REBNY wants to eliminate building height limits

From Crains:

This year the Real Estate Board of New York plans on pushing Albany to lift a cap that has long limited the size of new apartment buildings in New York City, the trade group’s president said Thursday.

Current state rules restrict the square footage of a residential building to 12 times its lot size. While this has resulted in plenty of tall Manhattan apartment towers, developers have the capability to go much higher. Commercial office buildings are routinely built to twice this density, and some of them have later been converted to apartments.

Unlocking greater density in transit-rich areas could help chip away at the city’s housing crunch and provide affordable housing, said REBNY President John Banks, who represents many of the landlords and developers who would construct the buildings.

Banks envisions allowing buildings to exceed the cap if they are rezoned, which would require going through the public-review process and including affordable housing. It is a concept that both REBNY and others have embraced in the past. Mayor Bill de Blasio suggested nixing the density cap in his 2014 housing plan. And the Regional Plan Association included the idea in its Fourth Regional Plan. In the coming months, RPA is separately planning to release a study and start a push of its own to get rid of the limit.

Kim says RKO plan is a no-go

From the Queens Chronicle:

According to Assemblyman Ron Kim (D-Flushing), the latest plan to develop the derelict RKO Keith’s Theatre in Flushing is extremely dangerous.

The lawmaker sent a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration earlier this week, saying the height of the tower planned by Xinyuan Real Estate would be a hazard, given the location’s proximity to LaGuardia Airport. The proposed building would be 210 feet above mean sea level, according to Kim.

“The FAA has concluded on several prior occasions ... that any height at this location exceeding 195 feet above mean sea level would result in a substantial adverse effect, and warrant a Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation,” the lawmaker said.

In the eight aeronautical obstruction evaluations made by the FAA for Xinyuan’s plan, the agency found that none were hazardous, Kim pointed out in the letter. He said that they “were still approved despite being for points that are 204 or 210 feet above mean sea level.”

Xinyuan did not return a request for comment about Kim’s letter prior to the Chronicle’s deadline. The FAA declined to comment.

“The proposed building in question will be directly in line with incoming flight paths. In December of 2004, a Boeing 757 mistook the hazard light on top of a building in the same neighborhood for the start of a runway,” Kim said. “If a 210 foot building is actually built at this location as a result of these eight obstruction evaluations, the lives of countless constituents in my district would be put at risk.”

At the end of the letter, the assemblyman urged the FAA to “re-evaluate” the obstruction evaluation studies conducted for the planned tower.

Citywide rezoning will screw us all

From Gotham Gazette:

A citywide rezoning proposal quietly released by the de Blasio administration last month has begun the public review process. 'Zoning for Quality and Affordability' sounds like mom and apple pie, as it purports to make new housing less costly and meet higher standards. But a closer examination calls these premises into question. Big real estate, not average New Yorkers, would be the main beneficiary of some of the plan's key provisions, and its cost would be the undoing of neighborhood zoning protections years in the making.

The proposal is quite broad in its scope. But a central element is raising the allowable height of new development in "contextual zoning districts" -- areas where specific height limits and streetwall requirements help ensure that new buildings fit their context. These rules are meant to keep much of the "sore thumb" development we see around the city from cropping up in residential neighborhoods with strongly defined character, from the Lower East Side to Harlem, Crown Heights to Jackson Heights, the Village to Sunset Park.

Many of these height limits took years of effort by local communities to secure, and often involved compromises and trade-offs with the city and real estate interests to attain modest controls.

Now those rules would be upended, with the height caps lifted by as much as 20 to 30 percent, across the board.

DeBlasio believes key to affordable housing is bigger buildings

Housing New York: Zoning for Quality and Affordability

From Crains:

The city released a sweeping proposal Friday that would dramatically alter the way buildings look in New York City, possibly ushering in a new generation of buildings that look more like the varied structures of yore while making it easier and cheaper to create affordable housing units. The changes will allow developers to build several stories taller than current norms in some cases, as long as the overall square footage is held steady. In others, the new rules would give developers more flexibility with the shape of a property's façade, all while maintaining existing square-footage limits.

The proposal, which must go through the labyrinthine public review process, is one of the biggest shifts to zoning laws that govern the shape of buildings since 1987, when the code was last updated. The guiding idea is to give developers more flexibility on what their building will look like and what they can put in it, rather than literally forcing them into a box.

The problem that the city is hoping to resolve is that as construction methods have changed, zoning regulations have not kept pace. And it has become more difficult for architects and developers to squeeze all of the residential square footage they are allowed into a building’s shape, which is strictly governed by these laws. As a result, architects have been forced to shrink ceiling heights or excise entire floors from the designs. In many cases, developers end up building monolithic boxes to ensure everything fits.

And in situations where developers are given the option to build bigger if affordable apartments are included, the height restrictions have been too short to fit everything into the building, and have caused many to turn down the deal and build only market-rate.

The added height in many neighborhoods is sure to rankle anti-development groups across the city. In mid- to high-density areas, the additional allowance will usher in a generation of buildings up to 15 feet taller than previous limits.

What's more, in cases where developers are allowed to build bigger buildings in return for providing affordable or senior housing, the allowances could lead to as much as four stories of extra height in high-density neighborhoods.

Developers and politicians against airport safety

From the NY Post:

The government wants to dramatically reduce the allowable height of buildings near hundreds of airports — a proposal that is drawing fire from real estate developers and members of Congress who say it will reduce property values.

The Federal Aviation Administration proposal, supported by airports and airlines, is driven by encroaching development that limits safe flight paths for planes that might lose power in an engine during takeoff. Planes can fly with only one engine, but they have less power to climb quickly over obstacles.

Airlines have to plan for the possibility that a plane could lose the use of an engine during takeoff even though that doesn’t happen very often. As more buildings, cellphone towers, wind turbines and other tall structures go up near airports, there are fewer safe flight paths available. Current regulations effectively limit building heights based on the amount of clearance needed by planes with two operating engines.

The FAA’s proposal has created “a real estate and developer firestorm,” said Ken Quinn, a former FAA chief counsel who is representing several developers. “A single building can be worth $100 million and more. If you are talking about lopping off whole floors, you can ruin the economic proposition and you can destroy the viability of the building, so you are talking about easily a $1 billion in economic impact.”

Cellphone tower owners and operators are also concerned.