10 ms·

Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them. > They cast these huge shadows and block views Talk about first world

Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them. > They cast these huge shadows and block views Talk about first world problems. Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous. The only problem is that so few people use these buildings. The best kind of density regulation requires _more_ density.

heterodoxxed 5y ago
The insane height of these building is far beyond the argument for vertical density, though.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Yeah I think 10-12 floors is plenty and still "climbable"
mc32 5y ago
Not even. plenty of first-world cities expect skyline changes. This attitude toward change (anti-change) comes from SF and has migrated elsewhere. NYC was the antithesis to this attitude but apparently it's not immune to this line of thinking. It's like they think mountains do not move. Rivers always run the same course. It's comical and tragic.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  > This attitude toward change (anti-change) comes from SF and has migrated elsewhere. NYC was the antithesis to this attitude but apparently it's not immune to this line of thinking. NYC created the world's first zoning laws in response to a building casting shadows: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/background.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/background.page
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    This was back from an era where the main contributors to disease were thought to be lack of air and light. The zoning described was actually quite generous by modern standards; you could technically build as much as you wanted as long as it fit the prescribed cake tier shape, and you could build theoretically unlimited height on a certain portion, I believe the center quarter of the lot. There is no city in the US today where you could build something as tall as the Empire State Building as of right; and yet the older regulations allowed that.
    - allturtles 5y ago
      > There is no city in the US today where you could build something as tall as the Empire State Building as of right I'm not sure what you mean by that. 6 buildings taller than the ESB have been completed in NYC since 2014, mostly residential towers of the sort described in the OP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_N...
      - bobthepanda 5y ago
        When I say "as of right" I mean that all you need is ownership of the lot in question. The Empire State Building was built only with ownership of the lot it was built on and the owner was legally allowed to build as tall as they want. Nearly all tall buildings in New York these days are legally built through assembling "air rights." Zoning has predetermined height/FAR limits for all lots, but in certain areas it is possible to sell currently unused rights and transfer them to the owner of another lot. This allows some developers to build taller but keeps overall neighborhood square footage around a prescribed limit. This way, you can build a spiky tower or two here and there on Billionaire's Row (the general name for the area) but the street cannot become a wall of them. More info on air rights: https://streeteasy.com/blog/what-are-nyc-air-rights-all-about/ https://streeteasy.com/blog/what-are-nyc-air-rights-all-abou...
        allturtles 5y ago
        I see, thanks. The term "as of right" was not familiar to me. It looked like a typo for an intended "as of right now".
mola 5y ago
Who says there's an expectation for the skyline to never change? Maybe it's ok if it changes for good reasons that benefit a lot of people, and not for the whims of the few ultra rich. It's nuts that huge buildings are built, and then stand empty almost year round. That obviously doesn't help with density.
test1235 5y ago
>Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous "In Athens, buildings are not allowed to surpass 12 floors so as not to block the view toward the Parthenon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Athens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_A... I'd say this isn't typical of most of the world, but it's not unprecedented.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  It also constrains supply of real estate, driving up the value for property owners.
  - tarsinge 5y ago
    12 floors is huge. Nearly every building in Paris is 6 floors and it is already at near the maximum density humanly acceptable in my opinion. There will never be enough supply in some place, especially with speculation and foreign investors. The situation in NYC and these cities is nothing like SF.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      The average square footage of a Parisian studio would make NY’s tenements look downright palatial. The average NYC studio is 50 m^2. The larger end for a Parisian studio is given to be 35 m^2.
      - PoignardAzur 5y ago
        On the other hand, there's nothing forcing you to live in intra-muros Paris. I live in Nanterre, 5min away from the RER station, and my rent is 1200€/month for a 2-bedrooms apartment (50 m²). I have a <1h commute for about anywhere in Paris, and <20min for La Défense. Point is, you can have affordable-ish rents in a business center without building humongous high-rises everywhere, as long as your public transport network can support it.
        5y ago
Tade0 5y ago
> Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them. That will just expand the market for such investments and make even larger areas unlivable.
Dyac 5y ago
In London there are "protected vistas" - it's the reason why the shard and the walkie-talkie buildings are odd shapes. https://mappinglondon.co.uk/2011/londons-protected-vistas/ https://mappinglondon.co.uk/2011/londons-protected-vistas/
chakhs 5y ago
Or tax empty apartments? Not sure if that's done in the US
choeger 5y ago
Yeah, more density, because all that matters is the size of cities and their economy. 90% of children never waking up to the sounds of birds around their house? Who cares? 90% of grownups never plant even a tomatoes? What does it matter! Families of four or more confined to single-bathroom, two-bedroom apartments? The cosier, the better! The most important bit is that the cheap workforce reaches their dull jobs in time to make the city work for the elite and God forbid they don't behave "ecologically efficient" when doing so!
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Well, we know what the alternative is. People have less tomato planting time because they spend longer commuting. So we optimize to put people close to their jobs so they get lots of leisure time with their family. If they don't want that they can always live farther out. That way everyone is happy.
  - tovej 5y ago
    That's not the alternative at all. The alternative is sensible city planning with mixed zoning neighborhoods that create comfortable centers all around the city. Add metros, bike lanes, and parks and you have a pleasant city instead of a concrete jungle or a suburban sprawl.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      I'll believe it when I see it. Every American development like this is a massive money hole.
      - tovej 5y ago
        Look around Europe and you can see it. The reason US city development is a money hole is because you do city-level urban services in sprawling communities. The tax-payer density is just not high enough to economically support the cost of that infrastructure.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them" For the past 30 years this has not happened even once in a major city. Developer will not build so many building as to drip the price. Maybe its time to accept that you are perpetuating a myth.
otoburb 5y ago
>>Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous. The only problem is that so few people use these buildings. The best kind of density regulation requires _more_ density. You're right, yet there are many cities that still restrict building development in the name of protecting certain views. One example is the City of Vancouver that has a page dedicated to explaining the views they are trying to protect for real estate zoning.[1] [1] https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-vancouvers-views.aspx https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-va...
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Austin, TX has laws dictating certain views of the state capitol building are not to be blocked. Personally I don't have an issue with it, there's still plenty of other views to block so the real estate people should be happy, but probably not land owners who would earn a lot more for their land if the laws didn't exist.

heterodoxxed 5y ago

The insane height of these building is far beyond the argument for vertical density, though.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Yeah I think 10-12 floors is plenty and still "climbable"

mc32 5y ago

Not even. plenty of first-world cities expect skyline changes. This attitude toward change (anti-change) comes from SF and has migrated elsewhere. NYC was the antithesis to this attitude but apparently it's not immune to this line of thinking. It's like they think mountains do not move. Rivers always run the same course. It's comical and tragic.

ZoomerCretin 5y ago
> This attitude toward change (anti-change) comes from SF and has migrated elsewhere. NYC was the antithesis to this attitude but apparently it's not immune to this line of thinking. NYC created the world's first zoning laws in response to a building casting shadows: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/background.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/background.page
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  This was back from an era where the main contributors to disease were thought to be lack of air and light. The zoning described was actually quite generous by modern standards; you could technically build as much as you wanted as long as it fit the prescribed cake tier shape, and you could build theoretically unlimited height on a certain portion, I believe the center quarter of the lot. There is no city in the US today where you could build something as tall as the Empire State Building as of right; and yet the older regulations allowed that.
  - allturtles 5y ago
    > There is no city in the US today where you could build something as tall as the Empire State Building as of right I'm not sure what you mean by that. 6 buildings taller than the ESB have been completed in NYC since 2014, mostly residential towers of the sort described in the OP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_N...
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      When I say "as of right" I mean that all you need is ownership of the lot in question. The Empire State Building was built only with ownership of the lot it was built on and the owner was legally allowed to build as tall as they want. Nearly all tall buildings in New York these days are legally built through assembling "air rights." Zoning has predetermined height/FAR limits for all lots, but in certain areas it is possible to sell currently unused rights and transfer them to the owner of another lot. This allows some developers to build taller but keeps overall neighborhood square footage around a prescribed limit. This way, you can build a spiky tower or two here and there on Billionaire's Row (the general name for the area) but the street cannot become a wall of them. More info on air rights: https://streeteasy.com/blog/what-are-nyc-air-rights-all-about/ https://streeteasy.com/blog/what-are-nyc-air-rights-all-abou...
      - allturtles 5y ago
        I see, thanks. The term "as of right" was not familiar to me. It looked like a typo for an intended "as of right now".

mola 5y ago

Who says there's an expectation for the skyline to never change? Maybe it's ok if it changes for good reasons that benefit a lot of people, and not for the whims of the few ultra rich. It's nuts that huge buildings are built, and then stand empty almost year round. That obviously doesn't help with density.

test1235 5y ago

>Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous "In Athens, buildings are not allowed to surpass 12 floors so as not to block the view toward the Parthenon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Athens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_A... I'd say this isn't typical of most of the world, but it's not unprecedented.

wolverine876 5y ago
It also constrains supply of real estate, driving up the value for property owners.
- tarsinge 5y ago
  12 floors is huge. Nearly every building in Paris is 6 floors and it is already at near the maximum density humanly acceptable in my opinion. There will never be enough supply in some place, especially with speculation and foreign investors. The situation in NYC and these cities is nothing like SF.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    The average square footage of a Parisian studio would make NY’s tenements look downright palatial. The average NYC studio is 50 m^2. The larger end for a Parisian studio is given to be 35 m^2.
    - PoignardAzur 5y ago
      On the other hand, there's nothing forcing you to live in intra-muros Paris. I live in Nanterre, 5min away from the RER station, and my rent is 1200€/month for a 2-bedrooms apartment (50 m²). I have a <1h commute for about anywhere in Paris, and <20min for La Défense. Point is, you can have affordable-ish rents in a business center without building humongous high-rises everywhere, as long as your public transport network can support it.
      - 5y ago

Tade0 5y ago

> Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them. That will just expand the market for such investments and make even larger areas unlivable.

Dyac 5y ago

In London there are "protected vistas" - it's the reason why the shard and the walkie-talkie buildings are odd shapes. https://mappinglondon.co.uk/2011/londons-protected-vistas/ https://mappinglondon.co.uk/2011/londons-protected-vistas/

chakhs 5y ago

Or tax empty apartments? Not sure if that's done in the US

choeger 5y ago

Yeah, more density, because all that matters is the size of cities and their economy. 90% of children never waking up to the sounds of birds around their house? Who cares? 90% of grownups never plant even a tomatoes? What does it matter! Families of four or more confined to single-bathroom, two-bedroom apartments? The cosier, the better! The most important bit is that the cheap workforce reaches their dull jobs in time to make the city work for the elite and God forbid they don't behave "ecologically efficient" when doing so!

renewiltord 5y ago
Well, we know what the alternative is. People have less tomato planting time because they spend longer commuting. So we optimize to put people close to their jobs so they get lots of leisure time with their family. If they don't want that they can always live farther out. That way everyone is happy.
- tovej 5y ago
  That's not the alternative at all. The alternative is sensible city planning with mixed zoning neighborhoods that create comfortable centers all around the city. Add metros, bike lanes, and parks and you have a pleasant city instead of a concrete jungle or a suburban sprawl.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    I'll believe it when I see it. Every American development like this is a massive money hole.
    - tovej 5y ago
      Look around Europe and you can see it. The reason US city development is a money hole is because you do city-level urban services in sprawling communities. The tax-payer density is just not high enough to economically support the cost of that infrastructure.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Well, if you want to ruin their investment then issue building permits for more of them" For the past 30 years this has not happened even once in a major city. Developer will not build so many building as to drip the price. Maybe its time to accept that you are perpetuating a myth.

otoburb 5y ago

>>Expecting a city skyline to never change is ridiculous. The only problem is that so few people use these buildings. The best kind of density regulation requires _more_ density. You're right, yet there are many cities that still restrict building development in the name of protecting certain views. One example is the City of Vancouver that has a page dedicated to explaining the views they are trying to protect for real estate zoning.[1] [1] https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-vancouvers-views.aspx https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/protecting-va...

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Austin, TX has laws dictating certain views of the state capitol building are not to be blocked. Personally I don't have an issue with it, there's still plenty of other views to block so the real estate people should be happy, but probably not land owners who would earn a lot more for their land if the laws didn't exist.