CB7 Public Hearing-AIA Zoning Text Amendments 12.12.07

The corner lot coverage item and max base height proposals are totally against what many of the lower density downzonings were done for, less bulk on the street wall and more light and air.

While I can debate that there may be work-arounds and potential changes to the proposal, it was damn snaky of the AIA to not give this any proper public review (they worked on it for 3 years, for christsakes).

I'm not saying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it needs extensive work.

Mostly I would describe it very Manhattan-centric.

Duke of Flatbush wrote: In the end, what were the down zonings about? The change from R6 to R6B in the South Slope is really just a 5 foot change. The MAX R6 Building Ht is 55' on a narrow street. When you change to R6B, the MAX Bldg Ht is 50'. The FAR limitation goes from 2.2/3 down to 2.0. Max Lot Coverage and Density requirements remain the same. The 30' minimum distance between a wall and a legally required window (light and air requirements) also remains the same.

Am I missing something? Why should we be so suspicious of the American Institute of Architects? Aren't these the good guys?

More over...

In the end, what were the down zonings about? The change from R6 to R6B in the South Slope is really just a 5 foot change. The MAX R6 Building Ht is 55' on a narrow street.

Sorry, wrong here (or let's say our opinions differ, some by fact other by POV) on many accounts, though I agree for the reason to rezone. Under R6 (or other nebulous zoning designations), the 55' rule is nice, unless you calculate buying air rights from neighboring properties, corner lots, community facilities, commercial overlays which can be used to increase height and bulk...no need to go on.

R6B did away will all of that and lowered the height and lowered the FAR as you pount out. One of the most significant things is at the street wall and rear yard. the max base height is 40', so it's not 5' were' talking about, it's 10'. With the in mind, depending on how the architect is playing with the FAR (FYI, it was flexible 2.43 down to 2.0 fixed), they could chose to put in a set back "dormered" floor for a skinnier building, or max out at 40' and go deeper, depending on the lot size (both width and depth). Under the AIA's change for the max base height, the street wall would be brought to a height of 50' (higher in higher density districts above R6), giving the architect and his client (in most cases) half a floor of an increased height of 10'. Now, where would you like to live? On the 4th floor with a 1/2 floor bump up and roof access? Or a full 5th floor (which could still be a duplex)? I am not going o go into the rear-dormer and utility provisions that could further increase the building's envelope and sky plane view from street level.

Upping the max base height or using a full lot line for corner properties, we are loosing light and air (either lower bulk on the street wall or a side yard/rear yard/ or atrium area on a corner lot). Both of these specific issues are a benefit to the community and a large part of what many folks fought hard for.

We can debate whether this is a veiled attempt by the AIA to just resecure build-able area (I'm not talking FAR) for their clients or just more flexibility in design. And FYI, AIA are not the "good guys" by default. They are a trade organization, like so many others, looking to improve the ROI for their client's projects (and their fees) and in some cases improve the zoning or building code where needed.

In my POV, this is not one of those cases. See you at CB7.