Moscow!? Really!? Stopping 200 Amsterdam will not drive people away because of housing costs. Rich peoples’ housing does not create a trickle down effect for people on the edge. The only way to even out the market is very substantial public subsidies. We haven’t done that since Reagan gutted federal programs starting in 1980. They all need to be rebuilt. Do that and those most in need will find some succor. We need to stop building so much for rich folks and cater to the needs of most New Yorkers if we really are interested in providing a decent urban environment around here.
3 Likes
You have some great posts and I respect your opinion, but we couldn’t disagree more on what we need to do as a city.
Evening out the market is a very complicated issue, but generally anything you do with the government is just going to cause prices to go up even further.
Ideally we bust the unions and allow much more density near the transit nodes, especially in the outer boroughs.
Leave the rich alone. They already pay the vast majority of taxes and are the lifeblood of the city. Frankly I wish every billionaire in the world made NY their primary residence.
And I think EVERYTHING trickles down. There’s always somebody washing the dishes at Jean Georges.
6 Likes
Thanks lowkeylion. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Seems like a left/right difference that probably is not immediately resolvable.
6 Likes
You sound pretty right-wing, so we don’t agree on much politically. I’ll set that aside because this isn’t the forum for everything political.
But I think it’s interesting where we agree. The NIMBY vs. YIMBY debate doesn’t fall neatly on political party lines. YIMBY seems to cover the whole political spectrum. There are some economic reasons why right-leaning people might be YIMBY, while a lot of leftists are YIMBY because more dense housing is better for housing affordability and the environment. But then you have places like SF where a lot of supposedly left-leaning people are classic NIMBYs, because they’re more worried about their own property values than anything else.
I agree that unions, at least in NY — and especially in the the building trades — are a problem. I support unions in theory, and in practice, there are some good unions that I support. But man, the unions in NY are out of control. They insist that positions made obsolete decades ago be mandated in contracts. These are basically no-show jobs. They demand white-collar wages for blue-collar jobs. It’s not just construction. The whole “rubber room” thing with the teachers unions here? The fact that “conductor” is an obsolete job on any subway but the TWU insists that the MTA employ them anyway? Madness. As a leftist, what frustrates me is that our terrible unions in NY give unions everywhere a bad name.
And YES to Transit-Oriented-Development! California’s SB50 was model. It should have passed, and it should be emulated everywhere.
I disagree with the rest, (and we probably disagree on a lot more.) But I’m glad that the YIMBY movement has brought us together so we can agree on something.
6 Likes
Great post. I grew up relatively poor in Tennessee (compared to NYers), so I am definitely right-wing on economics and generally anti-big government, but I am also very socially liberal. I am glad we somewhat agree on the unions and definitely on transit-oriented development.
5 Likes
My main contention on all this is; why are the zoning rules and regulations in NYC not clearly established and universally enforced. This debacle seems like something that would occur in a 3rd world developing nation: not a modern ‘world class’ city in the United States - New York City. I can’t begin to answer those questions; but if I had the big money to develop real estate - I surly would not make that investment in NYC. That bespoke statement is the only FACT that can be stated about the 200 Amsterdam boondoggle, the rest is “open to interpretation” and will remain mostly a matter of opinion. Was the final court ruling right/wrong, true/false, correct/incorrect; I doubt there will ever be final consensus, or a settled matter.
1 Like
I would say the settled matter will be the building’s appearance when completely finished. Going forward from that as you suggest is anyone’s guess.
2 Likes
The notion that statutes and rules can routinely be unambiguously written is often a pipe dream. That’s what creates the legal game between clients, lawyers, and governments. For example many NYC zoning rules are written on an FAR basis, not a height basis. Then recently some folks got the bright idea that they could make one floor ridiculously tall, stick utilities in there, and raise all the apartments above by 30 or more feet. Voila. Great views and more money. If the city views that as a loophole then they have to rewrite the rules. And then someone else will play around with the zoning lot rules as at 200 Amsterdam. Voila. More height. And so it goes. It’s a never ending cat and mouse game. If I asked one of you to write a rule about TDRs and zoning lots without looking at the NYC rules you’d find it very difficult. And for every ambiguity you end up writing someone will find a way to exploit it. It simply is not easy to compose law precisely.
4 Likes
In this case it is about the use of those ‘partial lots’ to create the assemblage that lead to the DOB approving the height: that is the issue here. I also understand that their is about a half century of ‘precedent’ for doing this exact type of ‘partial lot’ assemblage: that is why they got the DOB approval originally. We need a simple explanation as to why many of the same type of zoning lots exist (Met life building and many others) and for some yet unexplained reason, this project, is deemed ‘gerrymandering’ or a ‘code violation’. From what I have read so far; their is actually not much that is ambiguous here - only a whole lot of obfuscating. That is my only point: for this city, and at this stage of our legal and zoning development, this all seems very backward. Matter of fact, it all seems downright “shady” if you don’t mind the pun.
2 Likes
Right. Zoning lot additions have been going on for a long time. The issue here is the configuration of the additions. They are very odd and unusual. The court will have to decide if the differences make a difference. I think they do but I of course am not a judge!
2 Likes
I am interested in seeing how it turns out - seems to me that the developer has a strong case and this building will not be cut down. I get the general idea of the zoning issue: it is good that all this gets put out here for a laymen like myself tp watch and follow as best as possible. Whatever the outcome, the NIMBY faction has won the day. The cost to the developer on this project will be ruinous, and future developers of this type of tall condo towers will be deterred. The deed is done (another good pun) and NIMBY has won. This building will eventually get completed at the full height - but at a greatly diminished profitability. I suspect this was the ‘strategy’ all along - cynical I know.
2 Likes
Honestly this case should not go through if the building was already approved by the city. I’m just seeing this case as NIMBY’s being attention seekers…again
8 Likes
Don’t forget infoshare that the developer, quite a while ago, agreed to take on any losses arising because of the litigation in a partial settlement. So it might not be fair to lay all the costs at the feet of the building’s opponents. While I don’t know, I suspect there is insurance backing for any losses and it will then be up to that company as to whether to sue the city. But the developer (again I don’t know for sure) may not be deeply hurt financially.
3 Likes
I read that was not the case: I am paraphrasing here from a YIMBY article I read - " this was not a proceed at your own peril agreement with the DOB". I will try to find that article. All good fun to kick this subject around a bit - and all while staying OT as well…
3 Likes
Attention seeking in the interest of ‘momentum breaking’ - perhaps.
3 Likes
Just to remind everyone that AOC was a spectator with regards to the Amazon hq in Queens. Her opinion had as much weight as any celebrity. Congress has no role in those kinds of municipal matters. Gerald Nadler and likeminded politicians said similar things with regard to 200 Amsterdam but had no direct role in zoning, approval,
It was New York state senators that killed Amazon HQ primarily Michael Gianaris.
3 Likes
this is half true. AOC has an absolutely massive social media following. Her opinion sways that audience, who created a lot of the noise that eventually killed that deal. But I digress, as this has nothing to do with 200 Amsterdam. The DOB seems to have screwed up here. If that’s the case, why punish the developers and buyers?
4 Likes
If the DOB “screwed up” for the last 50 years and doesn’t know how to interpret its own rules (I think that’s highly implausible, BTW; certainly the agency tasked with interpreting a very subjective zoning code would be given some degree of deference), then the developers and buyers won’t be punished. It will ultimately be the taxpayers.
3 Likes
See the YIMBY article posted above that states that the exact same zoning parcel was assembled from near-by partial zoning lots: Pam Am building, and a few others in same area ass 200 A Ave. They could reasonably argue that it was not a “screw up” by DOB, but the higher courts can simple state that it is time to put a stop to some ‘sketchy’ or ‘questionable’ zoning practices. The thing is I can predict that this building will get the go ahead by the courts under appeal by the developer: but the damage is done even if there is some compensation payed to the developer. It is clear to any reasonably intelligent observer that large scale RE development in NYC is tantamount to wading into troubled and uncertain waters. When all is said and done, and the dust settles, the only real winners will be the Lawyers: god bless Billable Hours. Cynical - I know.
5 Likes
Infoshare–Can’t find the cite. Repost?
2 Likes