Reply With QuoteThe dark-colored, upper, set-backed portion is going to come out looking awful. Guaranteed.
Reminds me of the Melar on the UWS:
Should have gone with the same treatment as the much better, glassy mid portion.
The dark-colored, upper, set-backed portion is going to come out looking awful. Guaranteed.
Reminds me of the Melar on the UWS:
Should have gone with the same treatment as the much better, glassy mid portion.
Exactly ^
To put the heavier looking more enclosed portion up top is just bizarre.
But... but... but isn't that what laws are supposed to do?Originally Posted by Merry
This building illustrates the scale/footprint problems that result from being allowed to assemble so many properties in a place where the scale is diminutive.
Maybe that's what should be regulated in place of the closing time of the roof deck.
Well this is the zoning the city passed last year that created height limits throughout the E Village and LES to supposedly protect it's character.
..because squat buildings that take up an entire block are so common here, right? The new zoning will probably destroy more historical buildings than the previous one.
Doesn't seem that the proposal here in the EV meets that zoning image regarding setbacks.
But this one is north of Houston, so perhaps that LES re-zoning doesn't apply to this lot?
Or maybe I'm being too literal regarding the image ...
Houston St has been rezoned R8A and the diagram I attached shows the C6-2A zoning for Delancey. They both have a 120' height limit and require a 60' -85' street wall, one just limits commercial development.
R8A
R8A is proposed for the north side of Delancey Street between Clinton and Pitt streets, the west side of Pitt Street between Delancey and Rivington streets, Houston Street between Avenue A and Avenue D, and the west side of Avenue D from Houston to E 10th Street , areas that are currently zoned R7-2. In conjunction with the proposed zoning text amendment described below, the R8A district would permit a maximum FAR of 7.2 for residential use, if affordable housing units were provided. For residential development that does not include any affordable housing units, the maximum FAR would be limited to 5.4. Community facility uses would be limited to a maximum 6.5 FAR. R8A is a contextual district that requires a street wall between 60 and 85 feet high and limits overall building height to 120 feet. The contextual building envelope regulations would apply to all types of development, regardless of use or density.
C6-2A is proposed for Delancey Street west of the midblock between Clinton and Suffolk street, Houston Street west of Essex Street, Second Avenue between Houston and East 3rd streets, and the west side of Chrystie Street between grand and Stanton streets. These areas are currently zoned C6-1. In conjunction with the proposed zoning text amendment described below, the C6-2A district --like the R8A-- would permit a maximum FAR of 7.2 for residential use if affordable housing units were provided, 6.0 for commercial use, and 6.5 for community facility use. For residential development that does not include any affordable housing units, the maximum FAR would be limited to 5.4. C6-2A is a contextual district that requires a street wall between 60 and 85 feet and limits maximum building height to 120 feet. The contextual building envelope regulations would apply to all types of development, regardless of use or density.
Looks like this one doesn't comply, considering the corners go straight up 12 stories (~120') without a setback along the street wall and the zoning text mandates that the streetwall can rise to a max of 85' before a setback.
But what do I know:
Here's the site on Google Map
CB3's land use/zoning committee narrowly approved the proposal
To me, the rendering does meet the regs. You can see that there is a setback at around the 8th floor.
It could also mean the setback requirements could be loosely interpreted as long as there is some sort of setback or as long as certain portion of the streetwall meets that criteria, it's acceptable.
But it states:
if a building can go straight to 120' up all along the streetwall to 120' then why does the language say "between"... requires a street wall between 60 and 85 feet high ...
To me that means the street wall must reach a minimum of 60' but shouldn't rise higher than 85'
Fully agreed.
If the intent is to protect the scale of the LES, then a building's footprint and width should also be taken into account in addition to just height.
Out-of-scale can apply to short but wide buildings as well. As it is right now, developers are going to assemble as many plots as necessary in order to get enough air rights to build up to the 12 story height limit.
I'm amazed that the so-called experts over at City Planning didn't think this through when they came up with this misguided, half-assed rezoning.
But then again, what do you expect when a socialite, whose greatest achievement before being allowed to rewrite the entire city's zoning books was probably planning parties and guest lists, is their leader?
Clemente Soto Velez Cultural Center, Suffolk Street
What a gorgeous old building.
http://www.thelodownny.com/leslog/20...nter.html#more
Indeed.
Great future condos.
Is it protected though?
Not Landmarked, but as mentioned in that article ^ it's currently undergoing facade & roof repair / renovation:
REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT OF CRACKED MSAONRY UNITS, DAMAGED TERRA COTTA UNITS, EXISTING FLASHING, WEEPS, STEEL LINTELS & BRICK MASONRY. SPANDREL BEAM REPAIR THROUGHOUT. INSTALLATION OF FLASHING, NEW COPPER LINERS & IMMITATION SHINGLE TILE ROOF. DORMER MASONRY RECONSTRUCTION. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN USE, EGRESS OR OCCUPANCY UNDER THIS APPLICATION.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks