> New York’s zoning rules were intended to create less cramped quarters, but they also have consequences for the number of aggregate apartments in the city. Such limitations can quickly decrease the supply of housing, and most likely drive up rents. If every tenement in the city were reconfigured in these ways, they would be less crowded, but there would also be fewer apartments to go around.
Another part of the article says almost 3/4 of the square footage in Manhattan was built between 1900 and 1930. I'm not sure how these regulations are supposed to have anything but a profound effect on rents. I can understand that people want to preserve aesthetics, but at what cost?
There are many working class people who have unconscionable commutes into Manhattan partly because of NIMBY zoning laws.
These regulations are the results of social evolution, and explain why it's so hard to be a young adult today, across all industrialized societies.
I believe that the saying "The first generation makes it, the second generation spends it, and the third generation blows it" applies to societies as well as families. Current policy makers have no idea about the cost at which today's societies were built, and take for granted what they've been given and squander it. NIMBY laws are absolutely an example as the cherished old buildings were built in a different type of political climate and could not be built today, ironically.
The reason those commutes are awful is not because Manhattan is unaffordable. The areas around New York City are among the least functional urban zones I've ever encountered. Total, utter, abject mismanagement of resources——and I say that as someone who used to live in Sheldon Silver's district of Manhattan. It's unreasonable to expect Manhattan to be affordable, but it's not unreasonable to expect the surrounding areas to be safe, able to operate trains, have reasonable housing, etc.
I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but New Jersey and Long Island are a toxic trash fire compared to somewhere like Tokyo. I wouldn't send my worst enemies to live in a place like Jersey City or East New York.
"Another part of the article says almost 3/4 of the square footage in Manhattan was built between 1900 and 1930"
That isn't exactly unexpected when pretty much every factor in construction says that it gets harder to build the more developed an area is. Comparing pictures shows that plenty of high buildings has been built since then. [0] [1]
"I can understand that people want to preserve aesthetics, but at what cost?"
Politically motivated zoning rules isn't first and foremost about aesthetics, it's about preserving property values (at the high end) and not being squeezed out (at the low end).
>There are many working class people who have unconscionable commutes into Manhattan partly because of NIMBY zoning laws.
It's partly because of NIMBY zoning laws, but I'd say it has more to do with our awful public transit system. It's bad enough trying to head downtown within Manhattan on the Lexington Ave express -- commutes from the outer boroughs can be measured in hours. There are no plans for new subway lines (excluding the 2nd Ave subway, which isn't even fully funded) and city council won't approve true bus rapid transit.
> There are many working class people who have unconscionable commutes into Manhattan partly because of NIMBY zoning laws.
Why are these people so eager to work in Manhattan if working there sucks so much?
If employees refused to work in places with unacceptable commutes, employers will create other places to work.
If enough people want to "live the dream" or have some reason they Absolutely Must Work in Manhattan, all the dressage in the world won't stop it from becoming intolerable.
I'm not claiming there isn't a problem, but these numbers seem odd to me. 75% of the square footage was built between 1900 and 1930. But only 40% of the buildings could not have been built today.
Is it that new buildings are roughly half the size? Or did they somehow manage to build buildings between 1900 and 1930 that could have been built today? If they could do it then, what is so hard about doing it now?
To me, there's a potential implication in the headline that doesn't quite paint the right picture. Today's zoning code express a plan for dealing with the good and the bad of aspects of previously constructed buildings.
Today's zoning code deals with the height and bulk and uses of existing buildings as facts when determining the hygienic requirements of future buildings. Existing non-conformities are part of the logistical plan for handling change. The tightening of rules over time is the result of the strain prior laxity places on resources today.
This is great analysis. Zoning laws still leave plenty of opportunity for new construction, and Mayor De Blasio has made major changes to encourage new construction, which is the only potential solution for the high housing costs on the East and West US coasts.
For an example of what zoning laws were trying to avoid, look at images of Gotham City from Tim Burton's 1989 Batman, where the buildings grow outwards as they go up like trees trying to absorb all sunlight. http://illusion.scene360.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/tim-...
Manhattan is less dense today then it was a hundred years ago, but it's density can and should increase as taller, healthier buildings are added. http://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6832975/manhattan-population-de... (Written from the 22nd floor of the first LEED Platinum certified apartment building in Manhattan.)
Reminds me of Barcelona prior to expanding beyond the Roman walls:
"As there was no more land left inside the city walls, all kinds of inventions were used to build more lodgings – houses were literally being created on empty space. Arches were erected in the middle of streets to be built upon, and a technique called retreating façades saw house fronts extended out into the street as they rose up – until they almost touched the building opposite (this practice was banned in 1770, as it prevented air circulation)."
No one wants to go back to the days of tenements, but we need to relax these zoning rules. We need more housing stock at every income level except ultra-luxury.
I dunno man, there's plenty of housing, and room to build it, once you get outside New York City.
The dumb part, I think, is the tendency for humans to huddle together in ever-greater masses in the corners of our vast continents, like Emperor Penguins.
Penguins, of course, do it so that they don't freeze to death. But many of the people who live in New York seem to just want to live in New York so they can live a New York lifestyle because that's what looks cool on TV.
Why not let the market decide what needs to be built?
Edit: Built too many luxury apartments and those come down I price and are the new middle class apartments. It's the developers loss. Built tons of tenements and either people are happy over cheap housing out no one moves in and they get upgraded or even cheaper. It's magical!
The headline is a bullshit statement, and the reporter should know that. I don't expect click bait from the NYT.
Urban zoning isn't the same as the burbs. Most of those buildings could be built today, but would require a variance. The buildings that would "never get built" today wouldn't be a result of zoning, but the ADA -- the need to have ramps eliminates new construction of walk-ups and the requirements for wheelchair accessible elevators increases the cost of construction, reduces square footage and makes it too expensive to build buildings similar to many common Manhattan buildings.
In the case of NYC in the last decade, they also require paying off politicians. If you follow NY news, you'll notice that the US Attorney has been very busy investigating that practice.
Many buildings in NYC are built as-of-right— within current zoning code. As-of-right building is much quicker and cheaper than getting a variance, which is partially why New York.
New walk-up buildings are perfectly common in the outer boroughs, where land values justify them. There's one going up around the corner from me. They meet the ADA by having an accessible first floor unit.
> Most of those buildings could be built today, but would require a variance.
If the buildings will be built anyway, why have the rules in the first place? How is having one set of written rules and another set of actual rules not a form of corruption?
A little bit unrelated to the article, but why has the US quit building skyscrapers for the most part? I know there's a few in the works (Salesforce tower) but generally speaking, it seems like the skyscrapers that exist in most major cities were built long ago and they don't plan on adding any more.
New York is currently having the biggest boom in sky scraper building since the 1930s. My brother is a construction manager on a 70 story building that's going up right now, and it's not even in the top 25 building projects currently happening in NYC.
Only 3 of the top 22 buildings in NYC existed 10 years ago, and I'm considering the WTC to be one building. If you count rebuilding the WTC as a new building, then the only two older sky scrappers in the top 22 are the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building. Everything else is less than 10 years old or currently under construction.
There are dozens of skyscrapers being built in Manhattan right now. The third tallest building in the US (and the tallets apartment building in the world) was recently completed there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/432_Park_Avenue
No hard data here, but it seems like most of the skyscrapers I see going up in Manhattan are luxury residential [1]. I'd assume it's a combination of scarcity of land, zoning, and project costs. Lately there seems to be a lot of new construction in downtown Brooklyn and many are definitely skyscrapers [2]. Same in LIC.
Presumably you don't live in NYC. There are dozens of 50+ story buildings under construction or recently completed in nearly every section of Manhattan and the East River waterfront areas. If you get a good vantage point for a view it's like a forest of cranes out there.
There are some, but building very tall skyscrapers has always been a rather risky investment. (The Empire State Building was basically a financial failure.) It is difficult to get projects approved in many cities. But there's probably also just been a decline in companies and developers interested in playing the mine-is-bigger game. See also for some discussion http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wilshire-grand-is-las-newest-sky...
ADDED: As others have said, there are plenty of skyscrapers going up in cities like New York. What you don't have going on as much in the US these days are the very tall iconic prestige/vanity projects that get all the press.
1. Buildings last a long time. Inherently you will see a lot of old buildings compared to new. Specifically when those buildings are designed to last and have full time engineering/maintenance staff.
2. Density has become less important over the years. Inexpensive worldwide transportation, and instant communication means you don't need some huge office building HQ. Instead you can have a collection of cheaper office parks distributed over several cities.
3. Skyscrapers are still built regularly, but only where demand justifies their construction.
Not wanting to pile on, but even a non-highrise city like LA has had a skyscraper boom recently due to the conversion of downtown into an upscale residential area:
Having done a residential housing startup, violated zoning, and talked in person to current or form heads of zoning in a number of cities, there's got to be a better solution.
If you understand the history and common zoning laws, you'll quickly start to see a pattern, that being it's a reactionary system that's often designed by politics, not science.
I personally have given up on the topic, but hope someone is able to make some progress.
Except new cars are universally better than old cars on virtually all fronts. The appropriate analogy would be if we could build 200 mpg cars, right now, today, except they could only be red, and red cars are illegal due to a regulation introduced in 1983 (while everybody agrees that it's great to be rid of gaudy red cars, some people -- mostly unpleasant and tasteless fans of obnoxiously coloured cars -- grumble that the regulation was pushed by the green-paint-industry).
Cars are vastly different though. A building will persist for decades (sometimes hundreds of years!) and house dozens to thousands of people at once. They also use up vastly more energy and take up many orders of magnitude more space.
An unsightly or unsafe car is easy to remove whereas doing the same with a building is (usually) cost prohibitive. We're all stuck with whatever ends up being built at a given spot for a long time.
When I first saw the article title, I thought it might be about all the building materials and specialist skills required for construction that are no longer available or practical, not to mention the cost of building with those materials and techniques now. Zoning issues aside, I bet many of those building really couldn't be built today.
>New York’s zoning rules were intended to create less cramped quarters, but they also have consequences for the number of aggregate apartments in the city. Such limitations can quickly decrease the supply of housing, and most likely drive up rents.
Sure, so?
Obviously, if you allow to squash 10-20 people per 1000 sq ft you could lower the rents -- but unless you aspire to be an urban slum, you should have some limits in place, even if they raise rents.
Why does it have to be simple enough for everyone to understand? We're talking building in one of the most expensive parts of the world where only the richest organizations can afford to build and it affects millions of people directly, and the state and national image. Making it easy isn't necessarily going to protect the interests of the city as a whole.
Junk headline. The day after any building code change, all that came before could not be built again.
A better story would have been now past building codes shaped many NY icons. The Empire State Building's shape isn't some architectural masterpiece, it is a diagram of the building code at the time. It fills exactly as much space as was allowed.
In New York City the minimum has been 400 sq feet (approximately 37 metres squared) since 1987, however a Bloomberg era experiment allowed creation of so–called microapartments in the 250-350 square foot range.
Is there any zoning for safe space? Does anyone know? Or do i need to build my own bunker like Switzerland did for each and every one of their citizens.... during cold war. Btw is cold war over yet? Or is it just a going through a thaw right now
The zoning laws actually help the diversity, aesthetics aside. As the laws change, the buildings change with it. Some bulky and tall, now skinny and short. The buildings of the era are influenced from the changing laws.
[+] [-] humanrebar|9 years ago|reply
Another part of the article says almost 3/4 of the square footage in Manhattan was built between 1900 and 1930. I'm not sure how these regulations are supposed to have anything but a profound effect on rents. I can understand that people want to preserve aesthetics, but at what cost?
There are many working class people who have unconscionable commutes into Manhattan partly because of NIMBY zoning laws.
[+] [-] dilemma|9 years ago|reply
I believe that the saying "The first generation makes it, the second generation spends it, and the third generation blows it" applies to societies as well as families. Current policy makers have no idea about the cost at which today's societies were built, and take for granted what they've been given and squander it. NIMBY laws are absolutely an example as the cherished old buildings were built in a different type of political climate and could not be built today, ironically.
[+] [-] nihonde|9 years ago|reply
I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but New Jersey and Long Island are a toxic trash fire compared to somewhere like Tokyo. I wouldn't send my worst enemies to live in a place like Jersey City or East New York.
[+] [-] uola|9 years ago|reply
That isn't exactly unexpected when pretty much every factor in construction says that it gets harder to build the more developed an area is. Comparing pictures shows that plenty of high buildings has been built since then. [0] [1]
"I can understand that people want to preserve aesthetics, but at what cost?"
Politically motivated zoning rules isn't first and foremost about aesthetics, it's about preserving property values (at the high end) and not being squeezed out (at the low end).
[0] http://stuffnobodycaresabout.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/... [1] https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5133/5513286501_4589ac5cc0_b.j...
[+] [-] elahd|9 years ago|reply
It's partly because of NIMBY zoning laws, but I'd say it has more to do with our awful public transit system. It's bad enough trying to head downtown within Manhattan on the Lexington Ave express -- commutes from the outer boroughs can be measured in hours. There are no plans for new subway lines (excluding the 2nd Ave subway, which isn't even fully funded) and city council won't approve true bus rapid transit.
[+] [-] danielweber|9 years ago|reply
Why are these people so eager to work in Manhattan if working there sucks so much?
If employees refused to work in places with unacceptable commutes, employers will create other places to work.
If enough people want to "live the dream" or have some reason they Absolutely Must Work in Manhattan, all the dressage in the world won't stop it from becoming intolerable.
[+] [-] sbov|9 years ago|reply
Is it that new buildings are roughly half the size? Or did they somehow manage to build buildings between 1900 and 1930 that could have been built today? If they could do it then, what is so hard about doing it now?
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] brudgers|9 years ago|reply
Today's zoning code deals with the height and bulk and uses of existing buildings as facts when determining the hygienic requirements of future buildings. Existing non-conformities are part of the logistical plan for handling change. The tightening of rules over time is the result of the strain prior laxity places on resources today.
[+] [-] dankohn1|9 years ago|reply
For an example of what zoning laws were trying to avoid, look at images of Gotham City from Tim Burton's 1989 Batman, where the buildings grow outwards as they go up like trees trying to absorb all sunlight. http://illusion.scene360.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/tim-...
Manhattan is less dense today then it was a hundred years ago, but it's density can and should increase as taller, healthier buildings are added. http://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6832975/manhattan-population-de... (Written from the 22nd floor of the first LEED Platinum certified apartment building in Manhattan.)
[+] [-] fraserharris|9 years ago|reply
"As there was no more land left inside the city walls, all kinds of inventions were used to build more lodgings – houses were literally being created on empty space. Arches were erected in the middle of streets to be built upon, and a technique called retreating façades saw house fronts extended out into the street as they rose up – until they almost touched the building opposite (this practice was banned in 1770, as it prevented air circulation)."
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/01/story-cities-1...
[+] [-] gregwtmtno|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arethuza|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugh4|9 years ago|reply
The dumb part, I think, is the tendency for humans to huddle together in ever-greater masses in the corners of our vast continents, like Emperor Penguins.
Penguins, of course, do it so that they don't freeze to death. But many of the people who live in New York seem to just want to live in New York so they can live a New York lifestyle because that's what looks cool on TV.
[+] [-] akgerber|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ILoveMonads|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lr4444lr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajmurmann|9 years ago|reply
Edit: Built too many luxury apartments and those come down I price and are the new middle class apartments. It's the developers loss. Built tons of tenements and either people are happy over cheap housing out no one moves in and they get upgraded or even cheaper. It's magical!
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
Urban zoning isn't the same as the burbs. Most of those buildings could be built today, but would require a variance. The buildings that would "never get built" today wouldn't be a result of zoning, but the ADA -- the need to have ramps eliminates new construction of walk-ups and the requirements for wheelchair accessible elevators increases the cost of construction, reduces square footage and makes it too expensive to build buildings similar to many common Manhattan buildings.
In the case of NYC in the last decade, they also require paying off politicians. If you follow NY news, you'll notice that the US Attorney has been very busy investigating that practice.
[+] [-] akgerber|9 years ago|reply
New walk-up buildings are perfectly common in the outer boroughs, where land values justify them. There's one going up around the corner from me. They meet the ADA by having an accessible first floor unit.
[+] [-] humanrebar|9 years ago|reply
If the buildings will be built anyway, why have the rules in the first place? How is having one set of written rules and another set of actual rules not a form of corruption?
[+] [-] optimuspaul|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Xcelerate|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krschultz|9 years ago|reply
New York is currently having the biggest boom in sky scraper building since the 1930s. My brother is a construction manager on a 70 story building that's going up right now, and it's not even in the top 25 building projects currently happening in NYC.
Only 3 of the top 22 buildings in NYC existed 10 years ago, and I'm considering the WTC to be one building. If you count rebuilding the WTC as a new building, then the only two older sky scrappers in the top 22 are the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building. Everything else is less than 10 years old or currently under construction.
http://ny.curbed.com/maps/mapping-the-rise-of-new-york-citys...
[+] [-] hoorayimhelping|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtalantikite|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.amny.com/real-estate/nyc-skyscrapers-tallest-buil... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/nyregion/developers-plan-s...
[+] [-] CPLX|9 years ago|reply
Maybe you just mean San Francisco?
[+] [-] akgerber|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghaff|9 years ago|reply
ADDED: As others have said, there are plenty of skyscrapers going up in cities like New York. What you don't have going on as much in the US these days are the very tall iconic prestige/vanity projects that get all the press.
[+] [-] johngalt|9 years ago|reply
2. Density has become less important over the years. Inexpensive worldwide transportation, and instant communication means you don't need some huge office building HQ. Instead you can have a collection of cheaper office parks distributed over several cities.
3. Skyscrapers are still built regularly, but only where demand justifies their construction.
[+] [-] mturmon|9 years ago|reply
http://skyscrapercenter.com/city/los-angeles
[+] [-] nxzero|9 years ago|reply
Taking step back, might be worth understanding how this all got started: http://ny.curbed.com/2013/3/15/10263912/the-equitable-buildi...
If you understand the history and common zoning laws, you'll quickly start to see a pattern, that being it's a reactionary system that's often designed by politics, not science.
I personally have given up on the topic, but hope someone is able to make some progress.
[+] [-] patmcguire|9 years ago|reply
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/four-leading-ar...
[+] [-] edwingustafson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mseebach|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riskable|9 years ago|reply
An unsightly or unsafe car is easy to remove whereas doing the same with a building is (usually) cost prohibitive. We're all stuck with whatever ends up being built at a given spot for a long time.
[+] [-] rmc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdnier|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|9 years ago|reply
Sure, so?
Obviously, if you allow to squash 10-20 people per 1000 sq ft you could lower the rents -- but unless you aspire to be an urban slum, you should have some limits in place, even if they raise rents.
[+] [-] snlacks|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|9 years ago|reply
A better story would have been now past building codes shaped many NY icons. The Empire State Building's shape isn't some architectural masterpiece, it is a diagram of the building code at the time. It fills exactly as much space as was allowed.
[+] [-] tomohawk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anizan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gbourne1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackaflocka|9 years ago|reply