You found an angle where it looks good!
Why so? There are hundreds of blocks for large scale developments, nothing will happen if like 10% gets put aside/restrained in favor of preventing eyesores.
London is full of towers which were uniquely shaped by sightline constraints, this is not a 0 sum gameâŚ
Frankly speaking, even blocking pedestrian views of an empty lot in Greenpoint is a grevious offense.
10% now, 20% tommorow, 30% next week. This is reality. Having it at all will be used as justification to extend it, and the reality is that the vast majority of the time it will only be used to deny, obstruct, and delay new developments from being built.
This is another nimby talking point. Looks are subjective, there are people who think the empire state building looks terrible. You canât have zoning that prevents development based on looks because it will be used on all development.
âLooks are subjectiveâ, and then you bring a position held by maybe like 5%. Iikewise, the vast majority of the public despises this tower, and so I couldnât care less about what is objective.
There should be widely established rules of beauty and balance to prevent subversive and demoralizing architecture like this, essentially a middle finger by a foreign, Russian architect, and if your âYIMBYismâ is that literally any sort of building should be allowed to be built anywhere with 0 considerations to anything whatsoever at all then feel free to sink on your boat alone. Furthermore, this tower doesnât carry any urban value with the 25 units they canât even sell, anyway.
10% now, 20% tommorow, 30% next week
This doesnât even make at all, this is a strawman you made for yourself to avoid complex opinions. I just gave an example of Londonâs CBD.
Might as well tear down landmarked structures next in the name of this puritan and subversive version of âyimbyismâ
Nothing will happen if certain parcels wouldâve lost a few hundreds of feet here and there (and caps put on the options of air right transfers).
Your vision of âYIMBYismâ is just bootlicking greedy billionaires, leading to subversions of the sort:
Yeah thatâs the whole point. Do you think random rich nimbyâs represent the majority of people?
No there shouldnât. Big yikes. Please do not seek any position of power anywhere. You do not get to decide what is or isnât good looking. And you never will.
lol, and you wanna talk about strawmans? Nobody said anything even remotely close to this. All buildings built in the US are already subject to considerations, thatâs what zoning is. Youâre just not happy that the zoning doesnât take into consideration what you personally consider good looking, and frankly you will just have to continue to cry to yourself about it because it never will.
You created my vision of YIMBYism, then created an argument against âmy visionâ of YIMBYism. All the while, I never said anything like that, except that your idea of putting random restrictions (based on nothing but your personal feelings) on developments in one of the most heavily restrictive cities to build in the world isnât a good idea.
Itâs just being a NIMBY.
The majority of people, in fact, do not like ugly buildings 
Funny how a guy that doesnât even live here and seems ashamed to even admit where he does live wants to tell local residents how this city should be.
Well gramps! if, say, Chicago is to build something ugly, Iâll make sure to move there and share my address with you before opining on it 
You donât need my opinion, anyway. This building is pretty much disliked by most, for obvious reasons, including James Von Klemperer who liked this post
Pushing the previous discussion aside, I wouldnât say thatâs quite accurate. Zoning by definition is the regulation of the development and usage of land. That very infrequently involves anything related to how buildings/developments are designed/built.
The considerations being discussed above are hinting at design regulations, which as it involves NYC, are not regulated in zoning, as that is not really the objective of zoning.
And as it relates to this building in particular the height is not regulated either, which I do not have a problem with.
Most public/lay outcry and dislike as it regards this building is for the design and height. But just on these forums, the dislike is mostly for the design as several have objected that they donât mind the height if the design was worth it and the location.
Zoning is actually not very restrictive when it comes to NYC, thereâs no regulation on design or height, except those few special districts that do have zoning, or if a building goes through a special amendment process for approval (ULURP, or the through BSA or other depts/channels.
Requiring setbacks above a certain street height is really one of the most ârestrictiveâ zoning measures.
Chicagoans care a lot about their famous architecture. After the Great Fire in the late nineteenth century and the development of steel framed buildings, an array of stunning new building occurred. To this day architecture walking tours and boat rides through the heart of the city are major draws. Whenever we have been there we do some sort of architecture tour. Hidstoric protections are widely supported. It is one of the great architecture centers in the world.
I could be wrong, but I donât think @stache was referring to you.
That is correct. I have him on /ignore anyway.
Well, my bad then 