The upside to this blog thing is the ability to immediately declaim error. And we are the kind of people who find our feet fit best in our mouths. So a short mea cupla regarding the potential ‘qualities’ of the Hudson Yards plan released yesterday. This is not to promise that yet another opinion won’t be offered another day hence, but this one feels pretty right, situated in the comfortable zone indoctrinated by study, practice and living, one that takes the simplistic position that a plan on this scale is a surrender to big real estate interests, lacking any understanding or respect for the successes of Manhattan neighborhoods, and even a pound foolish surrender of public resources. And with a little analysis, it doesn’t seem all that off the mark. It’s a big plan, and still (yes, we couldn’t read 6,000 pages overnight) being digested, so we will deassemble this fiasco in comestible chunks. Today’s segment will be on FAR, the Floor Area Ratio.
FAR is, as seems obvious, the amount of floor space that can be constructed on a lot. Expressed as a multplier, a lot’s zoning determines its use and FAR. A building is constructed ‘as of right’ if the use conforms to the zoning designation and the FAR is within allowable range. Developers will argue that adjustments (variances) are often needed to make a project feasible, and claim that the zoning rules are therefore antiquated. But what is actually happending is that market values on land skew because of the ease with with variances are granted, because of the perceived value should the owner be able to earn a variance. Variances are received the old fashioned way: favors, bribes, influence-peddling, etc., so some calculus can even be applied to determine what premium one can place on land based on the difficulty of a variance. When big zoning revisions are recommended, FAR is attacked like it were the bubonic plague, cutting down a potentially vibrant city in its prime. Thankfully, it’s proved relatively hard to get massive zoning revisions effected. As interim strategies, there have been concepts such as selling ‘air rights,’ ‘public’ space development, and other ‘bonus’ systems all designed to do only one thing: increase FAR. If someone has a spare moment while steam-rollering the civic experience in pursuit of speculative office space, you might hear some blather about invigorating public life, creative building envelopes or protecting a district (much of the Times Square area high-rise development was enabled by theaters selling air rights), but it’s all bullshit.
So what is Hudson Yards about? FAR and away, it’s about the largest reclassification of of zoning since the development of Battery Park City (and, in fact, likely eclipses it, given the relative density of the area). It may even be that the stadium plan is simply a distraction from the gutting of Hell’s Kitchen it attempts.
Why the harsh words? Because the entire plan is basically taking the existing zoning, reclassifying it all as residential and commercial, and multiplying the FAR by about 40%. We get some set back diagrams that attempt to mitigate the plan, but mostly, they just put jacks under the entire neighborhood. The ‘park’ that Doctoroff touts in New York is about 20% of the eastern rail yard, and is surrounded by large, mostly commercial lots. If you want an idea of what they are striving for, take a walk up 6th Avenue in the 20’s. Those ungainly, overscaled behemoths they call ‘luxury apartments’? Yeah, imagine a lot of that. A lot. And for relief, a big avenue that attempts to ape Third Avenue in the 40s and 50s.
If why this is so unfortunate isn’t clear, try to name a great and/or successful neighborhood in this town that has this texture. Battery Park? Battery Park is a victory for married Financial Services middle managers. It is not, not a destination that figures large in our cultural history. And there is no evidence it will ever become this. When was the last time you heard anyone get excited about moving to Kips Bay? They city has a responbility to understand and cultivate what makes it unique; what draws and compels people to stay. And it ain’t the Hudson Yards plan. Instead, mandate a lower cornice line throughout. Work with existing stock and interesting infill that won’t require such massive development money. Find manufacturing to residential conversions that mirror what was done in TriBeCa and SoHo. Affordable housing might be nice, but given the failure of Battery Park City to deliver on this (excess revenue was supposed to fund housing elsewhere in the city), we shouldn’t be trading ten or twenty of those shitty tower blocks that look a nightmare of Corbusian proportion for a handful of affordable units.
Revenue is not a viable argument. The number of tax breaks that are handed out to attract and retain the companies that can rent these monsters mean the net tax revenue from the site (once the city gets done handing out PILOTs and abatements to the developers) is nominal, and probably not much more that allowing more organic rezoning that doesn’t have to give away the store to get customers to walk in. So the Dursts and Resnicks can’t fleece the city one more time. Fuck ’em. They can move to Houston.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
FAR away, so close-minded.
The upside to this blog thing is the ability to immediately declaim error. And we are the kind of people who find our feet fit best in our mouths. So a short mea cupla regarding the potential ‘qualities’ of the Hudson Yards plan released yesterday. This is not to promise that yet another opinion won’t be offered another day hence, but this one feels pretty right, situated in the comfortable zone indoctrinated by study, practice and living, one that takes the simplistic position that a plan on this scale is a surrender to big real estate interests, lacking any understanding or respect for the successes of Manhattan neighborhoods, and even a pound foolish surrender of public resources. And with a little analysis, it doesn’t seem all that off the mark. It’s a big plan, and still (yes, we couldn’t read 6,000 pages overnight) being digested, so we will deassemble this fiasco in comestible chunks. Today’s segment will be on FAR, the Floor Area Ratio.
FAR is, as seems obvious, the amount of floor space that can be constructed on a lot. Expressed as a multplier, a lot’s zoning determines its use and FAR. A building is constructed ‘as of right’ if the use conforms to the zoning designation and the FAR is within allowable range. Developers will argue that adjustments (variances) are often needed to make a project feasible, and claim that the zoning rules are therefore antiquated. But what is actually happending is that market values on land skew because of the ease with with variances are granted, because of the perceived value should the owner be able to earn a variance. Variances are received the old fashioned way: favors, bribes, influence-peddling, etc., so some calculus can even be applied to determine what premium one can place on land based on the difficulty of a variance. When big zoning revisions are recommended, FAR is attacked like it were the bubonic plague, cutting down a potentially vibrant city in its prime. Thankfully, it’s proved relatively hard to get massive zoning revisions effected. As interim strategies, there have been concepts such as selling ‘air rights,’ ‘public’ space development, and other ‘bonus’ systems all designed to do only one thing: increase FAR. If someone has a spare moment while steam-rollering the civic experience in pursuit of speculative office space, you might hear some blather about invigorating public life, creative building envelopes or protecting a district (much of the Times Square area high-rise development was enabled by theaters selling air rights), but it’s all bullshit.
So what is Hudson Yards about? FAR and away, it’s about the largest reclassification of of zoning since the development of Battery Park City (and, in fact, likely eclipses it, given the relative density of the area). It may even be that the stadium plan is simply a distraction from the gutting of Hell’s Kitchen it attempts.
Why the harsh words? Because the entire plan is basically taking the existing zoning, reclassifying it all as residential and commercial, and multiplying the FAR by about 40%. We get some set back diagrams that attempt to mitigate the plan, but mostly, they just put jacks under the entire neighborhood. The ‘park’ that Doctoroff touts in New York is about 20% of the eastern rail yard, and is surrounded by large, mostly commercial lots. If you want an idea of what they are striving for, take a walk up 6th Avenue in the 20’s. Those ungainly, overscaled behemoths they call ‘luxury apartments’? Yeah, imagine a lot of that. A lot. And for relief, a big avenue that attempts to ape Third Avenue in the 40s and 50s.
If why this is so unfortunate isn’t clear, try to name a great and/or successful neighborhood in this town that has this texture. Battery Park? Battery Park is a victory for married Financial Services middle managers. It is not, not a destination that figures large in our cultural history. And there is no evidence it will ever become this. When was the last time you heard anyone get excited about moving to Kips Bay? They city has a responbility to understand and cultivate what makes it unique; what draws and compels people to stay. And it ain’t the Hudson Yards plan. Instead, mandate a lower cornice line throughout. Work with existing stock and interesting infill that won’t require such massive development money. Find manufacturing to residential conversions that mirror what was done in TriBeCa and SoHo. Affordable housing might be nice, but given the failure of Battery Park City to deliver on this (excess revenue was supposed to fund housing elsewhere in the city), we shouldn’t be trading ten or twenty of those shitty tower blocks that look a nightmare of Corbusian proportion for a handful of affordable units.
Revenue is not a viable argument. The number of tax breaks that are handed out to attract and retain the companies that can rent these monsters mean the net tax revenue from the site (once the city gets done handing out PILOTs and abatements to the developers) is nominal, and probably not much more that allowing more organic rezoning that doesn’t have to give away the store to get customers to walk in. So the Dursts and Resnicks can’t fleece the city one more time. Fuck ’em. They can move to Houston.