skip to main |
skip to sidebar
From
Crains:
Support for a state Senate bill allowing the city to zone for denser apartment buildings is breaking down along geographic lines.
Representatives from within the five boroughs—aside from the Bronx's state Sen. Jeff Klein—voted against the proposal earlier this month, while lawmakers from outside the city were in favor.
The bill would roll back a state law capping residential development at 12 times a city property's lot area. The legislation's stated aim is to give the city greater leeway to address the housing crisis by zoning for denser development wherever the City Planning Commission deems appropriate. Doing so would bring residential planning in line with commercial properties, which are not subject to a state-imposed cap. That idea is supported by the de Blasio administration, the Regional Plan Association and the Real Estate Board of New York. But new housing is often opposed by preservation and community groups, a dynamic that makes the geographic split in the Senate Committee on Rules, which voted May 7, unsurprising.
From
New York Magazine:
Not since the skyscraper boom of the Jazz Age has New York's skyline undergone a transformation as it is now. More than two dozen supertall towers — and counting — are in some stage of planning or construction, and not just for Billionaire's Row. These slender 800-plus-foot cloudbusters are springing up in the Flatiron, the Financial District, the Far West Side, and even Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City. How long before they start sprouting in Riverdale or Tottenville?
How about next week?
That is the fear that erupted after a legislative package came to light in Albany this week that would remove restrictions on the size of residential buildings in the five boroughs. The bills, quietly introduced by Brooklyn Senator Simcha Felder and Harlem Assemblyman Keith Wright, would remove a 1961 density cap placed on residential buildings. Under the new rules — which could be passed before the session ends next Friday — residential buildings in most of the city could be far bigger than they are now. And the biggest backer, besides Big Real Estate, is Mayor Bill de Blasio himself.
The rule change is subtle, affecting the formula called floor-area ratio, or F.A.R., that is used to compute the bulk and size of any building. Right now, residential buildings can have an F.A.R. of up to 12: A 5,000-square-foot lot, say, can be occupied by a 60,000-square-foot building, which usually works out (because of space set aside for setbacks, plazas, and so forth) to 20 to 25 stories. Residential buildings’ F.A.R. is capped by state rather than city law, and has been since 1961, when it was not only written into the zoning code but also enacted in Albany to ensure that it would stick.
The bill as introduced in the Assembly and Senate would eliminate that limit, although developers would have to get anything above 12 approved by the Department of City Planning (as well as the City Council, where public outcry might try to limit things again). That could mean a 40- or 50-story building, or even more, on that same 5,000-square-foot lot. (Yes, we already have residential buildings that are far taller, but building those has required special horse-trading moves, like acquiring the rights from several structures and bundling them.) Many neighborhoods have absolute height restrictions set by the city, but some, like Midtown and Downtown Brooklyn, do not. The de Blasio administration argues that by lifting the cap, developers will be willing to introduce public benefits in their projects, like affordable housing, open space, or infrastructure investment.
Some...New Yorkers in Albany do not share that faith. A group of lawmakers, mostly from the city, have risen up in opposition to the legislation in recent days. While the administration remains supportive of the proposal, it now looks like it will have to wait for the F.A.R. caps to be lifted until another legislative session. “Like everything that happens in Albany, this was being done at the last minute, out of nowhere, with no discussion,” State Senator Liz Krueger said. “And big real estate gets exactly what it wants, and the community loses.”
From
The View From Wyckoff Heights:
Despite the history of blockbusting, arson, vandalism, and neglect, many Bushwick tenements have survived relatively intact. But with growing demand for real estate in north Bushwick and south Ridgewood along the L train line, how will historic buildings fare at the hands of developers?
Very few of these buildings - which date to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s - are landmarked (and only in Ridgewood). There are several National Historic Districts (mostly in Ridgewood) but they do not afford protection, only incentives for preservation.
Some old-timers refer to parts of north Bushwick along the borough line as “Ridgewood Brooklyn”, but despite the architectural similarities developers and investors currently seem to be favoring buildings on the Brooklyn side, where most residential blocks are zoned R6 and have excess FAR. The Queens side by contrast is zoned R6B, which has a lower FAR and mandatory Quality Housing regulations that promote preservation of the streetscape.
204 Starr Street, a three-story six-family building between Wyckoff and Irving, sold in September 2012 for $773,000 to a SSH Realty Management of Williamsburg. The new owner has removed the cornice and is constructing a rooftop addition.
DOB records last week showed job applications for interior renovation but not a vertical enlargement, and noted a prior violation for work without a permit. I contacted the architect who responded that he was not aware that the cornice had been removed, and that its removal and the rooftop addition were not his design. Emails sent to the owner seeking more information were not returned, but a PAA was filed the next day for the 4th floor addition.
Just down the block is 390 Stanhope St, a 2-1/2 story three-family building, also part of the Cypress Avenue West National Historic District. The property sold last year to a DUMBO-based developer for $475,000.
The new owner has expressed plans to buy out the tenants and add two additional stories, but to date nothing has been filed with the Department of Buildings.
