12 ms·

What's the major complaint(s) of people who oppose large towers? Shade? Skyline (which you aren't going to be seeing anyway unless you live out in Brooklyn or Q

What's the major complaint(s) of people who oppose large towers? Shade? Skyline (which you aren't going to be seeing anyway unless you live out in Brooklyn or Queens)? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the big deal is here. If a billionaire wants to live up in the clouds, great, more vacant spaces in the rest of Manhattan for everyone else.

NikolaeVarius 7y ago
I personally don't care, but part of concern is for sunlight reaching the ground. Lots of planning goes into allowing sunlight to reach the ground for at least part of the day.
- jws 7y ago
  The article suggests these towers are being built in blocks of lower buildings. Each block has a "allowable total square footage of building" limit. The developers are buying lower buildings, or unused area rights for lower buildings, and conglomerating it into towers. It seems this is an improvement for sunlight and space at street level. Rather than the sidewalk being against a massive wall of 10 story buildings looming over the streets you can have more human scale buildings and open space and a single spire reaching up out of sight. The narrow shadow of the spire will swing around like a sundial during they day, but its shade will move on.
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
Yes, shade/shadows is a reason: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/21/upshot/Mapping-the-Shadows-of-New-York-City.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/21/upshot/Mappin...
tracer4201 7y ago
You don’t have to agree with it, but if you actually read the article its mentioned. >But the proliferation of these buildings is provoking a backlash amid a broader debate about affordable housing, megaprojects for the ultrarich and the city’s identity. Now, officials are seeking to rein in developers by proposing rules that would apply unusually large mechanical spaces toward a building’s height limit.
- jimrandomh 7y ago
  That's insane, because height limits are the only reason there's a shortage of housing in the first place.
  - spaceheretostay 7y ago
    Height limits are definitely not the "only reason" there's a shortage of housing in the first place. Housing shortages often have many causes and contributing factors, especially in NYC. Building height limits are not the reason for housing shortages in NYC! From the wiki on the topic, > [NYC's housing shortage] is caused by the erosion of the New Yorkers' purchasing power due to stagnant wages and the increase in average rent in the city despite robust tenant protection.[1][2] The article lists a half dozen other contributing factors, none of which are building height restrictions. Yes the wiki article is incomplete, but I think my point is demonstrated.
    - jimrandomh 7y ago
      If every building were twice as tall, there would be twice as much housing. If there were twice as much housing, there wouldn't be a shortage. Height limits are the main reason they aren't twice as tall. It's really quite straightforward. Which part of the argument do you think is incorrect, and why?
      - spaceheretostay 7y ago
        > If every building were twice as tall, there would be twice as much housing This is definitely not true. I don't understand where this assumption came from and I cannot logically follow it through. Certainly 1) not 100% of building heights are livable space, and certainly 2) you cannot just extend one dimension of life (building height) and then assume that you will have created some economically usable housing. > If there were twice as much housing, there wouldn't be a shortage Again I don't understand this at all. The shortage isn't about the amount of available housing at all, it's about people's ability to live there too. And if you're just doubling the building heights, you haven't talked about wages or ability to live there etc. > It's really quite straightforward What? None of this is straightforward! This stuff is super complicated! There's no need to be so condescending and rude about it. > Which part of the argument do you think is incorrect, and why? All of it. I've explained above.
closeparen 7y ago
The vacancy is a key factor here. It’s reasonable to upset that some are squandering a resource which you can barely get enough of to live. Take the classic “dictator having his lunch flown in by private plane.” The issue here is not the engine noise, or even the misallocation of jet fuel/seat space. It’s the symbolic obscenity.
- powerapple 7y ago
  vacancy is good. They pay property tax but not getting something back, which is means better service for locals.
  - yardstick 7y ago
    Depends on if the space could be occupied with others that also reside there and so pay income and other taxes as well. The property tax factor won’t be as high I guess, but maybe the income and sales tax from their living in the city would make up for it?
    - kristianc 7y ago
      The others who reside there also won’t be as invested in improving the local area as an owner-occupier would be, as most of the benefits of the area becoming nicer would accrue to the landlord through the rental market.
      - yardstick 7y ago
        Could have middle class owner occupiers rather than ultra wealthy owner-unoccupiers?
      - closeparen 7y ago
        At the point where only international oligarchs can afford to live there, the neighborhood has been improved way too much.
        7y ago
spaceheretostay 7y ago
Building large buildings to fill with empty space and spending huge amounts of money catering to the ultrarich, while there are still massive housing problems in NYC, is definitely going to offend some people. A society which enables the rich to produce extraneous waste - literally making multimillion dollar luxury home spaces just to fill with nothing, so that you can skirt the law for building codes, and not even allow a person to live there - yeah that's offensive. The rich should be able to buy things they like, yes. But of course it's offensive when the country has a housing crises and the rich are building houses that nobody is allowed to live in, just so they can get a better view? I mean yeah that's pretty obviously offensive and a strong, real reason that people are opposing these towers - it's described in the article.
- wongarsu 7y ago
  If given the choice I think most of the ultra rich would prefer to fill useless space with living space to rent out. It would mean lots of money with little drawback. But they aren't given that choice. If they want their high towers building codes force them to leave that space empty. If having a building that high isn't the main problem then the fault is clearly with the building code, but with the developers or the customers.
  - spaceheretostay 7y ago
    > But they aren't given that choice. If your argument is framed that the ultrarich aren't given enough choices in how to live in luxury, I'm not sure I'll understand the rest of your post. Yes the building code has a problem that is contributing to this issue, but let's get real here: The ultrarich are given all the options in the world. Not every option they choose need be so offensive to regular people.
    - wongarsu 7y ago
      No, my point is that the ultrarich have the choice between building a small tower that's completely used, or a bigger one with unused space. While the ultrarich prefer the version with the higher building, both scenarios end with the same amount of used space. Any waste of space is not a decision of the ultrarich but a consequence of the building code.
save_ferris 7y ago
The city argues that the regulations exist largely to ensure that first responders are properly equipped to deal with disasters. For example, if the city uses zoning regulation to determine how long the fire truck ladders need to be, and a developer uses a loophole to construct a building beyond the regulated height, then the fire department isn't equipped to respond to all potential cases. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-22/new-york-looks-into-voids-used-by-builders-to-bend-height-rules https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-22/new-york-...
lr4444lr 7y ago
There is a limit to the supporting infrastructure: water, gas, public transit, hospitals, schools, trash pickup... Residence entitles one to a host of public benefits and access to natural resources that have finite density that can be supported.
- comicjk 7y ago
  Residence also obligates one to pay taxes, and all of the infrastructure you mentioned can be improved with money.
ordinaryradical 7y ago
Shade matters, especially in the cooler months. But this particular loophole is about waste. Creating fake or needlessly large “mechanical voids” that do not count toward your overall height so that you can make the building taller is just extraordinarily wasteful. Every piece of space is at a premium in Manhattan because density is so critical. Wasting that space should be disincentivized in every possible way.
bradleyjg 7y ago
I’d be all for them, but for 421a and other broken parts of the NYC property tax regime. If the guy that spent $240MM on an apartment was paying millions in property taxes, I’d say bring on the trophy apartments. But he isn’t, so I’m lukewarm at best on these projects.
burroisolator 7y ago
I'm not sure about major complaint(s) of people, but I can see why city planners would be upset. City planners use height restrictions or FARs (floor area ratio) as a bargaining chip to get what they want: usually things like more affordable housing or plazas the public can use. Real estate developers going after bonus height or FARs is evidence that there is more demand to build upward than what zoning laws allow. Loopholes such as large vacant mechanical spaces, make bonus height restrictions or FARs less valuable, and hence city planners are less likely to get the things they want out of real estate developers. That the city is willing to provide bonus height or FARs is also showing how these height restrictions aren't based on any pressing concrete objective; the only one I know of is by the FAA: "the Federal Aviation Administration sets a building height of 2,000 feet in most U.S. cities to make commercial flights safer"[0]. In addition, while extracting more affordable housing out of "greedy" real estate developers is politically popular, it is questionable whether this is the most cost effective way to provide more affordable housing. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2019/04/08/worlds-tallest-buildings-why-america-isnt-building-them/3160931002/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2019/04/08/worlds-tal...

NikolaeVarius 7y ago

I personally don't care, but part of concern is for sunlight reaching the ground. Lots of planning goes into allowing sunlight to reach the ground for at least part of the day.

jws 7y ago
The article suggests these towers are being built in blocks of lower buildings. Each block has a "allowable total square footage of building" limit. The developers are buying lower buildings, or unused area rights for lower buildings, and conglomerating it into towers. It seems this is an improvement for sunlight and space at street level. Rather than the sidewalk being against a massive wall of 10 story buildings looming over the streets you can have more human scale buildings and open space and a single spire reaching up out of sight. The narrow shadow of the spire will swing around like a sundial during they day, but its shade will move on.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

Yes, shade/shadows is a reason: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/21/upshot/Mapping-the-Shadows-of-New-York-City.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/21/upshot/Mappin...

tracer4201 7y ago

You don’t have to agree with it, but if you actually read the article its mentioned. >But the proliferation of these buildings is provoking a backlash amid a broader debate about affordable housing, megaprojects for the ultrarich and the city’s identity. Now, officials are seeking to rein in developers by proposing rules that would apply unusually large mechanical spaces toward a building’s height limit.

jimrandomh 7y ago
That's insane, because height limits are the only reason there's a shortage of housing in the first place.
- spaceheretostay 7y ago
  Height limits are definitely not the "only reason" there's a shortage of housing in the first place. Housing shortages often have many causes and contributing factors, especially in NYC. Building height limits are not the reason for housing shortages in NYC! From the wiki on the topic, > [NYC's housing shortage] is caused by the erosion of the New Yorkers' purchasing power due to stagnant wages and the increase in average rent in the city despite robust tenant protection.[1][2] The article lists a half dozen other contributing factors, none of which are building height restrictions. Yes the wiki article is incomplete, but I think my point is demonstrated.
  - jimrandomh 7y ago
    If every building were twice as tall, there would be twice as much housing. If there were twice as much housing, there wouldn't be a shortage. Height limits are the main reason they aren't twice as tall. It's really quite straightforward. Which part of the argument do you think is incorrect, and why?
    - spaceheretostay 7y ago
      > If every building were twice as tall, there would be twice as much housing This is definitely not true. I don't understand where this assumption came from and I cannot logically follow it through. Certainly 1) not 100% of building heights are livable space, and certainly 2) you cannot just extend one dimension of life (building height) and then assume that you will have created some economically usable housing. > If there were twice as much housing, there wouldn't be a shortage Again I don't understand this at all. The shortage isn't about the amount of available housing at all, it's about people's ability to live there too. And if you're just doubling the building heights, you haven't talked about wages or ability to live there etc. > It's really quite straightforward What? None of this is straightforward! This stuff is super complicated! There's no need to be so condescending and rude about it. > Which part of the argument do you think is incorrect, and why? All of it. I've explained above.

closeparen 7y ago

The vacancy is a key factor here. It’s reasonable to upset that some are squandering a resource which you can barely get enough of to live. Take the classic “dictator having his lunch flown in by private plane.” The issue here is not the engine noise, or even the misallocation of jet fuel/seat space. It’s the symbolic obscenity.

powerapple 7y ago
vacancy is good. They pay property tax but not getting something back, which is means better service for locals.
- yardstick 7y ago
  Depends on if the space could be occupied with others that also reside there and so pay income and other taxes as well. The property tax factor won’t be as high I guess, but maybe the income and sales tax from their living in the city would make up for it?
  - kristianc 7y ago
    The others who reside there also won’t be as invested in improving the local area as an owner-occupier would be, as most of the benefits of the area becoming nicer would accrue to the landlord through the rental market.
    - yardstick 7y ago
      Could have middle class owner occupiers rather than ultra wealthy owner-unoccupiers?
    - closeparen 7y ago
      At the point where only international oligarchs can afford to live there, the neighborhood has been improved way too much.
      - 7y ago

spaceheretostay 7y ago

Building large buildings to fill with empty space and spending huge amounts of money catering to the ultrarich, while there are still massive housing problems in NYC, is definitely going to offend some people. A society which enables the rich to produce extraneous waste - literally making multimillion dollar luxury home spaces just to fill with nothing, so that you can skirt the law for building codes, and not even allow a person to live there - yeah that's offensive. The rich should be able to buy things they like, yes. But of course it's offensive when the country has a housing crises and the rich are building houses that nobody is allowed to live in, just so they can get a better view? I mean yeah that's pretty obviously offensive and a strong, real reason that people are opposing these towers - it's described in the article.

wongarsu 7y ago
If given the choice I think most of the ultra rich would prefer to fill useless space with living space to rent out. It would mean lots of money with little drawback. But they aren't given that choice. If they want their high towers building codes force them to leave that space empty. If having a building that high isn't the main problem then the fault is clearly with the building code, but with the developers or the customers.
- spaceheretostay 7y ago
  > But they aren't given that choice. If your argument is framed that the ultrarich aren't given enough choices in how to live in luxury, I'm not sure I'll understand the rest of your post. Yes the building code has a problem that is contributing to this issue, but let's get real here: The ultrarich are given all the options in the world. Not every option they choose need be so offensive to regular people.
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    No, my point is that the ultrarich have the choice between building a small tower that's completely used, or a bigger one with unused space. While the ultrarich prefer the version with the higher building, both scenarios end with the same amount of used space. Any waste of space is not a decision of the ultrarich but a consequence of the building code.

save_ferris 7y ago

The city argues that the regulations exist largely to ensure that first responders are properly equipped to deal with disasters. For example, if the city uses zoning regulation to determine how long the fire truck ladders need to be, and a developer uses a loophole to construct a building beyond the regulated height, then the fire department isn't equipped to respond to all potential cases. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-22/new-york-looks-into-voids-used-by-builders-to-bend-height-rules https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-22/new-york-...

lr4444lr 7y ago

There is a limit to the supporting infrastructure: water, gas, public transit, hospitals, schools, trash pickup... Residence entitles one to a host of public benefits and access to natural resources that have finite density that can be supported.

comicjk 7y ago
Residence also obligates one to pay taxes, and all of the infrastructure you mentioned can be improved with money.

ordinaryradical 7y ago

Shade matters, especially in the cooler months. But this particular loophole is about waste. Creating fake or needlessly large “mechanical voids” that do not count toward your overall height so that you can make the building taller is just extraordinarily wasteful. Every piece of space is at a premium in Manhattan because density is so critical. Wasting that space should be disincentivized in every possible way.

bradleyjg 7y ago

I’d be all for them, but for 421a and other broken parts of the NYC property tax regime. If the guy that spent $240MM on an apartment was paying millions in property taxes, I’d say bring on the trophy apartments. But he isn’t, so I’m lukewarm at best on these projects.

burroisolator 7y ago

I'm not sure about major complaint(s) of people, but I can see why city planners would be upset. City planners use height restrictions or FARs (floor area ratio) as a bargaining chip to get what they want: usually things like more affordable housing or plazas the public can use. Real estate developers going after bonus height or FARs is evidence that there is more demand to build upward than what zoning laws allow. Loopholes such as large vacant mechanical spaces, make bonus height restrictions or FARs less valuable, and hence city planners are less likely to get the things they want out of real estate developers. That the city is willing to provide bonus height or FARs is also showing how these height restrictions aren't based on any pressing concrete objective; the only one I know of is by the FAA: "the Federal Aviation Administration sets a building height of 2,000 feet in most U.S. cities to make commercial flights safer"[0]. In addition, while extracting more affordable housing out of "greedy" real estate developers is politically popular, it is questionable whether this is the most cost effective way to provide more affordable housing. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2019/04/08/worlds-tallest-buildings-why-america-isnt-building-them/3160931002/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2019/04/08/worlds-tal...