[DevaRextusidis]

You've missed the point of my criticism of the article.

For this I apologize. The first article I posted was just a launching point to get the discussion going. There are certain things in it that I agree with, others that I don't. My point has been, throughout the thread, that there are criticisms of zoning given from different perspectives, and that we should consider revising the system based on its pros and cons.

The only instance in NYC where zoning requires the developer to submit plans that could be subjectively rejected is in historic districts. Not so. Areas in close proximity to historic districts, or even areas whose residents believe should be historic districts, almost regularly bring up the issue of zoning when new developments are proposed. Sometimes it's clear-cut, other times it's not. You can't deny, however, that opposition often takes advantages of zoning restrictions such as FAR and primary use to stop projects from getting off the ground.

If you removed zoning, you would, in all probability, get the opposite. All Manhattan would look the same. What is your basis for making this claim? Almost immediately, you'd have to realize that certain developers will focus on commercial uses, while others will specialize in residential. Still others will focus on retail or leisure. That alone implies diversity. The only way all of Manhattan would look "the same" is that more areas would be similarly diverse.

I never said it was. You said the city got along well before zoning; I said it didn't. I guess this comes down to semantics, which rules out the lack of zoning as being responsible for "the city not getting along well." How well it got along, though, must be looked at relatively. How many other cities of similar size, at that time in history, had similar living conditions?

It wasn't a variance. Again, semantics. It was the city's interpretation of the zoning code that, in Trump's case, sided with the developer. Others on this forum have brought up the fact that smaller developers had received different (i.e., unfavorable) interpretations from the city in the past.

Still, it doesn't change the fact that variances are given on a seemingly random and subjective basis all the time. They are often a function of how wealthy and politically connected the developer is.

[Enjoymmsq]

I guess you'd toss out Landmarking restrictions along with all the Zoning regulations ...

Bye bye Greenwich Village. Bye bye Chelsea. Bye bye Brooklyn Heights ...

Who wants to live in that version of NYC?

(ps: If that's the plan then please wait about 30 years before you put it into effect -- I'll be dead and gone by then )

This is a tough one for me, because I do think there are a lot of historic buildings worth preserving, and I would not like to see entire neighborhoods demolished and paved over with new highrises.

There is a counter-argument, though. Realize that there are many people out there who simply prefer to live in historic buildings and neighborhoods, and will pay handsomely to do so. Also realize that there are many people who would gladly "hold out" and refuse selling their property to a developer. (How many times has that stopped big projects from getting off the ground?)

The thing to realize here is that different people have different values, and as long as there are no restrictions on obtaining and holding those values, it is unlikely that an entire section of them will be wiped out. Sure, historic buildings will be lost (as they continue to be lost now), but there must be a point of equilibrium.

[BruceCroucshs]

Piano, the key here is not to get rid of zoning, but to see what zoning in what areas makes sense.

One thing I have noticed that just astounds me. Around the corner of Broadway and 30th street. I was walking there the other night and I saw several HUGE lots that were just sitting there! They were PARKING LOTS! Easily cleared and redone for low rise (if on top of subway and other underground infrastructure that would limit it).

I do believe that they could easily go midrise at least, even with PATH or Subway under them, but for some reason, in this rabid real estate market, they just sit there, empty.

Nearby you get 2-4 story buildings whose only history they posess is the mere fact that they are old. So much crap in a city that costs so much to be in, it boggles the mind.

So instead of caterwalling about zoning itself, maybe it needs to be re-addressed to see what zoning is needed, and could benefit all the best, and not some greedy political factions or developers.

[curcercanty]

The bottom line:

With zoning laws, it is the onus of builders to prove that their proposed structures are worthy of zoning variances.

Without zoning laws, it is the onus of the neighbors and/or public to prove that the builders' proposed structures should NOT be erected.


You can talk abstractly and philosophically, but it ultimately boils down to whether your sympathy lies with the neighbors/public or with the builders.

[Pheddytrourry]

Piano, the key here is not to get rid of zoning, but to see what zoning in what areas makes sense.

There's only one thing you're not considering: who decides it, and how do we know that what they decided "makes sense"?

One thing I have noticed that just astounds me. Around the corner of Broadway and 30th street. I was walking there the other night and I saw several HUGE lots that were just sitting there! They were PARKING LOTS! Easily cleared and redone for low rise (if on top of subway and other underground infrastructure that would limit it).

I do believe that they could easily go midrise at least, even with PATH or Subway under them, but for some reason, in this rabid real estate market, they just sit there, empty. And why do you think they're sitting empty? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those parcels are not zoned properly, if not for their use, then for their density. If you're a developer, and you can't build something that will provide you returns because the gov't says you can't, then the lot will sit empty, no matter how hot the market.

Nearby you get 2-4 story buildings whose only history they posess is the mere fact that they are old. So much crap in a city that costs so much to be in, it boggles the mind. Which is why I brought up the empirical studies that analyze cost in highly-zoned areas. Why does it cost so much to build in New York? (Hint: one of the answers starts with a Z.)

So instead of caterwalling about zoning itself, maybe it needs to be re-addressed to see what zoning is needed, and could benefit all the best, and not some greedy political factions or developers. That's all fine and good, but do you really think that government can find a solution that benefits "all the best"? What makes them so well qualified to determine what gets built where?

Notice that I haven't come out and said: "We have to abolish zoning completely." There could be some good that comes of it. But for now, I think it is just too restrictive and not flexible enough. And about those greedy political factions: if you take politicians out of a process, then you won't find any one of them making money off of it.

[zU8KbeIU]

The town zoning board says that it is tough on zoning variances, the reality does not appear to be so. Almost inevitably, when a homeowner gets a variance, what ensues is of benefit to the homeowner and not at all a benefit to the neighbors.

You know, you just admitted that the zoning laws in effect are not working. If they're not working, why are they in place?

The bottom line:

With zoning laws, it is the onus of builders to prove that their proposed structures are worthy of zoning variances.

Without zoning laws, it is the onus of the neighbors and/or public to prove that the builders' proposed structures should NOT be erected.


You can talk abstractly and philosophically, but it ultimately boils down to whether your sympathy lies with the neighbors/public or with the builders.

That's how some people will inevitably see it. In my view, it boils down to whether you're in favor of private property rights, or third-party control of them.

Let me just add one more thing, which goes back to your first post. Private citizens can just as easily form organizations to oversee a block, or a neighborhood. There are many examples of this all around us in condominium associations, where in most cases, things such as the style/appearance of the houses, the landscaping, the level of exterior home improvement that a resident can do, etc., is all regulated and outlined in a private contract when you sign your deed. Lots of times, these contracts only serve to increase the value of the homes, and the quality of life of its residents. And if you have a problem with it, it's simple: don't live there. Smaller disputes are resolved through the association's board meetings, where voting procedures and required percentages for approval are all outlined in the homeowner's contract.

Now, doesn't that sound like a better alternative than having to go to all these town meetings and sound like you hate your neighbors?

[Averti$ingGuru]

There's only one thing you're not considering: who decides it, and how do we know that what they decided "makes sense"?

Who says I am not? Are you putting words in my mouth?

Are you saying that the developers would be better to decide which is which?

Blaming zoning for all the world evils is not accurate. I know what over-zealous zoning regulations can do (come to Hoboken if you want to know how long it takes to get permits for anythnig if you really want to know). But saying that they are the reason for stagnation is not accurate either.

They are meant to be a buffer, not a barrier or a motivator.

And why do you think they're sitting empty? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those parcels are not zoned properly, if not for their use, then for their density. If you're a developer, and you can't build something that will provide you returns because the gov't says you can't, then the lot will sit empty, no matter how hot the market. The question is, how are they zoned? And why? Instead of complaining about it, why doesn't someone take it up with City Hall publicly? I have heard NOTHING about it! Also, I see office space and commercial space all over that area, I would think that the things holding up deveopment may not be zoning so much as added cost of cleanum/construction OR unwilling landowners.

Which is why I brought up the empirical studies that analyze cost in highly-zoned areas. Why does it cost so much to build in New York? (Hint: one of the answers starts with a Z.) Hint, no it isn't.

Question: How big a section of steel do you think tehy can get into and around manhattan w/o having special permissions and road closings? How expensive do you think that is?

Question: How musch space (sidewalk/roadway) do you need for construction on a lot in NYC? How much will construction cost the neighboring facilities?

Question: What happened to the cost of steel with China's industrial boom?

Question: How many inflatable rats have you seen at large developments in the city?

Question: How much do you think an Operating Engineer gets paid?

Question: How many guys does it take to pick up a single 10" CMU?

Question: When something is in high demand, and the supply is low, what happens to cost?

Question: Would it be in the best interest of ANYONE but the buyer to build large quantities of units that are desired, or would that hurt the market?

The key to the issue, really, and the last question is that you cannot flood the market or you may produce a number of undesirable results. And the development of teh city does not insure that the cost of living here would go down either. The more people, the more need, the less resources, the more cost. Milk costs me less in NJ than here, why is that? Zoning?

That's all fine and good, but do you really think that government can find a solution that benefits "all the best"? What makes them so well qualified to determine what gets built where? That is not the issue, you are sidestepping the question because you know it can't be refuted.

We are responsible for bringing these issues into the public forum. We need to go to these community events, We need to vote and be active in the development and management of our neighborhoods or we will get just what we have now. A bunch of factions all looking out for themselves and saying they are looking out for you.

Notice that I haven't come out and said: "We have to abolish zoning completely." There could be some good that comes of it. But for now, I think it is just too restrictive and not flexible enough. And about those greedy political factions: if you take politicians out of a process, then you won't find any one of them making money off of it. That does not solve the issue. Politicians are anyone on a committee or the like that has this power. So whoever you put into power, whoever you appoint to a zoning board, becomes the new politicians. SO instead of saying "this is wrong" we have to find a way to correct the problem at the root rather than blaming the leaves for falling off.

[DariushPetresku]

Smaller disputes are resolved through the association's board meetings, where voting procedures and required percentages for approval are all outlined in the homeowner's contract.

Now, doesn't that sound like a better alternative than having to go to all these town meetings and sound like you hate your neighbors? You mean just like that one condo association that banned the hanging of a "peace wreath" on the exterior of one of the condos as a Christmas decoration?

"condo associations" have the same problems as everything else. Not only that, things like neighborhood associations only work in developments. They do not work in urban areas like NYC where the actions of one could effect the lives of others.

[soyclocky]

Pianoman: whats funny about this for me is that...without going into a lot of detail... my family was, at one time, the largest private landholder in a particular state... well over 10,000 continuous acres. This land is worth PEANUTS today because of restrictive zoning. Most of it costs more to keep than its worth. But no matter. ALL of us are happy with the states zoning rules.... there larger issues at hand like quality of life... and the public good ( sounds almost quaint). So when I speak in FAVOUR of zoning, Im one person who was plenty penalized.

[HaremShaih]

Who says I am not? Are you putting words in my mouth?

No, I am not, and it was never my intention to do so. I'm sorry I gave you that impression.

I only question why you assume that the current system can be improved so much. In New York, it's been in place for 90 years. Isn't that a lot of time to recognize that certain parts of zoning code are not benefitting anybody, while others only benefit a few?

Are you saying that the developers would be better to decide which is which? In a word, yes.

Blaming zoning for all the world evils is not accurate. I know what over-zealous zoning regulations can do (come to Hoboken if you want to know how long it takes to get permits for anythnig if you really want to know). But saying that they are the reason for stagnation is not accurate either.

They are meant to be a buffer, not a barrier or a motivator. Ninja, come on: when did I ever blame it for all the world evils? And another thing: if you really think it's meant to be a buffer, then why are there so many motivational clauses that are put in place? Inclusionary zoning? Also, something that restricts is by definition a barrier.



The question is, how are they zoned? And why? Instead of complaining about it, why doesn't someone take it up with City Hall publicly? If the zoning needs to be changed, the developer will have to ask for a variance. I don't think I need to remind you how often variances are not granted because of community opposition.

Question: When something is in high demand, and the supply is low, what happens to cost? Demand and supply for steel, and for housing, is cyclical. Zoning regulations are not. In response to all your other questions, I remind you I said that zoning is "one of the answers." Also, since certain things are out of our control, such as the costs of construction and the demand for housing, wouldn't it make sense to try to address one of the contributing costs that can be controlled? I refer you again to one of the two empirical studies I posted.

The key to the issue, really, and the last question is that you cannot flood the market or you may produce a number of undesirable results. And the development of teh city does not insure that the cost of living here would go down either. The more people, the more need, the less resources, the more cost. Milk costs me less in NJ than here, why is that? Zoning? Actually, when the government first put in regulations on the cost of milk (not sure if they still are in place), it was calculated according to how far away you live from Wisconsin. How's that for common-sensical?

And Ninja, about flooding the market: builders won't continue to put up condos and rentals if the demand is not meeting them. That's why there are cycles in housing, as well as office construction, and almost any other commodity you can think of. Again, I'm not saying that zoning singlehandedly makes a certain area expensive, but it is one of the main factors.

That is not the issue, you are sidestepping the question because you know it can't be refuted. Actually, it comes right to the core of the issue. Why should people blindly accept that the government should control what gets built where? Why do they have the power to do so, and what is the justification? Saying that "they have the public's best interest in mind" is not an adequate answer to these questions, for two reasons: 1) They just don't know what's best. 2) Even if they do, they'll often choose to go against that.

That does not solve the issue. Politicians are anyone on a committee or the like that has this power. So whoever you put into power, whoever you appoint to a zoning board, becomes the new politicians. SO instead of saying "this is wrong" we have to find a way to correct the problem at the root rather than blaming the leaves for falling off. Short answer, because this is taking a long time to respond to: you don't put "certain people" in power. You put everyone on an equal footing by ensuring everyone's right to property. As I said to Rapunzel, private interests already have a way of combining their interests to serve a broader agenda, and those interests are guaranteed in a binding, but uncoerced contract.

[StivRichardOff]

Re: The lots along and near Broadway / 30th Street ...

The question is, how are they zoned? And why? Instead of complaining about it, why doesn't someone take it up with City Hall publicly? I have heard NOTHING about it!

The first thing to do is go HERE and look at the zoning maps for NYC.

This is the MAP for that area (Manhattan / Section 8d).

You'll see that stretch of Broadway and the surrounding area is Zoned M1-6. Same as the area to the west of 6th Avenue.

6th Avenue in that area was recently re-zoned to become a C6-4X District -- ergo all the new and banal towers along that stretch.

Now you can discuss what is and isn't allowed and what you want to happen there

[choollaBard]

Man, what a mess that zoning map is! So many delineations, restricted areas, hardly any rhyme or reason to it...

So this area is zoned for manufacturing with a max FAR of 6, right?

Question: if the area around 6th is zoned C6-X4, doesn't that mean it's commercial? If so, why are there all those banal condo towers that you speak of?

[Sotmoigma]

"It's all very theoretical and philosophical, I know, but there isn't a lot of recent precedent for us to know whether it would work or not."

Pianoman, oh yes there is. Why dont you take a trip to some third world countries?.... pehaps Eastern Europe, a hell hole like Albania comes to mind. Or you could even come here to Italy, to see Mafia governed areas in the South where zoning is ignored.

"Somehow, before 1916, the city got along without zoning."

No it did not. Thats why zoning laws were created. That article was written for those will a superficial Disney-fied view of the past.

Just because some 3-rd world countries and mafia in Italy abose building codes and create ugly building does not mean that zoning in a developed country like the US is justified. Some of the most beautiful buildings in New York - from Crysler to the Emire State Building - were built in the period where virtually no zonin rules existed. Zoning laws don't prevent developers from building ugly buildings. They just dictate artificial rules for height and size even when market demands otherwise. There's no question that in some areas of historic significance you don't want developers to build bland skyscarpers. But that would only concern just a few truly historical areas in the city. Restrictive zoning exists in some of the areas already built up with some of the ugliest buildings in the world, including housing projects. It's all done in the name of public good. But any time there's a government restriction of any kind that limits the market force, it backfires in higher prices. One of the reasons Manhattan is so expensive is the restrictive zoning laws.

[_tppga_]

Oh, Spice, you're wrong again ^^^

Why do you think both the Chrysler and ESB have those great setbacks?

(clue: 1916 )

[Pa33anger]

Question: if the area around 6th is zoned C6-X4, doesn't that mean it's commercial? If so, why are there all those banal condo towers that you speak of?

Residential is allowed in Commercial zones

[VtLe67WR]

Mr Spice writes:

"Some of the most beautiful buildings in New York - from Crysler to the Emire State Building - were built in the period where virtually no zonin rules existed."

I love the way this guy just invents history.

The truth:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zonehis.shtml

[yurawerj]

. . .
You don't think people should have the right to store a boat on their property? How is that any of your concern?
. . .

You bring up issues to your quality of life. But what about the people who actually own the property? Why should you have a say over their quality of life? Telling them they can't have a pool would probably really lower it, wouldn't it? Same goes for the wheelchair ramp for the disabled person.

You say that you're not very popular. Have you ever wondered why that is? Instead of telling people they can't do something on their own property, have you ever considered approaching them to set up a private block agreement, instead of seeming like an overly sensitive person during these town hall meetings?
. . .

Do I really have to say what's wrong with having a huge, filthy boat stored in the front of a house in the suburbs, when zoning laws allow for it to be stored in the sideyards and backyards?

Do what I have to say what's wrong with my neighbors getting angry that they can't install an underground pool, when they knew when they bought the house that it's only zoned for above-ground pools? (It's not like they can't have a pool!)

Do I really have to say what's wrong with putting a handicapped ramp on the whole front lawn -- when zoning laws allow for it to be installed on one side of the front lawn -- solely to get a $100K profit? (It's doubtful if the zoning board will allow this again.)
_______________

I should reword my declaration of my unpopularity to say that every resident in my neighborhood who actively sees to it that the zoning laws are enforced is unpopular. It's nothing personal. I always smile and am friendly to everybody; I'm sure that if I stopped my zoning activities, I would be "popular" -- for what it's worth.

I am very much for negotiating with people personally, and I always begin with this step. In most cases, however, it is impossible to negotiate with somebody in my neighborhood who wants a zoning variance.

The most popular response: "I'll get back to you." When you follow up, it's still: "I'll get back to you." Other concerned residents try to follow up, and it's "I'll get back to you all." Meanwhile, the person is trying to hurry the variance through.

The second most popular response: "Call my lawyer." Sometimes the person doesn't even have a lawyer. When the person does, the lawyer invariably tries to delay talks until the variance is obtained.

The third most popular response is hopelessly flakey behavior. You can't get through. Sometimes it's real and sometimes it's faked; you learn the truth when you see them at the zoning hearing.

Perhaps my neighborhood is the only one in all of New York where greed and self-indulgence are pervasive, but I doubt it.
_____________________

I worship Manhattan; it's a big emotional sacrifice and time sacrifice to live where I do. I live here, the suburbs, because I'm surrounded by natural beauty: unobtrusive, low-rise houses, sprawled out lawns, trees, flowing shrubbery, flowers blooming for half the year, and tranquility. If the residents in my neighborhood take away too many of the advantages of living in surburbia, then I could just as well move to a house in Western Queens and have wonderful access to Manhattan.

[KneefeZes]

A few things, Rapunzel.

It seems to me that a lot of the problems you're having arise not because your neighbors are uncaring, thoughless individuals who are out to make your life a living hell, but because of the very existence of zoning.

Think about it from their perspective: here you come along, saying it's against the zoning rules to build a pool, or a wheelchair ramp, whatever. You're basically policing them, and using the (implied) threat of force to prevent them from doing with their property what they should have the right to do.

You ask if you have to explain what's really wrong with your neighbor having a boat on his/her driveway. I ask: why should there be rules against it? Who is it hurting? Specifically, why should government have the ability, and obligation, to restrict something as minimally obtrusive as keeping your boat on your own driveway?

I say: it's not the government's place to be regulating that. As long as someone is not infringing on another person's private property, or causing them physical harm in anyway, then they're not doing anything wrong. I also believe that once the threat of force (in the form of gov't upholding law) is removed, you'd find it much easier to talk to your neighbors about issues that affect all of you collectively. Maybe you'll come to the conclusion that 9 out of the 10 neighbors on your block can't sleep when one guy has a pool party running late into the night. Next time, maybe he'll end earlier. The point is, I don't we need government to be policing and regulating what people do with their private property.

[VitaliyMurnov]

Pianoman: isnt it strange then, that most of the more physically beautiful cities and neighborhoods in the world fall under strict zoning rules? Why is that?

Could you please show us some beautiful neigborhoods where people are allowed to do as they please with their property?

Boats parked in a driveway, and hey, lets add some rusting cars on cinderblocks.

Burp.

[Pszinygv]

Zoning is so ubiquitous, I wouldn't know where to start to find a good example of unregulated private property. Maybe I'll dig up some pictures of Houston's residential neighborhoods, since that's the only one I know offhand.

The better question though, is this: if you believe strict zoning is directly responsible for so much beauty, then why do so many strictly zoned cities have such wide swaths of filth? We need look no further than New York, outside of the most expensive areas of Manhattan. The better explanation is money. If you live in a neighborhood where people are wealthy enough to pay for housing built out of quality materials, expensive landscaping, etc., then it's going to look nicer than a blue-collar neighborhood that has overgrown front lawns and houses with aluminum siding.

Oh, let's also not equate unsophisticated behavior with a lack of zoning. Some people are slobs, and will always be that way, no matter what the zoning rules are.