If NIMBYs ruled the world, we would all live in one storey houses...
one storey underground.
I don't usually respond to drive-by posts, but citing shadow studies in order to attach scientific credibility to an argument, and then drawing meaningless idiotic conclusions, really annoys me.
All the time? Half the time?
In the meantime...
Let's see how this building (and those existing) will cast a shadow across the lawn. The photo was taken on March 2 at 10:00 AM. The sun is at 34° altitude, and is high enough to clear the buildings.
Height of sun for the same view - entire year:
Jan 1 - 15°
Feb 1 - 21°
Mar 1 - 34°
Apr 1 - 48°
May 1 - 59.0°
Jun 1 - 67.0°
Jul 1 - 68°
Aug 1 - 62°
Sep 1 - 51°
Oct 1 - 37°
Nov 1 - 24°
Dec 1 - 16°
For 8 months of the year, it's not an issue at all.
Yes but the other four months...
The other four months are mostly irrelevant, too. Here's why.
Look at that picture Zippy posted.
Where it's located, this building itself will be in the shadow of the HSBC-Knox building so it's not casting any more shadows than that would be there anyway.
The only time it will cast it's own shadow (when not overshadowed by the HSBC-Knox) is when the sun is directly over it but as we know, that would only be brief and momentary because the sun moves and does not stay still in one position for very long.
bryant park neighbors' overexaggerated claims can now be laid to rest.
I would invite everyone to visit the park in the morning to inspect where people are sitting. If they are on the south side of the park they will be sitting near the Bryant Park Grill because that is where the sun is shining. During the winter months this proposed building will block a good portion of the sun light to the south side of the park. That is a loss of an amenity in the park. Just because the HSBC building already blocks some of the sunlight does not make it okay to block the rest. The HSBC building was a mistake in scale and design if you ask me but it is there to stay. Someone should learn from the mistakes of the past.
The developer is asking for a special permit relieving them of the zoning regulations for the overall daylight evaluation. A passing score for the overall daylight evaluation is 75% but this development scores somewhere in the low 20s.
Also tree shade in the winter is minimal because they don’t have “LEAFS”.
What do you mean by a good portion?During the winter months this proposed building will block a good portion of the sun light to the south side of the park.
So how much extra will this building alone add to the shadows that are already there?Just because the HSBC building already blocks some of the sunlight does not make it okay to block the rest.
During Dec and Jan, the sun doesn't rise above 27°, and shadows are long. The Empire State Building is 2200 ft south of 42nd St. Here are some calculations of the shadow the ESB would cast during the winter.
Dec 21 - 2500 ft
Jan 1 - 2460
Jan 7 - 2400
Jan 14 - 2300
Jan 21 - 2160
Jan 28 - 2100
A typical distortion of shadow study data is using it on an empty landscape. During the winter, the sun is so low that even a modest 150 ft building will cast a shadow over 300 ft, blocking the sun on the south side of the park.
Are your two posts an accurate description of the impact of this building on Bryant Park? I don't think so.
Was the Empire State Building a mistake?The HSBC building was a mistake in scale and design if you ask me but it is there to stay. Someone should learn from the mistakes of the past.
Was the American Radiator Building a mistake? It too casts a shadow.
Anyway, the south half of Bryant park is shaded by trees already.
Sounds like another typical shadow complaint: usually incorrect, and just a ploy to halt development.
Even the Empire State building, several blocks away, is large enough to cash a shadow. Was that a mistake as well?
If having completely unobstructed skies around the local park is really such an issue to the residents, then perhaps those residents should have chosen a different community with different zoning laws as their place of residence. This is Midtown Manhattan, the world's most single most expansive high-rise neighborhood. "Bryant park residents", your complaints about tall buildings in the area are akin to someone moving to Chinatown and then complaining about the prevalence of Chinese people in the area. Besides, your specific argument about the building casting a shadow has just been proven largely wrong.
If you really want to make a case for your argument and pull people over to your site, give us some specific, and reliable data, and stay away from intimidating yet empty words like "it will cast a shadow over most of the park."
You are all overlooking a bigger problem than the size and shadows. Unless I am mistaken this is going to be another luxury residential building in mid-town with no middle-income or affordable housing. The developer should at least include 5 or 6 units in the plan. NYC is facing a real housing crisis. We need public officials to hold developers responsible for the people that make this city unique.
NYC is facing a housing crisis in part because of the hurdles that have to be jumped in order to get a project through the pipeline.
Developers are greedy. If you make them put an affordable housing component into a market rate project, they're not going to take a profit cut. Instead, they'll just raise the prices or rents on the market-rate apartments. While prices will be lower for the lucky few who win the lottery to get the subsidized apartments (or who have connections, etc.), those in the other apartments pay more in rent or in the housing price to make up, further exacerbating the housing crisis.
Additionally, it generally discourages developers from developing marginal projects that are just on the edge of profitability relative to smaller alternatives. If and when they know they'll be forced to make "affordable" housing concessions to build a larger project, they may choose to just scale it down and fly under the radar, doing nothing to improve the housing crunch.
Think of it this way: a dozen or so millionaires living in these luxury condos means a dozen or so less millionaires living in other buildings in the city, which means that those apartments are available to people of slightly lower means, and so on.
Any increase in supply helps drive prices down in the long run. That is why the reactionary anti-development attitudes of people like bryantparkneighbors are the worst enemy of affordable lower-middle and upper-middle-class housing in New York City. They've got their exclusive club and got in on the ground floor, and hypocritically fight any change and newcomers tooth an nail.
Last edited by Hamilton; March 15th, 2008 at 08:04 PM.
If the building is a bad idea, the opposition should stand on legitimate reasons, without distortions.
Would that be acceptable to you, and has that been suggested to the developer?The developer should at least include 5 or 6 units in the plan.
Zippy - My understating is that Members of CB 5 proposed affordable housing but the developers and some of the neighbors said the area is not for people of “modest means”.
I just threw the number 5 or 6 out there. More units would be better.
Hamilton - It is not a bad idea to spread millionaires throughout the city. It would be good economic stimulus for more neighborhoods to have millionaires. Plus it is getting harder and harder for our Manhattan based EMS, NYPD, and FDNY to find housing in the borough. Diversifying the housing will be good for the city in the long run.