Reply With QuoteYeah, I knew that. He's living in Brazil.
That God is dead.
Yeah, I knew that. He's living in Brazil.
If it's not, then please give some examples/evidence to the contrary.Originally Posted by Fabrizio
I have the benefit of having recently done a lot of research on this topic, and I know for a fact that aesthetic considerations were virtually non-existent upon the birth of zoning. This was the case for two reasons:
1) The advocates of zoning didn't think aesthetics were a problem back then that needed to be addressed. Their problems were congestion, danger to public health, and falling land values. They looked at zoning as a way to solve these problems.
2) As I already said, no judge would have upheld a regulation at the time which provided zoning with the ability to prescribe style. It was viewed as too subjective an area to codify into law, firstly; secondly, zoning advocates would have had a hard time justifying the relation between aesthetics and the public welfare/health.
That's why, in the years leading up to and following New York's adoption of the zoning resolution, the publications about zoning all focused on its technical aspects, such as: calculating appropriate densities; building heights and setbacks according to street width; sun angles; etc. The City Beautiful was, in fact, the City Scientific.
Lofter's example doesn't disprove this point. He offers an instance of a private developer setting up standards for his community - something that was common then and is common today in most condo subdevelopments. All houses look the same, and any changes to the exterior appearance - even the most trivial - are not allowed. The owners agree to these rules upon purchasing the home and signing a contract.
I can't speak to how broadly and drastically things changed in later years. As soon as people began looking at old buildings as historic, in the 1960s, other protections came into play: historic districts and landmarking. In the 1970s, more procedures were put into place to allow community input in these more highly restricted areas. Today, we see the effects of this in community boards and landmark commissions approving/condemning certain designs depending on their "appropriateness" for the context. I suppose this can amount to government regulating style - but nowhere in the zoning resolution does it stipulate whether a building in a given district must be Postmodern, Art Moderne, Deco, or Deconstructivist. Nor does it stipulate that a building must use brick, limestone, glass, or concrete.
Finally, you might argue that regulations on building aspects such as height, bulk, and use themselves amount to a regulation on style. To witness how this is untrue, take a stroll through parts of east Midtown or the Upper East Side, and observe the white-brick apartment/office buildings of the 50s and 60s. The ones built before the revised zoning resolution of 1961 (when setback requirements were largely reduced) invariably step back in a wedding cake style. The ones built afterwards rise straight up. The fundamental appearance and style of both are the same.
Pianoman writes:
"....there'd be no way that a court would uphold the legality of government dictating the architectural style of buildings.
"....styles are still not regulated. Height, bulk, and use are."
Fab responds:
"This is simply not true."
Pianoman says:
"If it's not, then please give some examples/evidence to the contrary."
Fab says...ok, no prob:
"The Village District Act" http://www.cttrust.org/index.cgi/1057
" The regulations shall provide (i) that proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings be harmoniously related to their surroundings, and the terrain in the district and to the use, scale and architecture of existing buildings in the district that have a functional or visual relationship to a proposed building or modification, (ii) that all spaces, structures and related site improvements visible from public roadways be designed to be compatible with the elements of the area of the village district in and around the proposed building or modification, (iii) that the color, size, height, location, proportion of openings, roof treatments, building materials and landscaping of commercial or residential property and any proposed signs and lighting be evaluated for compatibility with the local architectural motif and the maintenance of views, historic buildings, monuments and landscaping, and (iv) that the removal or disruption of historic traditional or significant structures or architectural elements shall be minimized."
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap124.htm#Sec8-2j.htm
-----
"The Battery Park City Authority"
"The Authority achieves its mission to develop its 92 acre project area (the “project area” or
“Battery Park City”) by granting long-term leases for individual sites to developers. Buildings
constructed as a result of this process are designed based on various documents created by the
Authority as part of the urban experiment that began with the Authority’s creation in 1968 by the
New York State Legislature, as well as New York City zoning regulations.
These documents include the 1979 Master Plan (which governs all development in the project
area), neighborhood and site Design Guidelines covering exterior aesthetics and massing issues,"
http://www.pulp.tc/batteryparkSBC_II...March_2005.pdf
Last edited by Fabrizio; June 9th, 2007 at 04:47 PM.
To keep this from becoming another hijacked thread...
Fabrizio, your initial response of "this is simply not true" was directed at a two-part statement: a historical one, and a contemporary one. You chose to provide evidence to the contrary of only the contemporary part. This is because the historical part is true, and there's no evidence to disprove it. The contemporary part is open to interpretation, as ablarc said. And it's certainly not "done all the time," as you say. I clarify my position on this in my previous post, second to last paragraph.
RE: the Connecticut example. Historical districts make up a very small percentage of all property. And these protections didn't arise until relatively recently. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of landmarking and historic districts in 1978 (Grand Central vs. City of New York).
RE: Battery Park City. It's government land. Enough said.
Sorry, Pianoman....you mention above:
"....there'd be no way that a court would uphold the legality of government dictating the architectural style of buildings.
"....styles are still not regulated. Height, bulk, and use are."
"Today, we see the effects of this in community boards and landmark commissions approving/condemning certain designs depending on their "appropriateness" for the context. I suppose this can amount to government regulating style - but nowhere in the zoning resolution does it stipulate whether a building in a given district must be Postmodern, Art Moderne, Deco, or Deconstructivist. Nor does it stipulate that a building must use brick, limestone, glass, or concrete. "
I repeat: simply not true. Read the links I posted.
The point is government CAN dictate style. It does happen.
-----
"The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of landmarking and historic districts in 1978 (Grand Central vs. City of New York)."
This BTW has nothing to do with the conversation. We know that landmarking is legal.
Last edited by Fabrizio; June 10th, 2007 at 04:33 PM.
I swear, it's like talking to a wall sometimes. How many times do I have to point out that this conversation arose from a historical topic, not a contemporary one? I noted it all the way back in post 42:
Notice the words that indicate the tense: "there'd be no way that a court would uphold the legality..." vs. "...still not regulated." I'm talking about two different periods: the first one is in the 1910s, which is where the conversation started. As in, the subject of ablarc's thread: Forest Hills was built back then.
Was I overgeneralizing when I said "still not regulated"? Yeah, and I already admitted that. But it's a rare occurrence whenever the government steps in. It does so not upon the birth of a community, but upon its maturation into a historical one worthy of preservation. Not something done "all the time," as you say.
It has everything to do with the conversation. Landmarking wasn't a concept back in the days when Forest Hills was planned. Government wouldn't have even considered it (my original point)."The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of landmarking and historic districts in 1978 (Grand Central vs. City of New York)."
This BTW has nothing to do with the conversation. We know that landmarking is legal.
Buildings were generally built to a much higher standard of visual design and workmanship. Even the meanest tenement sported a handsome cornice, machine-made ornamentation and decorative ironwork. The ugliness of excessive utilitarianism came later with Modernism.
This is true. Zoning was instituted to promote better public health --and quaintly enough: morality. Read the opening mission statement of any zoning code; chances are these are still stated as its goals. Health and morality.Their problems were congestion, danger to public health, and falling land values. They looked at zoning as a way to solve these problems.
This sounds plausible and likely.2) ...no judge would have upheld a regulation at the time which provided zoning with the ability to prescribe style. It was viewed as too subjective an area to codify into law, firstly;
(!)Very good point. That’s still how zoning justifies itself.secondly, zoning advocates would have had a hard time justifying the relation between aesthetics and the public welfare/health.
That's why, in the years leading up to and following New York's adoption of the zoning resolution, the publications about zoning all focused on its technical aspects, such as: calculating appropriate densities; building heights and setbacks according to street width; sun angles; etc. The City Beautiful was, in fact, the City Scientific.
I just finished designing one of these. It’s not even a condo, actually; it’s structured as a townhouse development, in which the land is conveyed together with the unit that’s built on it. You still can’t repaint your house, re-side it, change its appearance, or even mow your own grass. It’s accomplished by a restrictive covenant, not zoning.Lofter's example doesn't disprove this point. He offers an instance of a private developer setting up standards for his community - something that was common then and is common today in most condo subdevelopments. All houses look the same, and any changes to the exterior appearance - even the most trivial - are not allowed. The owners agree to these rules upon purchasing the home and signing a contract.
That’s right; it’s aesthetic decisions made mostly by amateurs. The historic district commission I deal with most often has one architect among its eleven members. They make some hair-raisingly ignorant calls.As soon as people began looking at old buildings as historic, in the 1960s, other protections came into play: historic districts and landmarking. In the 1970s, more procedures were put into place to allow community input in these more highly restricted areas. Today, we see the effects of this in community boards and landmark commissions approving/condemning certain designs depending on their "appropriateness" for the context.
This is true of the onesd I’ve encountered. There are bound to be few exceptions. I think Fabrizio gives one --though like all exceptions it doesn’t disprove a general rule.I suppose this can amount to government regulating style - but nowhere in the zoning resolution does it stipulate whether a building in a given district must be Postmodern, Art Moderne, Deco, or Deconstructivist. Nor does it stipulate that a building must use brick, limestone, glass, or concrete.
Yes, and that’s often their unstated intent.Finally, you might argue that regulations on building aspects such as height, bulk, and use themselves amount to a regulation on style.
Good point, pianoman; you know your stuff.To witness how this is untrue, take a stroll through parts of east Midtown or the Upper East Side, and observe the white-brick apartment/office buildings of the 50s and 60s. The ones built before the revised zoning resolution of 1961 (when setback requirements were largely reduced) invariably step back in a wedding cake style. The ones built afterwards rise straight up. The fundamental appearance and style of both are the same.
The intent here is clearly to dictate style by mandating what are thought to be its specific components. Whether or not this represents legislation of style is best left to the philosophical hair-splitters. If the committee that enforces this regulation were inclined to flexibility, I could design a building within these rules that was in a different style from the one intended to be kept. I refer you to the Colonial house in Forest Hills that’s in a deviating style while meeting the letter of the regulations (and doubtless the iconoclastic predilections of the review board of that moment).
Doesn’t this just say buildings have to follow the master plan?Buildings constructed as a result of this process are designed based on various documents created by the Authority as part of the urban experiment that began with the Authority’s creation in 1968 by the New York State Legislature, as well as New York City zoning regulations.
These documents include the 1979 Master Plan (which governs all development in the project area), neighborhood and site Design Guidelines covering exterior aesthetics and massing issues,"
Fair enough.
Fabrizio and pianoman, I think you’re both right. Is style mandated directly by name in laws? Rarely if ever. Is it mandated obliquely? Quite often.
And you’re both splitting hairs.
^Nothin' like a good referee to cut through the battle lines.
Sounds vaguely salacious.
No... if it were that they'd have a word for it.
Utopia or Dystopia?
Sunnyside landmark status divides nabe
By Magdalene Perez
Special to amNewYork
June 14, 2007, 6:13 PM EDT
A bid to landmark Sunnyside Gardens is bitterly dividing the historic Queens community, once envisioned as a utopian oasis of green spaces and neighborly cooperation.
Built as a planned development in the 1920s, the 17-block stretch of modest brick row houses and expansive courtyard gardens was intended by architects to encourage a sense of shared community. But that ideal has been marred by infighting over a proposed landmark designation, which would impose strict regulations in a community where everything from back porches to high fences are already banned.
"People have been caught in the courtyard taking pictures [of their neighbors' homes] and reporting them for violations," resident Elaine Nickolai said. "This is not the community I grew up in."
Many residents expect the Landmarks Preservation Commission will approve landmark status in a June 26 vote. The City Council would then make a final decision. Commission spokeswoman Lisi De Bourbon would not comment on the vote's likely outcome, but said the community is "worthy of historic district status."
Homeowners are upset to see how the debate has torn the community.
"It seems to have caused a divide," said Hillary Fox, a 10-year Sunnyside resident. "Which is sad because that's not what the community is about."
Landmark supporters argue the community has not been adequately protected by regulations that exist under a special zoning district. They point to illegal driveways and bay windows as proof.
"We're trying to preserve the look of the neighborhood," said Arthur Pearson of the Sunnyside Gardens Preservation Alliance. "Right now if folks want to change stuff they can basically do it."
But other residents worry landmarking would limit their freedom to make changes to their homes and drive up the cost of repairs. Longtime residents David and Laura Sidoti said their dreams to build an addition to their third floor would be "virtually impossible" under the new rules. They argued designation reduces the homeowner to a mere "custodian of something you bought and paid for."
Designation would make Sunnyside Gardens the largest historic district in Queens, with more than 600 private homes.
An April hearing turned into a five-hour stretch of testimony. The majority spoke in favor, De Bourbon said, but anti-landmark residents accuse the other side of beefing up support with letters from preservationists who don't live there.
The argument has cut deep to the community's philosophical roots, provoking debate over whether the neighborhood is defined by its buildings or its gardens. Tom Angotti, a professor of urban planning at Hunter College, argues the most valuable historical aspect is the unique design of open spaces.
"In terms of the architectural details Sunnyside is not especially unique," said Angotti. "You can't keep it preserved by making sure every architectural detail is maintained."
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
Another Forest Hills, another rail-based new town proposal (but it's not 1908 anymore). Scroll to pages 9-16, "Forest Hills Village":
http://www.railvolution.com/rv2005_pdfs/rv2005_312c.pdf
Imo, this is the way to go. Queens could be full of these.
How about that? Good city planning, for a change.
^ It's actually quite easy to do --and quite impossible to get past the NIMBYs.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks