4 ms·

The idea that we need rules limiting how tall buildings can be, and anything taller is a blight on the public that we only begrudgingly trade away, and that thi

by caesil 3y ago

The idea that we need rules limiting how tall buildings can be, and anything taller is a blight on the public that we only begrudgingly trade away, and that this is axiomatic, is absolutely one of the core causes of the housing crisis. Especially in MANHATTAN, of all places!

tptacek 3y ago
Right? The article opens with image of a skyscraper, in a field of skyscrapers, dwarfed by a neighboring skyscraper, and then highlights a couple extra floors at the top. Who cares? As-of-right construction already gave them an immense building; all they did was let it house more people, by building an imperceptibly larger building.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hollerith 3y ago
Huh. I think skyscrapers are terrible (for the people outside the skyscraper, in their effect on people's state of mind) and if I lived in Manhattan, I expect I'd be angry about this skyscraper, too. I'm not opposed to high density, but high density is not incompatible with having a height limit. DC has had a height limit since 1910: "federal law imposes maximum heights on buildings within Washington, DC based upon the width of the street, to a maximum height of 130 feet (commercial streets) and 90 feet (residential streets), and 160 feet for parts of Pennsylvania Avenue, NW." Because of the steepness of the price of land in Manhattan, a higher limit than DC's makes sense, but the building under discussion, 325 Fifth Avenue, has 42 floors, which is too high in my book. A large expanse of 20-story or even 30-story buildings all the same height and spaced approximately equidistantly results in much more pleasant light at street level than the situation you have in something like Midtown Manhattan. None of the effects of the urban landscape are particularly strong: how recently you've eaten (or exercised) for example will tend to have a much stronger effect, but the effect of the urban landscape is constantly present whenever the person is outside or looking outside. I've never lived in NYC, but I did live in Atlanta, and I still remember the slight feeling of oppression ("menace"?) every time I drove west towards downtown Atlanta with Coca-Cola's North Tower growing slowly in size in my field of view for about 12 minutes in a row. (When I lived there circa 1985, it was much taller than anything around it; again I much prefer it when a building is about the same height as its neighbors.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 3y ago
  Their as-of-right zoning limits exceed your comfort level already, which makes it difficult to see why it matters if they get an additional 6 floors worth of housing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 3y ago
    I worry that the urban landscape affects the mental state of many or most of the people who choose to live in Manhattan--not merely of people sufficiently like me--but I admit I have no reason to believe that beyond the fact that many cities have height restrictions on buildings.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Do you think the additional 6 floors that got added to this as-of-right 36-floor building pose a meaningful additional risk?
      - hollerith 3y ago
        I wouldn't use the predicate "pose risk", but yes, the difference between 36 floors and 42 floors seems meaningful. This North Tower in Atlanta I found slightly-but-consistently oppressive was and is only 29 stories (403 feet): https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/9208476088/in/photostream/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/9208476088/in/photostre... More importantly, even at 36 floors, the building under discussion would already have been much taller than most of the buildings around it: https://cdn.chime.me/elegran-image/52cfa1bca73e6f084f007545-13.jpg https://cdn.chime.me/elegran-image/52cfa1bca73e6f084f007545-... There are thousands of tall buildings in Manhattan, so in the grand scheme of things, one tall building doesn't matter much to any non-hysterical person, but you already know that, so maybe I am missing something about your question. In general, I'm for removing many kinds of restrictions on housing construction, including in Manhattan, just not restrictions on building height although I'm not a fan of the way Manhattan's restrictions work, where the excess height of one building can be "offset" (by the owner of the one paying money to the owner of the other) by another landowner's choosing to build shorter than it is allowed to build, which allowed blights on the landscape like 432 Park Avenue, the very tall building in the left half of this photo: https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/6143755d91beee6179a37990/16:9/w_2560%2Cc_limit/432Park_Ext02.jpg https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/6143755d91beee6... Contrast those photos of Manhattan with these 2 of K Street in DC (which has height restrictions that cannot be offset like Manhattan's can): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Washington_DC_K_at_17th_street_winter.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Washingt... https://jamesposey.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/1401-K-St-0005.jpg https://jamesposey.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/1401-K-St-...

by caesil 3y ago

tptacek 3y ago

Right? The article opens with image of a skyscraper, in a field of skyscrapers, dwarfed by a neighboring skyscraper, and then highlights a couple extra floors at the top. Who cares? As-of-right construction already gave them an immense building; all they did was let it house more people, by building an imperceptibly larger building.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hollerith 3y ago

Huh. I think skyscrapers are terrible (for the people outside the skyscraper, in their effect on people's state of mind) and if I lived in Manhattan, I expect I'd be angry about this skyscraper, too. I'm not opposed to high density, but high density is not incompatible with having a height limit. DC has had a height limit since 1910: "federal law imposes maximum heights on buildings within Washington, DC based upon the width of the street, to a maximum height of 130 feet (commercial streets) and 90 feet (residential streets), and 160 feet for parts of Pennsylvania Avenue, NW." Because of the steepness of the price of land in Manhattan, a higher limit than DC's makes sense, but the building under discussion, 325 Fifth Avenue, has 42 floors, which is too high in my book. A large expanse of 20-story or even 30-story buildings all the same height and spaced approximately equidistantly results in much more pleasant light at street level than the situation you have in something like Midtown Manhattan. None of the effects of the urban landscape are particularly strong: how recently you've eaten (or exercised) for example will tend to have a much stronger effect, but the effect of the urban landscape is constantly present whenever the person is outside or looking outside. I've never lived in NYC, but I did live in Atlanta, and I still remember the slight feeling of oppression ("menace"?) every time I drove west towards downtown Atlanta with Coca-Cola's North Tower growing slowly in size in my field of view for about 12 minutes in a row. (When I lived there circa 1985, it was much taller than anything around it; again I much prefer it when a building is about the same height as its neighbors.)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 3y ago
Their as-of-right zoning limits exceed your comfort level already, which makes it difficult to see why it matters if they get an additional 6 floors worth of housing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 3y ago
  I worry that the urban landscape affects the mental state of many or most of the people who choose to live in Manhattan--not merely of people sufficiently like me--but I admit I have no reason to believe that beyond the fact that many cities have height restrictions on buildings.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Do you think the additional 6 floors that got added to this as-of-right 36-floor building pose a meaningful additional risk?
    - hollerith 3y ago
      I wouldn't use the predicate "pose risk", but yes, the difference between 36 floors and 42 floors seems meaningful. This North Tower in Atlanta I found slightly-but-consistently oppressive was and is only 29 stories (403 feet): https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/9208476088/in/photostream/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/9208476088/in/photostre... More importantly, even at 36 floors, the building under discussion would already have been much taller than most of the buildings around it: https://cdn.chime.me/elegran-image/52cfa1bca73e6f084f007545-13.jpg https://cdn.chime.me/elegran-image/52cfa1bca73e6f084f007545-... There are thousands of tall buildings in Manhattan, so in the grand scheme of things, one tall building doesn't matter much to any non-hysterical person, but you already know that, so maybe I am missing something about your question. In general, I'm for removing many kinds of restrictions on housing construction, including in Manhattan, just not restrictions on building height although I'm not a fan of the way Manhattan's restrictions work, where the excess height of one building can be "offset" (by the owner of the one paying money to the owner of the other) by another landowner's choosing to build shorter than it is allowed to build, which allowed blights on the landscape like 432 Park Avenue, the very tall building in the left half of this photo: https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/6143755d91beee6179a37990/16:9/w_2560%2Cc_limit/432Park_Ext02.jpg https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/6143755d91beee6... Contrast those photos of Manhattan with these 2 of K Street in DC (which has height restrictions that cannot be offset like Manhattan's can): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Washington_DC_K_at_17th_street_winter.JPG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Washingt... https://jamesposey.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/1401-K-St-0005.jpg https://jamesposey.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/1401-K-St-...