3 ms·

Your argument implicitly rests on the claim that most of NYC buildings are built right up against height restrictions. I can find no evidence for this, and fran

Your argument implicitly rests on the claim that most of NYC buildings are built right up against height restrictions. I can find no evidence for this, and frankly it doesn't make much sense - have you seen the NYC skyline? Nearly every building would have to have an individual height restriction for this to be true. There isn't nearly enough monotony to support it.

fbonetti 8y ago
1. Most of the buildings in NYC are already illegal according to modern zoning laws 2. It's not always profitable or practical to tear down a building. Tearing down a 3-flat and replacing it with a 4-flat, for example, would not be economically feasible even if it were allowed. Replacing a 3-flat with a 12-story building, on the other hand, would result in a much more productive use of the land, but it's typically not possible to upzone a parcel to that extent.
- burroisolator 8y ago
  Source for 1. above https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...
- thedufer 7y ago
  Based on the source I think you're referring to (mentioned in a sibling comment), it is 40%, not "most". Further, it is clear that height restrictions are a minority of that. I think it is clear that zoning is a primary cause of NYC's housing problems, but I just don't see any evidence that height restrictions make up much of the problem (remember, the upthread claim I took issue with is "height limits are the only reason there's a shortage of housing"). Anecdotally, a lot of buildings for sale (in Brooklyn, at least) list both the number of apartments and the max it is zoned for. This is relevant because it isn't actually that expensive the reno a 3-apartment into a 4-apartment (no need to tear it down), so zoning ends up being the primary roadblock for people who want to do that.

fbonetti 8y ago

1. Most of the buildings in NYC are already illegal according to modern zoning laws 2. It's not always profitable or practical to tear down a building. Tearing down a 3-flat and replacing it with a 4-flat, for example, would not be economically feasible even if it were allowed. Replacing a 3-flat with a 12-story building, on the other hand, would result in a much more productive use of the land, but it's typically not possible to upzone a parcel to that extent.

burroisolator 8y ago
Source for 1. above https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-percent-of-manhattans-buildings-could-not-be-built-today.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-...
thedufer 7y ago
Based on the source I think you're referring to (mentioned in a sibling comment), it is 40%, not "most". Further, it is clear that height restrictions are a minority of that. I think it is clear that zoning is a primary cause of NYC's housing problems, but I just don't see any evidence that height restrictions make up much of the problem (remember, the upthread claim I took issue with is "height limits are the only reason there's a shortage of housing"). Anecdotally, a lot of buildings for sale (in Brooklyn, at least) list both the number of apartments and the max it is zoned for. This is relevant because it isn't actually that expensive the reno a 3-apartment into a 4-apartment (no need to tear it down), so zoning ends up being the primary roadblock for people who want to do that.