the hudson river valley has such tantalizing rainbows.
4 Likes
https://www.instagram.com/p/CBoN2iHK1Oi/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CB9ZFeipTmq/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CB9c8YzBBvX/
10 Likes
https://www.instagram.com/p/CCGdoo2hMLe/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CCLmQucpnOV/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CCFCaUmh_S_/
14 Likes
It fits in so well on that 2nd photo, what the hell are the NIMBY’s complaining about
6 Likes
Walked by it today, I think this tower looks great for the area.
7 Likes
They are self absorbed idiots. I love the Upper West Side, lived there for 15 years. This building is a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. Was Ms Freud and her friends actively demonstrating against the construction of the towers on Freedom Place and suing the developers?
4 Likes
I have not heard any news on the zoning debacle for this project. The court decisions, and DOB records on this project seems to have gone dark: but maybe there is nothing new to report regarding - zoning approvals, and the possible 20 story height chop.
This will most likely go ahead as originally planned; who pays the cost for the delays remains to be seen.
A one year (or more) hold on completion is no small matter, I am interested to see - and chronicle - the final decisions and settlements on this project.
2 Likes
i’ve heard nothing lately. i think we’ll have to be patient. And calling the building’s opponents idiots is not very helpful. Some may be reflexive knee jerkers but there are legitimate claims here as the court battle demonstrates. As some in this chain may recall i have long thought there are important zoning issues es that need resolution. So let’s speak with a bit more moderation. Thanks.
1 Like
OK, so I might have been a bit harsh on the idiot accusation but the Nimbyism on the Upper West Side is a bit out of control. Yes, there are definitely some issues with the zoning, but if there is no expansion of a city or neighborhood there is decay. The city approved this project so if anyone should take the heat it is them.
5 Likes
I do not want to start anything, I will say people are obviously entitled to think whatever they want. But you have to admit some of the things NIMBY’S have said or wanted is pretty idiotic. “We don’t want towers on 57th Street because of the shadows on Central Park during the summer!” Well come on, we all know cities and skylines are bound to grow in mass, these things should be expected. And I’m sure on hot summer days people will actually admire the cool tall columns of shade casted on Central Park. There’s a right and wrong for every subject, it’s a balance and it can be unfair or fair.
4 Likes
TK2000–The problem is not so much the language but the size of the brush—much too broad. You cast aspersions on everyone who thinks 200 is a problem, including me, without the slightest knowledge about who i am or why I think the building is troubling. Just use of the word “they” hauls all opponents into the same bucket. A little more care in your writing would have been much more palatable. These forums are like email at times. It is tempting to write quickly and hit send. It’s better to slow down a bit, reread, and think about how your words will be received. Thanks. .
4 Likes
No, I don’t cast aspersions on everyone with a single opinion. As I said there is a positive and negative for every subject, I really don’t think a whole group of people are dumb just because of an opinion. I know it sounds like that with what I just said above but I do see the reasons why people oppose to this. I know everyone doesn’t agree with us, that’s perfectly fine and that’s how opinions work. It would be like calling all cops bad or all protestors looters, it’s not true. There’s good in everyone, no one should be attacked for an opinion because it is a belief in a single persons mind. Which many can agree or disagree on…balance
2 Likes
You’re right. i did exactly what i said not to do. Sorry.
3 Likes
That is basically my only confusion, and therefore interest, in this zoning/development project: if this is all a disagreement or dispute regarding “personal opinions” or “attitudes” or “likes/dislikes” regarding the type/size/appearance of this building - then none of us here are Wrong. This is as you say TK; everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this: positive or negative.
On the other hand is this a dispute or disagreement on LAW, zoning regulations, in other words a dispute about FACTS - laws, are zoning regulations facts. If this is a dispute about the facts-of-the-matter: what exactly is ‘at issue’ and who is right and who is wrong.
My approach here is simply to make this whole process a matter of Public Record so we can all take advantage of the opportunity to provide input; and crowd source or get the ‘wisdom of the crowd’.
Many minds on an issue often brings the truth and wisdom to light: this is a good ‘case study’ for us all.
3 Likes
[
infoshare]
On the other hand is this a dispute or disagreement on LAW
^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly. Everything else doesn’t matter.
4 Likes
I believe this is a disagreement regarding Zoning Laws. My question is what LAW has been violated, who is responsible for breaking the LAW, who will be liable for the obviously astronomical costs related to the delays as a result of these legal/zoning disputes.
The answers to these questions will surface eventually; and I for one am interested in following the case.
I would like to see our local government make all of these details a matter of public record that can be searched and spelled out on a website: similar to getting zoning information on a new building site/construction.
The tax payers deserve to see the expenditures involved, all itemized and accounted for - just to help keep everybody honest.
3 Likes
Good luck with that!
3 Likes
Infoshare: The law involved (since changed) is the composition of the zoning lot. The larger the zoning lot, the more FAR a building may occupy. In this case the lot was formed by joining the land on which the building sits to various spaces making up the parking lots and other areas in the Lincoln Square Apartment complex to the west. The air rights for those spaces were purchased when the synagogue lot on which 200 now sits was sold to enhance the value of the site for the congregation. This sort of thing is commonly done. What was strange here is that the lot was formed in a quite non-contiguous fashion from grassy areas between parking rows (couldn’t sell the parking area because it was needed for the apartments in Lincoln Square) and other areas scattered across a fairly large area. The contentions at stake are whether a zoning lot has to be continuous and contiguous and easily accessible by those who will use the building under construction–here 200. The rules were vague and that gave rise to the case. The rules have since been modified so that another building like this one is no longer possible. Similar changes have been made to the rules to make extra high utility floors much harder to justify. Here is the 200 zoning lot.
2 Likes
Wow. Great explanation of the zoning technicalities at issue here - very helpful. Thanks.
2 Likes
By the way 432 Park was built using about 20 additional floors of FAR obtained by purchase from neighboring lots. The whole site was contiguous so issues like those at 200 were not at issue. All the supertalls along 57th and elsewhere in the city involve similar air rights transfers. As has been mentioned elsewhere on this site though not in this thread, that means there are a growing number of buildings and lots that may not be used for large projects; their air rights are gone and can no longer be used either on their land itself or other sites. 1 Vandy’s air rights story is particularly interesting because a possible transfer was interrupted by the city’s grant of additional FAR along Vanderbilt Avenue west of Grand Central. The developers didn’t need more height after that. That led the owners of the GCT air rights to sue for a taking–that is that the city reduced the value of their rights by granting more FAR to neighboring plots. The dispute was settled. Life is weird in the big apple.
2 Likes