-congresswoman who says elevating your social status isn’t possible. What a crock.
