This is bigger news than the reversal of Roe v. Wade !
It’s a shame that Extell’s proposal for 5th is so banal compared to this.
3 Likes
The community is going crazy right now over this, as expected though, right? Not much they can do, however.
Read the full interview here with some dude against the project. (lol) Landmark West Loses Appeal Against 50 West 66th Street - iLovetheUpperWestSide.com
2 Likes
The current design is definitely better
It is an older image as 220 Central Park South is not completed, but it’s actually the same exact design, the model in it is just not completed and the render unrefined.
This will certainly be an interesting addition to the UWS also considering that Snohetta is not very well known for it’s high-rises as they are all mostly proposals at the moment.
4 Likes
Oh yeah now I see it. I guess the colors/materials used make a large difference lol.
Also looking at this rendering, and looking at the skyline now, Billionaire’s Row just looks so…empty.
Reading this interview offers a good insight on the zoning approval process. My understanding is that ‘mechanical floors’ are not calculated as part of the FAR. The objection by the “Community” (whatever that means & and whoever that mysterious entity is remains a mystery) was in regard to the excessive height given to each of the mechanical floors; for the ostensible purpose of raising the overall height of the building.
That objection I at least comprehend; but do not necessarily agree.
What I think most people do not comprehend is that the same height could have been achieved by adding about 5-10 feet to the ceiling heights of each floor: which would not have any affect on the FAR.
They could have put standard height on the mechanical floors, and obviate any objection the the claim of “excessive height” on the mechanical floors.
My guess is they did not anticipate the ‘objection’ because they were technically working within the zoning rules for mechanical floors. There are two issue which seem to get conflated here: mechanical floors are NOT calculated as part of the FAR, and the fact that ‘ceiling heights’ are not factored into FAR calculations.
This one is reminds me of the zoning saga 200 Amsterdam Avenue when they probably/maybe/might have violated the zoning regulations. I don’t fully understand this one either; but all turned out well for 200 Amsterdam - and I suspect all will turn out well here too.
3 Likes
You are correct in your understanding, mechanical space/floors are not calculated/factored into FAR measurements. Mechanical areas are typically calculated at an additional 20-25% of the overall FAR. I think the community you are referring to is the group Landmark West, not very mysterious though.
The floor to floor height argue is a somewhat reasonable one, it’s just that developers know to an extent when a ceiling is too tall for what would be considered a one story unit, a 20 ft tall ceiling is unreasonable in a residential building without a second story and not acting as an atrium. And it would come at a greater cost to the developer, it is easier for them to make the mechanical floors/spaces taller.
Except for some residential zoning areas in NY there are no clearly defined or very little outlines for anything regarding mechanical spaces or bulkheads so developers can do whatever they want in regards to the height of mechanical spaces as they did with this tower and its 170 ft tall mechanical void. The only place I believe ceiling height becomes a factor that is clearly outlined in the zoning laws involves the street wall and base height of a building when it comes to an either/or of # of floors vs height of floors.
This tower isn’t really relatable to what happened at 200 Amsterdam as that issue revolved around the zoning lot dispute and the FAR that came out of it vs what it should’ve been according to the actual tax lot, it didn’t have problems with mechanical voids as Snohetta’s tower had. But unless more legal trouble arises that prevents Extell from resuming construction, there shouldn’t be any other problems.
2 Likes
It only takes one though. They get one successful high rise and then they get calls from all the big institutions looking for a new look.
1 Like
The main complaint I have heard is from the fire dept. If there’s a fire then the firemen have to schlep up sixteen floors with equipment to get there.
Thanks. I am getting the general idea on how these building heights are calculated.
The main mystery for me remains the use of the term ‘community’. I think if a poll were taken for the entire upper west side, or a one mile radius from the building: and everyone got an approve/disapprove vote - that would be “the community”.
A vocal minority in an area protesting a new development is typically referred to as “community” opposition. The zoning regulations are OK enough - but the use of the term “community” is deceptive.
I venture to guess, if the ‘actual’ community were to take a vote: very few, if any, new developments would meet with much opposition.
1 Like
Infoshare–You are playing a bit of a semantic game. You are writing of “community” as a voting majority. That certainly is one meaning. (Though as a resident of the area I’m not as sure as you are about the rate of approval for some of the buildings that have recently been in dispute. Nor am I clear about the geographic scope of the area where the vote should be taken.) But “community” can also be used as an adjective, as in “from the area or region.” In that sense community opposition just means those opposing a project are local. This is the more common meaning in this sort of discussion. And in that sense the opposition to this building was “community” based. Sometimes it’s important not to conflate the two quite different meanings. As for the nature of the “community” opposition to the zoning decision it was largely based on utility floor height. There will be a significant amount of unused height on each of the utility floors. The rules of that game have now been altered for the future to limit that practice. As for 200 Amsterdam the problem arose from a very odd configuration of the zoning lot upon which the FAR was based. The practice used there of merging portions of zoning lots in an odd, gerrymandered way also has been changed and limited by rules adopted since that project was first approved. In both projects the city let construction start before significant court action occurred. It then seemed to the courts to be unfair to halt the projects in midstream.
2 Likes
I’m very much with infoshare on this. “Community input” usually means hearing from a very vocal minority that does not accurately represent the neighborhood.
The problem is that politicians act like this group does represent the neighborhood, but it very much does not.
What usually happens is that the vocal minority are mostly retirees, who have the time on their hands to attend the meetings. The younger generations — who are usually the majority, and represent the future of the neighborhood — are too busy working and raising families.
In NYC, this manifests as community boards making parking their main priority, when in fact the majority do not even own cars. It’s totally skewed. It’s a broken system.
3 Likes
When the claim of “community opposition” is made: what exactly does that mean. This is a sincere question that never seems to be answered simply & directly. The convoluted verbal obfuscations you offer above is a perfect example: What and/or who exactly is “community opposition” .
1 Like
Yes, this very much sums up by what I am saying. The term “community opposition” is nothing more than a highly vocal minority. We all need to stop with the deceptive use of this term; it is that simple.
2 Likes
I wish that Extell’s tower at 570 Fifth had a slanted roof like this or some sort of crown.
1 Like
Lets goooooo
4 Likes