The Star Trek Opening is the perfect metaphor for this zoning battle boondoggle: the case seems to be adrift in outer space and heading directly for the cosmic black hole of legal argumentation and obfuscation. It is best we keep to specifics in order to follow this case closely: is there a definitive answer on the claim that the developer ‘proceeded at their own peril’ - time will tell.
(Below is an excerpt from a recent NYT article.)
“The developers knew that they were building at their own peril,” said Richard D. Emery, a lawyer representing the community groups that challenged the project before the foundation was even completed. New York Times, Feb 14, 2020 by Stefanos Chen is a real estate reporter, based in New York.
If that is TRUE, then the developer proceeded to build knowing that there is a ‘possibility’ of a stop work order due to zoning discrepancies. If that is the case, the developer behaved in a very reckless way by building to full height knowing his project was in ‘peril’ or in ‘Jeopardy’. However, the lawyers for the developer denies that they proceeded under those terms: and had approval from the department of buildings to build this condo tower to full height. That is still something that we be hashed out when the court case continues. I will try to find quote where the lawyers deny that they proceeded without ‘full approval’ - this is one of many point of contention in this case. This is more fun than binge watching Judge Judy.
Here is where the Lawyer for the developer denies they proceeded “at their own peril”. This is a direct and unequivocal denial of what the legal council for the community said to the NY Times. This is juicy stuff…
‘…Indeed, Selver said that the Department of Buildings’ (DOB) decision to grant 200 Amsterdam’s developers a permit was consistent with the way it has interpreted zoning laws for 40 years. Further, the DOB’s determination was upheld by the Board of Standards and Appeals following a two-year period of document review and testimony. It was against this backdrop that SJP proceeded with its $325 million investment in the project; the team wasn’t “building at their own peril,” as Richard D. Emery, a legal counsel for an opposing community group, opined to the New York Times …’
That photo is a good vantage point to put things in context: compare the heights to the other tall towers. I think is it safe to say that the 20 stories at the top will not need to be removed when all the legal matters on zoning is said and done: it would be a shame - those proportions, height, and tapering at the top art perfect. I also think it is safe to say, that the developer ‘did not’ proceed to build to full heigh on the understanding that “maybe” the zoning approvals would be revoked: seems absurd that they would have proceeded “at their own peril”. The facts will come out, and when they do, they will be posted here for all to see and keep informed.
Good news. I was there today, and saw no sign of activity; it was about 12 noon, maybe it was a lunch break for the crew. I look forward to any forthcoming reports on the zoning case; at this point I think it is safe to assume that the developer did not “proceed at their own peril”. The very idea that this building was constructed on a ‘maybe’ or ‘perhaps’ the zoning approvals are valid: well, that is preposterous. The community group opposition is starting to look a bit weak at this point: but given the resulting major delay, that alone could be considered a victory of the UWS nimby group. The losses accrued due to this zoning battle is probably having a devastating effect on the profitability of this project.
That was a good read posted by bps; and I am glad someone other than myself is helping to ‘document’ the long and winding road this project is taking toward final completion. I am truly indifferent to the eventual outcome of this project; so I see equally compelling arguments on both sides of the issue. I follow this closely only in the interest of ‘full disclosure’ to the public: no ax to grind - only truth to find.
What TRUTH you ask? This ‘apparently’ was and as-of-right project, and all permits and approvals were issued by the DOB. There were already several previous legal challenges to that approval process, and the developer had won those challenges in court long ago.
What is the story: why was this project being blocked in the first place; why is this being re-litigated time and again; is the DOB guilty of gross negligence; what exactly was the ‘wrongdoing’ on the part of the developer?
Hopefully some clarity, understanding and answers to those questions will come from our reading of this thread. The operative word being - hopefully.
It’s my understanding that the major issue is the zoning lot configuration. It was first set up (again just my understanding) when the synagogue sold its old building and land to a developer and used the funds to help construct its new facility just to the south. The rights were later sold to others and the place sat vacant for a time before construction of the new building began. I assume the issues on appeal will involve the zoning lot configuration. If the developers lose that probably will be followed by further legal tussles over the proper remedy and, if the order to partially demolish the building stands, whether the city will have to pay for an unconstitutional taking if it wishes to enforce that result. It’s the passage of so much time since the permit was issued that gives rise to a takings problem. In the meantime note that the rules said to allow the zoning lot configuration here (again my understanding) have been changed so similar planning cannot happen again.
Thank you; any information, is good information - that is MY mission. It seems I have become an ‘accidental activist’ with my growing interest in this particular project - and my personal desire for ‘full transparency’ in NYC real estate and construction in general.
I remain perplexed and confused by the whole matter - as are most casual observers - but do take pleasure and great interest in every bit of new information that can be obtained and made public on the ongoing saga of 200 Amsterdam Avenue. I am just glad I do not have to argue for one side or the other; as this building does not block my views, or cast shadow upon my abode - nor do I have any other sundry ‘good government’ concerns or complaints. Thanks for the input: it’s all good.
Yes, that seems to be the point - ‘loopholes’ or “gerrymandering”. The question on this - or one of many questions - becomes, what the heck, are we in NYC still making up the rules on zoning regulations in 2020. I would think zoning rules were a settled matter; clearly defined and universally understood.
I guess this will become a textbook case where revisions to the existing zoning regulations need to be changed or refined, and all we can do at this point is try to follow the case and see what the final outcome will be for both new zoning regulations and the removal of the top twenty floors of this building.
Stay tuned, this story will be every bit as interesting and convoluted as the General Flynn exoneration.
However, I find Architecture to be a lot more interesting than prosecutorial misconduct at the DOJ.
Zoning is one of those things that continually evolve. Remember when Times Sq. was rezoned for towers enabled by being able to sell air rights of theaters not directly adjacent but in a proscribed area? Cities and townships must continually innovate to accommodate new financial/demographic realities. The only true sacred cows are landmarked structures/areas.
Infoshare–Law is rarely fully constant. It’s always changing. It just comes with the territory. Another recent change made it much more difficult to construct very high “utility” spaces used in very limited ways for equipment. Future permits for that have been curbed. So stache is correct here. My big problem is not that a change was made in the sort of problem behind the 200 Amsterdam controversy but that both the DOB and the courts worked at a pace that said, “No big deal. We can dawdle.” Give us all a break. That’s ridiculous and does not serve the public well.
I agree with all of the above points. These discussions are all helpfull in keeping a chronicle of this story. I am curious to see what the final outcome is; and I think this is also helpful in keeping the public informed on this project.
This story will have an end eventually, but this thread does expose what I believe is gross incompetence and general mismanagement at the DOB and other various NYC agencies.
I would like to see more transparency in how our city operates: these discussions provide a bit of that type of transparency - for this one project at least.
