Do Air Rights Result in the Demolition Of Beautiful, Small Structures?

[londonlawyer]

There have been many instances recently wherein beautiful, small structures that should be preserved are being razed and replaced with larger buildings. A most recent example is the beautiful, terra cotta building on Greenwich Street that will be replaced by a 25 story Mc Sam hotel.

I believe that the city's laws re: air rights result in many such demolitions. If someone owns a 3 story building that could have accomodated a 25 story building, his ability to sell the air rights, to my knowledge, is generally limited to developers of adjacent properties. If there are no such buyers, the person might be tempted to raze his own structure -- regardless of its architectural merit -- and replace it with the largest structure that the law permits. These laws, therefore, are resulting in the loss of beautiful buildings.

In my opinion, laws re: air rights should be modified to permit their sale anywhere within the borough. This would enable the owner of a small gem to maximize his profit and yet, at the same time, maintain the small building.

What's your opinion?

[ablarc]

^ Good idea.

[ZippyTheChimp]

In my opinion, laws re: air rights should be modified to permit their sale anywhere within the borough. This would enable the owner of a small gem to maximize his profit and yet, at the same time, maintain the small building.

What's your opinion?I think it would run into legal problems.

The rationale of air-rights transfer is that the overall bulk zoning of the area is not increased. That's why it's always done near the project (although i don't think the property has to be contiguous).

How would you decide where to transfer them to? And of course, since the new project that the air rights are moved to has no connection with the building they are transferred from, you would have to make it available to everyone in the area.

Something similar to this was floated with the Jets stadium; air-rights were to be moved off the railyards. A lawsuit was threatened, and the idea was dropped.

[londonlawyer]

I know that people would oppose it due to fear that large towers would rise in dense areas (or in areas where they're not desired). However, those concerns could be addressed. Nonetheless, I really believe that revisions to the laws governing air rights are essential if we are to preserve small buildings.

[lofter1]

They are giving this a shot near Times Square:

One provision of the recently re-zoned Special Theater District (basically in the vicinity of Times Square) is that air rights for theaters can be transferred to non-abutting lots within the District.

I know they have run into some problems there, but it certainly seems like something that could be expanded now that they're working out the kinks.

[stache]

I think what might happen is air rights in dowdy areas like Inwood would be sold for development in more desirable areas that could have more historic gems, resulting in accelerated destruction of the "old'.

[MidtownApt]

Air rights (or Transferrable Development Rights=TDRs) can be sold by Landmark Buildings to a larger group of buyers than just adjoining parcels within the same block. e.g., across a street. Within certain districts (Grand Central, Theater) they can be sold to an even larger pool of buyers within the district.

[BrooklynRider]

AIRHEAD RIGHTS!?! Jesus, just look at what Britney Spears is doing to her poor little kids!

Oh, wait. Wrong thread....

[Punzie]

In my opinion, laws re: air rights should be modified to permit their sale anywhere within the borough. This would enable the owner of a small gem to maximize his profit and yet, at the same time, maintain the small building.


I have a few clarification questions:

Is your proposal just for Manhattan, or for all boroughs?

Are you proposing the creation of "sending zones" and "receiving zones" -- or a completely open market?

Does a developer's TDR superceed the zoning laws in the "receiving" area?

What would you recommend for NYC to accomodate for the additional load of court cases?

What watchdog would you put over local politicians who may be tempted to engage in bribes/graft with developers purchasing TDRs?

Would you write in a stop gap into your proposal to ensure that parts of NYC don't become prohibitively dense?

That's it for now. Thank you.


P.S. BR, that was funny!