I agree, but I guess my consternation is with our local regulatory agencies. I understand the general idea of NIMBY opposition; but, the apparent vagueness, ambiguity and confusion on zoning regulations provides the perfect opportunity for obstruction.
The businesses involved, and the public pay a high price for what can be fairly described as governmental mismanagement.
I am irked by the scale, frequency and depth of the zoning disputes that take place with many projects in NYC and believe that someone should be held to account; but alas, all one can do is you see here - complain, and expose.
The constant refrain is ‘these things are nuanced’ they are ‘complicated’ they are ‘messy/weird sometimes’ or ‘nothing is simply black & white’ with a metropolis such as NYC - so ‘they’ say. I say BS.
I point out what I believe to be unethical or incompetent with local government and then move on to better more enjoyable pursuits - glad to have YIMBY my place to publicly protest.
Upper West Side Nimbys strike again. Although I understand the concern over these extreme mechanical floor heights I thought this one was settled. Looks like another activist judge has thrown a wrench in the works. This is really a handsome building and would loose aesthetically with a height chop. On the other hand I think 249 E 62 St is just downright ugly.
It’s the same wealthy NIMBYs who sued re. 200 Amsterdam. And it will be the same final result, with massive delays, but building completed as approved by the BSA.
The current system is broken. Wealthy NIMBYs shouldn’t be able to game the system by tying up new housing in endless frivolous litigation. Both legal actions are being funded by wealthy coop buildings at risk of views being blocked.
Yes, odd how common and persistent the problem. We will never know all the motivations of the people who oppose these buildings; or why these inept and/or corrupt zoning issues persist.
I am glad these forums give us the opportunity to at least shed a little light on these things;
as we can not ‘solve’ the problem - but we can ‘expose’ the problem.
I only take a passing interest in this subject, so not going to loose any sleep over these projects getting blocked, delayed, chopped down, and litigated for years on end.
As I have said before on this site in the chain on 200 Amsterdam, the issue really is not NIMBYs. Sometimes objections to a building may seem bewildering and out of place. But at other times they may have legal weight. Regardless of whether a large building should be constructed at this site as a matter of land use planning, the structure should be built in accordance with legal norms. If the plan is not legit, then I care not about the potentially greedy politics of the objectors. If the plans are unlawful, then developers should go the political route and seek changes in the rules rather than working in cahoots with the building department to violate them. In this particular case, it is hard to believe that the ridiculously high utility space volume called for in the plans is legit. The height is simply a ploy to push apartments for the rich and famous into a loftier price range. Most of the volume is unnecessary for the building’s engineering systems to work properly. So, again as I have said before, the biting name-calling about NIMBYs doesn’t really advance the discourse on this site in a thoughtful and civil way. The real issue in this dispute is not about NIMBYs but about the developer and the building department. They are doing the real pushing people around in this setting. Thanks for hearing me out.
Thanks robert walpole. By the way the rule at issue in this dispute, like the one in issue at 200 Amsterdam, has been changed to prevent this kind of plan in the future. Again, as with 200, the question is about a buikding approved before the rule change.
That one particular point is a good one: WHY is the mechanical floor way higher than is clearly necessary for the ‘actual’ needs of said equipment.
This now becomes an obvious attempt to find weaknesses in the zoning laws than can be cleverly exploited in order to up the value of the building/apartments.
I am no lawyer, but I do understand the fundamental legal concept of “spirit-of-the-law” and “letter-of-the-law”. There is always some technicality that the letter of the law does not fully circumscribe and then can be cleverly exploited; but any reasonable person knows the excessive height for those mechanical floors are a clear violation on the “spirit-of-the-law”.
The reason for not putting a cap on the height of the mechanical floors was obviously to provide some leeway for possible equipment variations: not to provide an opportunity to hoist the top of the building another 50 feet into the sky.
This, I agree, is not a NIMBY issue - it is a clever but deceitful way to work around the zoning regulations by trying to claim that the ‘plans’ conform to ALL regulations as written in the zoning rules.
We can all learn something here other than which is the ‘prettiest’ building in town.
Thanks infoshare. In a way this all is a real tragedy. From the renderings of this building, the architecture seems quite promising. Too bad it may end up being another example of folks pushing the rules so far that someone in authority finally says “nope.”
The zoning code may not be a NIMBY issue per se, but this building has been a NIMBY target since it was originally proposed in 2015 at 292 feet with a different design. Many of the same people, including Brewer and Rosenthal, have been involved in 200 Amsterdam Ave as well. Although the issues are different, they are both technical. The technical aspect is what makes them controversial, hell, we wouldn’t be having this conversation if they were “as of right”.
Don’t think it’s merely technical. The issue actually is whether the buildings are as of right. Figuring that out for both buildings has become a land use fiasco because of the city’s willingness to stretch the rules to the breaking point. Fur sure, Brewer and Rosenthal’s roles have been important in both cases. But i don’t think the courts would have swung their way without there being some strength in the opposition claims. So the blame for the fiascos needs to be widely spread around.
I don’t believe they’ve secured a construction loan. The last we heard they brought on a partner, nothing since. And it is not under construction, not for awhile now. Since before covid. And evidently there is a court case pending.
