Do all major cities go through this crap or is this a NYC phenomenon? It seems like nearly every other proposed development of any consequence is subjected to this nonsense.
5 Likes
NYC is notoriously NIMBY, unfortunately, and wealthy NIMBYs tie up development with regularity. It’s actually quite rare and noteworthy when a project doesn’t have organized and powerful NIMBY opposition. There are a variety of solutions but it will be difficult. For starters, the land use approvals process needs to be scrapped, community boards need to be eliminated, and zoning rules need to be relaxed and clarified.
3 Likes
the community boards aren’t really part of the problem, neighborhood organizations with deep pockets are the worst offenders.
3 Likes
I suggest you to spend some time in Italy… 
1 Like
I love Italy. Been there twice.
1 Like
Italy is wonderful. But part of that is a strong community desire to preserve the old and limit or bar major construction in many areas of towns and cities. it is is not big, shiny, new buildings that makes it great, but history, culture, great food, and classic architecture. NIMBYISM? In part. But it does suggest that there can be a lot of value in “small is beautiful” attitudes. Sometimes I think the forums here ignore that possibility in fairly constant calls to get rid of small buildings rather than redo them. Can we take lessons from places like Rome, Florence, Venice, Paris, and other important European cities? I think so. And the popularity and recent growth of outdoor dining in the city speaks volumes about that.
5 Likes
I don’t know about Italy; but my assumption is that most of the new development NIMBY activism in NYC is based primarily on individual ‘self-interest’ regarding: views, neighborhood crowding, disdain for newer (usually much richer) people moving in, downward pressure on existing property values, new condo buildings making existing properties look old/outdated/dark, and more.
I personally was involved in blocking a small site in Soho from getting approval: the local ‘activist’ group was led by a lady I was dating at the time - I know for a FACT she started the group because the new building would be blocking her only apartment window with sunlight/views.
This is not always the case: but ‘mostly’ the case in regard to NIMBY opposition to new development projects. If you disagree I think you are either fooling yourself - or trying to fool me. 
4 Likes
I can disagree infoshare without that last line staring me in the face. That sort of stuff is out of line as far as I am concerned. The scope of opposition to various developments certainly can be partly self-interest, but there are human beings who think on larger scales. I have been involved in this sort of issue–both in teaching and writing for over 50 years–much too long to be put in the “fooling myself” category. Please think a bit more broadly and give us all a break from such critiques. Thanks.
3 Likes
OK, you are not “fooling yourself” - maybe you are just a bit a naive. I hope you find that a bit less offensive. 
2 Likes
Not really. Since you know zero about me, perhaps we should just back off from critiques that some might take as a bit unfair.
Chused
3 Likes
“Back-off from critiques that some might take as a bit unfair” - now you are just being silly.
On this particular NIMBY matter, if you are not “fooling yourself” or trying to “fool others” – then you are in my opinion simply naïve.
I gladly accept your opinion that I need to “think more broadly” or refrain from giving my “critiques” here on this forum.
We can have a frank discussion: why be so defensive or sensitive. I will let this go for now; and this was for me a ‘enlightening’ exchange – so it’s all good. Cheers.
3 Likes
I’m sorry infoshare, but your comments really don’t help the discussion at all. Calling anyone on this set of forums silly or naive gets us nowhere. Does it advance our understanding of architecture? No, Does it add to our wisdom about proper land use policy? Not at all. Does it enhance our knowledge of urban politics or neighborhood lobbying? Not in the slightest. All it demonstrates is a failure to exercise a bit of civility. My skin actually is pretty thick. I can take criticism. But in this setting comments like this labeling people as silly simply get us nowhere and should be avoided. You and I have had discussions before here that evidenced strong disagreements without getting personal and I’m hoping that will happen in the future. Full stop.
3 Likes
Can you give some examples of opposition that were not in self interest? Not asking sarcastically, genuinely curious. it should be noted that your personal ideas of what is not self interest could be regarded by others as exactly that
1 Like
Great question Jackster99. Thanks. There are those, including me, who take the contents of zoning law seriously as legal norms. They might be examples of bad land use policy; many are. But they nonetheless govern the situation. As a believer in the rule of law (I’m a law teacher.), I take seriously the obligations of developers, citizens, and the courts to use regular procedures, both in enforcing the extant norms, and in changing them. This sort of issue surfaced in the 200 Amsterdam dispute and is now present in the 50 West 66th project. In my eyes, the zoning lot issue raised in the 200 Amsterdam setting was quite serious and needed to be resolved. I think the final result in the NY Court of Appeals calling the issue moot is wrong, but we can save that for another day. The issue actually never got resolved due to the sloth of both the city and the courts in dealing with the dispute. But it is interesting that the way the rule was used by the 200 Amsterdam developer was administratively altered as the case wended its way through the courts. So another building like this one can’t be built. in the 50 West 66th dispute, there is a similar problem, this time involving the legality of creating super tall utility spaces to allow apartments above to be much higher in the air and therefore more valuable. The super tall utility spaces arguably have no other functional purpose. Should this be allowed? I don’t think so in the absence of changes in the zoning rules. In any case, at least for me, both buildings raised legal issues that concerned me and were totally unrelated to my own self interest, even though I live quite close to 200 Amsterdam. There are other sorts of issues that also are not related to self interest, but I hope this helps you. Land use policy, in short, is a many headed hydra, not all of which is related to the preferences of neighbors trying to protect their pocketbooks or other interests.
4 Likes
So, my take away from all the comments is that this phenomena is a NYC “problem” and not the norm in the majority of cities around the globe.
1 Like
The word problem is in quotes because some would not consider it a problem.
1 Like
I don’t actually know about the international issues but I would be shocked if there are no project disputes in various places in Europe or elsewhere. Maybe there is someone on the forums who has information about that.
1 Like
Italy is not only small towns and rolling hills
Anyway, I was not talking about old historical towns preservation: in Italy any urban redevelopment takes A LOOOONG TIME… and the result is often subpar. With, maybe, the exception of Milan.
1 Like
15 Likes