5 ms·

Note that zoning in NYC requires the step backs that you see. It allows the full building footprint to X height (based maybe on the width of the street), and th

Note that zoning in NYC requires the step backs that you see. It allows the full building footprint to X height (based maybe on the width of the street), and then is based on an angle formula, where for every additional Y feet requires a further setback of Z feet, resulting in the stepped-top towers that exist all over Manhattan. Like all zoning, it claims a cute origin story (allowing sunlight to reach the street), but also had the motivation of keeping rents high by limiting additional construction. From https://old.skyscraper.org/zoning/ https://old.skyscraper.org/zoning/, on the reason for the support of zoning in Manhattan: "There were two major causes for this shift, both rooted in the drive to stabilize real estate values. The first was the concern about overbuilding in lower Manhattan, both in the increased scale of such mammoth new structures as the Equitable Building at 120 Broadway and in the rate of vacant office space. The second was the lobbying of the Fifth Avenue Association, a powerful group of merchants, hotel operators, and business interests that was organized in 1907 to fight the spread of loft buildings into the fashionable retail district north of Thirty-fourth Street."

bobthepanda 6y ago
that should read required. This is generally not a rule anymore, which is why Midtown is more than happy to host numerous slab office blocks.
eloff 6y ago
Do you have a source for the claim that it was intentionally to keep rents high? That's contrary to the goals of most city planners, and would require corrupt influences. While it's not impossible, it is a conspiracy theory, and requires evidence.
- bregma 6y ago
  Tammany Hall.
  - code4tee 6y ago
    “Tammany Hall” is basically the answer to “why” for just about anything that happened in NYC prior to the 1960s :-)
    - josephpmay 6y ago
      Prior to LaGuardia, sure, but they lost a lot of power in the Fusion days before they were gone
- 43t344efsg 6y ago
  >That's contrary to the goals of most city planners. Odd claim given the outcome of their policies.
  - smallnamespace 6y ago
    Yes, because city planners, like software engineers, always design their systems to an exact spec with no unintended consequences.
- toyg 6y ago
  > [keeping rents high would be] contrary to the goals of most city planners Today, maybe. The game was quite different 100+ years ago. We are talking about a pre-FDR, robber-baron era.
rb808 6y ago
Here is Pine street, which shows how tall the equitable building, with its neighbour. Remember these are >110 years old, were built when electricity was still in its early years. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7083537,-74.0112452,3a,75y,129.49h,124.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEeaBjr9nIGMGoNw3EHBQ5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7083537,-74.0112452,3a,75y,1...
notahacker 6y ago
The author notes this, but the bit he misses is that earlier NYC skyscrapers had the same setbacks for the same reasons and even earlier ones for internal light and aesthetic reasons, despite their design detailing being far more influenced by classical and gothic architecture. On a similar note, it's a bit of a stretch to call Petronas Towers Art Deco based on the very mild setbacks, sharp lines and pointy top, because the far more obvious design element is the Islamic-influenced cross section which would look very out of place in NYC. [the architect Cesar Pelli obviously loved Art Deco enough to have designed some more obviously Art Deco inspired towers, but he also built plenty of curvy pointy walls of glass, including the Salesforce Tower which other commenters have suggested as comparatively bland]
ehmorris 6y ago
The NYC zoning law you're referencing was replaced in the 60s with a different zoning law which emphasized plazas. Current NYC skyscrapers are more affected by laws around air rights and void spaces.
Tiktaalik 6y ago
Given the amount of time and thought that architects put into light I really don't think it's a 'cute origin story'
m463 6y ago
I find 432 park avenue to be directly against setbacks. It is a fascinating building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/432_Park_Avenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/432_Park_Avenue it is 93' x 93' x 1396' tall, which is 15:1 in comparison a cigarette on end would be 10:1 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/NYCbyPinHt_update.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/NYCbyPin...
- cma 6y ago
  I believe they could only do it by buying up rights from neighboring properties.

bobthepanda 6y ago

that should read required. This is generally not a rule anymore, which is why Midtown is more than happy to host numerous slab office blocks.

eloff 6y ago

Do you have a source for the claim that it was intentionally to keep rents high? That's contrary to the goals of most city planners, and would require corrupt influences. While it's not impossible, it is a conspiracy theory, and requires evidence.

bregma 6y ago
Tammany Hall.
- code4tee 6y ago
  “Tammany Hall” is basically the answer to “why” for just about anything that happened in NYC prior to the 1960s :-)
  - josephpmay 6y ago
    Prior to LaGuardia, sure, but they lost a lot of power in the Fusion days before they were gone
43t344efsg 6y ago
>That's contrary to the goals of most city planners. Odd claim given the outcome of their policies.
- smallnamespace 6y ago
  Yes, because city planners, like software engineers, always design their systems to an exact spec with no unintended consequences.
toyg 6y ago
> [keeping rents high would be] contrary to the goals of most city planners Today, maybe. The game was quite different 100+ years ago. We are talking about a pre-FDR, robber-baron era.

rb808 6y ago

Here is Pine street, which shows how tall the equitable building, with its neighbour. Remember these are >110 years old, were built when electricity was still in its early years. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7083537,-74.0112452,3a,75y,129.49h,124.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEeaBjr9nIGMGoNw3EHBQ5g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7083537,-74.0112452,3a,75y,1...

notahacker 6y ago

The author notes this, but the bit he misses is that earlier NYC skyscrapers had the same setbacks for the same reasons and even earlier ones for internal light and aesthetic reasons, despite their design detailing being far more influenced by classical and gothic architecture. On a similar note, it's a bit of a stretch to call Petronas Towers Art Deco based on the very mild setbacks, sharp lines and pointy top, because the far more obvious design element is the Islamic-influenced cross section which would look very out of place in NYC. [the architect Cesar Pelli obviously loved Art Deco enough to have designed some more obviously Art Deco inspired towers, but he also built plenty of curvy pointy walls of glass, including the Salesforce Tower which other commenters have suggested as comparatively bland]

ehmorris 6y ago

The NYC zoning law you're referencing was replaced in the 60s with a different zoning law which emphasized plazas. Current NYC skyscrapers are more affected by laws around air rights and void spaces.

Tiktaalik 6y ago

Given the amount of time and thought that architects put into light I really don't think it's a 'cute origin story'

m463 6y ago

I find 432 park avenue to be directly against setbacks. It is a fascinating building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/432_Park_Avenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/432_Park_Avenue it is 93' x 93' x 1396' tall, which is 15:1 in comparison a cigarette on end would be 10:1 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/NYCbyPinHt_update.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/NYCbyPin...

cma 6y ago
I believe they could only do it by buying up rights from neighboring properties.