^That's generally right, but due to changes prompted by Clean Air Act litigation in the last 70s/early 80s, no parking is required anywhere in the Manhattan core for new construction, regardless of the zoning district.

 

The problem for the NYCHA housing in the Manhattan core is that it was all built before 1982, so still has to comply with the older zoning provisions, unless the city specifically changes the zoning for a given site (which does occasionally happen). Some of the NYCHA surface lots exceed the old requirement, so could, theoretically be developed, but most of it is still required. That's why the NYCHA proposal for infill housing also involved play areas and green space, which is ensured it was DOA.

no i dont think its all of of manhattan, its by zone district of the zones that are the most dense where the parking can be totally waived. applies to some of the new stuff in lic too apparantly.

 

as for public housing, much is old, but there is plenty of new build as well around town, including brand new and more to come. true its all old in the core of manhattan, but i have read the parking lots in chelsea housing for one are targeted for infill building along with other housing tower in the park open land. maybe these spaces exceed the old regs as you say.

^It's all of the "Manhattan core" (community boards 1-7; so south of 110th/96th) and yeah, parts of LIC. You can see the carve out from the normal accessory parking provisions in Section 25-023 of the Zoning Resolution: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/art02c05.pdf  Outside of these areas, the parking requirements are government by the normal zoning district regulations.

 

And I assure you, there's virtually new build public housing in the city, but it just occurred to me that you may mean the term pretty generically. Almost all the recent subsidized housing development in the city has been private: financed through LIHTC and various city/state programs, but all privately owned and managed, and much of which can exit affordability in the future. The 80k new units in the de Blasio housing plan will be in the same vein. This may just be a semantic disconnect though.

here is an update on atlantic yards residential building construction surrounding the barclay arena in brooklyn.

i took these last week when i was over there for work, so pretty fresh.

the sites are very active again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if this was ever posted.  Love the shots from the "103rd floor".

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/empire-state-building-views_n_1540014.html

Lots of streetscaping always going on in New York these days. Nowhere is this more apparent than on Houston St. This is near the intersection of Avenue A (I guess they have to make it presentable for all the yuppie wannabes who have taken over the neighborhood  :x)--

 

 

I don't know how I missed this because I walk through the area fairly regularly, but W. 33rd St. between 7th and 8th Aves, next to Penn Station and Madison Square Garden (and just steps from Macy's) is now a pedestrian mall. I wonder how soon the "cartoon" characters show up.

 

 

as far as recent plans go we have 1000 footers planned for newark (millenium) and brooklyn (citypoint) and 900 footers for queens, jersey city and brooklyn. also more 1000 footers are already on the way for midtown to join 432 park (nordstrom, 53w53 aka moma tower verre, 111 w57st, 35&30 hudson yards, 666 5th ave). so a lot of non-wtc tall is planned or well on the way for the metro area.

I don't know how I missed this because I walk through the area fairly regularly, but W. 33rd St. between 7th and 8th Aves, next to Penn Station and Madison Square Garden (and just steps from Macy's) is now a pedestrian mall. I wonder how soon the "cartoon" characters show up.

 

 

oops! I guess I was wrong about this (hard to believe, I know). The plaza only covers about a third of the block (I need new glasses), and it's only temporary. It closes in early October.

IMNSHO, this will be the greatest place to live on Earth.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/real-estate-nyc-woolworth-building-penthouse-article-1.2306769

Looks like NYC is trying to get on the streetcar craze. 

 

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/4/10917320/nyc-streetcar-brooklyn-queens-deblasio-2020

Looks like NYC is trying to get on the streetcar craze. 

 

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/4/10917320/nyc-streetcar-brooklyn-queens-deblasio-2020

 

Interesting. The article makes no mention of the larger capacity for streetcars over buses, an obvious advantage. Also New Yorkers don't seem to be averse to using buses, particularly the public housing residents mentioned, so I wonder how people will perceive the need for the streetcar line. Anyhow I'm glad to see more streetcar momentum.

These waterfront neighborhoods aren't served well by any transit, bus or otherwise. Moving between the boroughs' waterfronts is not a quick or easy task with any transit at the moment so I feel like it will be met with positive opinions.

Looks like NYC is trying to get on the streetcar craze. 

 

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/4/10917320/nyc-streetcar-brooklyn-queens-deblasio-2020

 

They're calling it a streetcar project but I have to assume, given the scale of the city and length of the proposed line, that they will run much larger vehicles than the double-articulated streetcars that other cities are using or it will end up being a light rail project with 2-4 car trains.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, I have to imagine that this will end up being closer to what most cities would call light rail.

^It's all semantics, but if it ends up running largely in mixed traffic (a real possibility), "streetcar" is probably more apt.

 

These waterfront neighborhoods aren't served well by any transit, bus or otherwise. Moving between the boroughs' waterfronts is not a quick or easy task with any transit at the moment so I feel like it will be met with positive opinions.

 

This thing is getting trashed by the transit punditry I follow. It might be an OK project in the abstract, but should be way down the priority list in NYC. It's wholly unnecessary for stimulating the neighborhood housing markets it runs through, and most the transportation benefits could probably be provided by enhanced bus service for a fraction of the cost.

NYC's current dilemma (unlike its 1970s-1980s nadir) is that the more transit it builds within areas that already have transit, housing prices will inevitably climb higher.  If it extends the subway to areas with no access at present, then housing prices would rise in that area.  If it creates new express lines from the outer boroughs into Manhattan, then those places that currently endure 60 minute rides into Manhattan will suddenly become more attractive to middle class newcomers and drive up rents there. 

^ no, apt prices and population are steadily rising with or without transit improvements. of course, there is a tipping point somewhere, but its not here yet and nobody is sure where that is. thus, everyone is currently fat and happy and so there is foot dragging on major transit improvements. now let mta close down the L train for an extended period to fix the east river tunnel (that was wrecked by sandy) as was proposed and we may have our tipping point soon.

 

i saw this brooklyn-queens streetcar was proposed by waterfront developers and the mayor just recently jumped on board as being in favor of it. they think it could be paid for via development property taxes along the line, like the new 7 train extension. i suppose so, but someone has a lot of work to do on that end to make it so and its not going to be the mta. so it seems its just an idea at this point and its rightly being met with a shrug.

^It's all semantics, but if it ends up running largely in mixed traffic (a real possibility), "streetcar" is probably more apt.

 

 

 

the city wants “more than 70 percent of the streetcar route to run on a dedicated right of way.”

 

 

 

more from this city lab article rating it:

 

 

Better alternatives: incomplete

 

The last metric is whether a bus would serve the same corridor equally well at a much lower cost. Market Urbanism tweets an estimate of some 32,000 bus riders a day along the waterfront. That’s a solid ridership core, but it’s one on the order of Select Bus Service being proposed for Woodhaven, Queens—not, say the Second Avenue subway or even the outer-borough X line.

 

So, knowing that it’s far easier to transform a bus line into a rail route than vice versa, you have to ask why the city or the developers would want a costly streetcar where a cheaper vehicle technology would do just fine. The answer, sadly, may have something to do with a general aversion toward buses among the types of well-off folks moving into the waterfront area. Michael Kimmelman of the Times captured this sentiment in a piece about the connector from 2014:

 

 

Why a streetcar? Buses are a more obvious solution. Improved bus service is an easier sell, faster to get up and running, and cheaper up front. A bus would be ... fine.

But where’s the romance? A streetcar is a tangible, lasting commitment to urban change.

 

 

That’s as much the problem with the modern streetcar as it is a selling point. A streetcar is an inflexible mode that can’t be adjusted with ridership and residential shifts. The idea that it’s necessary to encourage economic improvement is also a fallacy—spotlighted by my colleague Kriston Capps, who wrote back in May 2014 that H Street in Washington, D.C. was coming up long before the streetcar started running (which, by the way, it hasn’t yet). The same can arguably be said for the bustling BQ waterfront.

 

So until more details are clear—namely, how ridership will reach the more rail-worthy estimate of 16 million a year by 2035, and why an incremental upgrade via select bus service isn’t an option—this alternatives metric gets a (generous) incomplete.

 

more:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/02/new-york-brooklyn-queens-waterfront-streetcar/459984/

 

 

 

Looks like NYC is trying to get on the streetcar craze. 

 

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/4/10917320/nyc-streetcar-brooklyn-queens-deblasio-2020

 

You'd think if it could make it anywhere, it could make it there.

Brooklyn: Are you ready for your first 1,000-foot tower? https://t.co/GDu3QC6CsV https://t.co/RiGzipyRed

Excavating #CentralPark creates 100 skyscrapers w/out requiring any new land https://t.co/L9klaIOPbB #archi #cplan

 

So one of my favorite movies ever is The Fifth Element. If anyone is familiar with the movie this fantasy plan for Central Park is very similar to how NYC transformed into the version we see in the movie.

 

In the movie's version of the future, sea level has dropped thousands of feet due to sending water to other planets for terraforming. They then dug every street down to the new sea level to create more space for people instead of building up. The one shot of the skyline when they're on the shuttle to Flohston Paradise shows the Statue of Liberty up on a massive pedastal (along with the bridges crossing the East River) and that is why.

 

This concept for Central Park is incredibly interesting. Realistic? No, of course not. But that's not the point.

That is actually a really interesting idea.  As Jmicha said, it's pretty much completely implausible, but the images provided in that link are stunning.  The excavation and resulting mountains of bedrock make it look like there is a rugged Norwegian fjord or something right in the middle of Manhattan, surrounded by the incredible density of the city.  Love the creativity.

I also love that they propose incredibly reflective glass to clad the skyscrapers (do you still call them that when they go down into the ground?) on the perimeter of the park which will make it feel somewhat endless when down inside the canyons. Very interesting.

 

The idea of digging down instead of building up is one that I've seen a handful of times and I've always found interesting. There is a lot of potential in utilizing existing public space and going down instead of just building taller.

I was strolling around and noticed this on the northern side of the Manhattan Bridge. Who knew this existed before? I assume so since it indicates a reconstruction. While it's a welcome amenity I doubt this project would have occurred without the intensified gentrification taking place in the area :x. If nothing else it will provide skateboarders another venue to endanger the safety of passersby

 

 

down the street and to the right is a teeming makeshift fruit and vegetable market on weekends with cheap prices which also has softshell crab vendors

 

My question for you all.

 

With the skyscraper boom that NYC is experiencing, and just future urban development in general, how much is NYC historic stock, "at risk".

 

I just have to imagine with real estate the way it is, and the population increase that NYC is experiencing there is bound to be more hotels, office, and residential skyscrapers in the next 20-30 years. But how will they build around the historic stock? Or will there come a point, maybe not now, but say in the next 50-100 years that good chunks of the historic stock will have to go to make way for room for new development.

Depends what you consider "historic stock," but it's not as threatened as you might think. The city has a robust historic districting and landmarking program (overly so, in many people's opinions), and a tight zoning envelope that reduces the incentive to redevelop in much of the city. Also, development rights transfers help preserve older buildings. All those super talls on 57th St, for example, are using tons of development rights bought from nearby lots.

 

Given the size of the city, the current "boom" really isn't all that big. And in any case, new residential rental high rise projects have ground to a halt since a key property tax incentive expired last year and we've already seen the peak of the ultra luxury market.

 

If anything, the city should be building a lot more than it has been, if you care about affordability.

 

[edited for typos]

One thing to remember about NYC. It's F***ing gigantic. There are just under 1,000,000 buildings in NYC. This current boom has seen a few hundred or so buildings built/proposed. It's a blip. Yes, many are far more visible than, say, all the brownstones in Brooklyn. But they're greatly outnumbered by historic buildings and based on the reasons StrapHanger described above that's more or less going to always be the case.

But I mean eventually they will have to be touched, no? I mean there's only so much real estate in NYC.

 

Granted it won't be in our life times, but I feel that eventually your going to have to cross the bridge of either building a 40 story tower, or preserving a 4 story historic building. I feel like that's an easy decision to make for real estate developers.

Not really. There is a ton of land in NYC that isn't really developed yet that could house literally hundreds of thousands of people without having to touch anything. It's all challenging, hence why it's not being looked at yet, but you can see examples of some challenging sites becoming developments. Hudson Yards, Sunnyside Yards (although that's still a long ways off from being reality), things like the entirety of Battery Park City, the entire waterfront of Brooklyn and Queens facing Manhattan, the Gowanus Canal, St. George on Staten Island, etc. There are so many places that either have some long-past use to take over for redevelopment or non-historical places that can see tons of new development. The west side of Manhattan is seeing a ton of interest recently because there are literally tens of millions of square feet of unused air rights since for so long it was so undesirable that only cab companies, gas stations, and crappy fast food joints invested anything in the area.

 

In 300 years there will likely be other issues to worry about other than development pressure when it comes to trying to save what we have.

^^That decision doesn't entirely belong to developers. It's currently illegal to build towers on more than 90% of NYC's land area. That could change "eventually," but climate change and other forces could make it moot if NYC loses its market appeal over time relative to other locations. It's a big country. Lots of room to build. 

Over 300 years, very few structures survive especially in a dynamic city like New York. How many pre-1800 buildings still stand in New York City? Maybe fewer than 10-20? And how many of those aren't churches? On Manhattan, I can think of only one: Fraunces Tavern. That's one thing that Philadelphia and Boston (and smaller cities like Newport or parts of Washington DC that predated Washington DC) have going for them. Many of them still have significant building stock from before 1800, but they had more substantial buildings and in greater numbers. Boston and Philadelphia were both larger than New York City until the Erie Canal was built.

^I think NYC has been the country's largest city since the very first census in 1790. Interesting question about the lifespan of old buildings. I guess I'd once again point to the regulatory environment. Most of the pre 1800 buildings lost in NYC (and other cities) were replaced by something larger as a result of market-driven densification, or replaced by something more functional/modern. Those things aren't really possible anymore in much of the city given current zoning and growing historic district/landmark designation, respectively. I'd guess that the 19th century fabric of the West Village, for example, will probably survive in its current form just as long as, say, the newly built towers of Hudson Yards.

But these new towers..there replacing historic stock, no? These aren't just empty grassy lots that they are being built upon?

Some of them, sure. But remember what I said earlier. Since 2000 only a few hundred or so towers have been built in a city that has literally a million buildings. That means only .03% of the buildings in the city have been built in the last 16 years.

 

Many of the major areas of redevelopment are former industrial sites along the water in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens. They're not really in historic districts.

^^Plus, those towers are also helping preserve historic stock in many cases by sucking up and using all the available development rights on a given block. If the owner of a 5 floor walkup sells her unused development rights to a nearby tower project, her incentive to demolish and redevelop is greatly reduced.

^I think NYC has been the country's largest city since the very first census in 1790.

 

When my 5x great-grandfather arrived in America in 1748, NYC was the third largest city behind Philadelphia and Boston. Philly was the largest the city during the Revolutionary War.

 

 

^Right, but NYC overtook Philly and Boston decades before the Erie Canal opened. Just a minor clarification to your earlier comment. You're certainly right that NYC didn't reign as biggest during most of the Colonial era.

But these new towers..there replacing historic stock, no? These aren't just empty grassy lots that they are being built upon?

 

thankfully no, not really.

 

in manhattan, hudson yards is mostly being built over an open rail yard and covering it up. so that is a good thing. elsewhere, for example, no one is crying about the buildings that the one vanderbilt tower is replacing. they were impressively large old office bldgs, but thoroughly undistinguished.

 

the downtown brooklyn building boom is also replacing a lot of characterless, crappy low rise junk.

 

for example, the big downtown brooklyn lot where the new 1000' apt bldg is to go up is incorporating a historic old bank bldg and it and its neighboring citypoint development are just replacing the old albee sq mall, a really decrepit old parking garage and some empty lots.

 

the only real issue around the downtown brooklyn building boom so far, at least that i can see, is the loss of affordable shopping in the fulton mall strip via this gentrification and nobody is crying over that.

 

mostly its just the opposite, ie., people pay $1M for a decrepit shell of a classic brownstone home, the few of those that are not grabbed up that is, and then they still have to fix it up. there are more controversial developments of course, but i just what to comment on some of those mentioned. the real loss is more of local retail and grocery stores and the like to chains. or rich owners just letting stuff sit empty for years until some chain like a bank or chipotle or drug store or whatever pays up big rent. the rent hikes these days are just staggering beyond staggering.

 

 

But these new towers..there replacing historic stock, no? These aren't just empty grassy lots that they are being built upon?

I'm seeing more and more demolitions going on. I can't vouch for the historic value of the buildings that occupied in these spaces, but their destruction sadly represents the continual disappearance of Jane Jacobs's old New York--

 

I was shocked a few weeks ago to see that basically half a block on University Place (bet. 12th & 13th Sts) had been destroyed. There were several small restaurants and other businesses here for decades. I can hardly wait to see what kind of architectural masterpiece is erected here--

 

this lot is at the back side of historic Marble Collegiate Church (5th Ave & 29th St). Again, I'm noticing many more of these.

^Eh, most of that site was a parking garage. I can understand missing the storefronts (and Bowlmore), but not exactly historic stock...

oh cripe evd this is not the bldg to take offense with, nor was it jane jacobs approved. it was a freaking crappy parking garage. the only thing of note was bowlmor, which was 76 yrs old and the oldest bowling alley on the east coast. now i dk if you ever went there, seems like no, but it was eh.

 

 

here's what is taking its place:

 

http://ny.curbed.com/2015/8/11/9931766/heres-the-23-story-condo-that-will-replace-bowlmor-lanes

 

^parking garages are people too! Judging by the comments on curbed I'm not the only one disgusted by this. Several neighborhood businesses that were there will never return, only to be replaced by chain stores or overpriced "boutiques" affordable only by people who can afford to live in this building. This demolition is happening at an alarming rate. Huge chunks of blocks are disappearing and being replaced by all this slick junk--

 

This is the corner of 23rd St. and Lexington across from Baruch College (demolished all the way to 22nd St, leaving an historic school building intact at least). New housing for students? Yeah, right, two blocks from Gramercy Park--

 

22nd St side--

wow, this is unique, isn't it? :roll:

at least this nearly 100-year old school on the corner of 22nd and Lex was saved (originally the "Manhattan Trade School for Girls")

 

 

and here's another new space at Broadway and 31st (maybe Macy's can demolish its historic flagship a couple of blocks away and start fresh!)--

 

Brooklyn shack listed for $500k:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-500k-brooklyn-pit-bull-flop-house-2016-04-26

 

 

it's horrible here

 

New York’s Sidewalks Are So Packed, Pedestrians Are Taking to the Streets

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/nyregion/new-york-city-overcrowded-sidewalks.html?_r=0

The problem is purely political. The rights of way are plenty wide enough to offer more room to pedestrians.

Streetscaping continues on Astor Place and Cooper Square, seemingly turning the area into a giant pedestrian mall (making it nice for millennials who work in finance...and those with trust funds). The big revolving cube is promised a return soon--

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manhattan's 4th Trader Joe's opens @3rd Ave & 32nd St

I revisited the Oculus recently now that it's officially open...as a shopping mall. There's something more than a little unseemly about all the over-the-top glitz and near-theme park atmosphere, especially just steps from the 9/11 memorial. But the irresistible urge to take pictures of other people taking pictures of themselves was too much. Although I fear one of these days someone is going to go plummeting over one of the balconies (or as the article refers to them, "diving boards") in the quest of the perfect selfie--

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/nyregion/westfield-world-trade-center-mall-occulus.html?_r=0

 

 

[