Far Upper West Side Now Officially in the Downzone

1.

an act to control inventory and maintaine the housing bubble

2.

how about we replace the ass ad, with a big shlong ad for shlong cleaner.

3.

I love the ass ad, saves me time, I can read Curbed, masturbate, and splatter goo on the LCD screen all at once. Saves me time.

4.

I like to suck nice cocks. Anyone need service?

5.

Where will tall buildings be built? All of Manhattan has been downzoned. There needs to be mix for the City to grow.

6.

This is absolutely a law supported by the rich to further restrict supply and keep prices high.

This kind of law needs to be challenged as unconstitutional. The constitution guarantees equal protection, but this law does nothing but hurt the poor and help the rich. The Upper West Side has great subway access and can easily support higher density development. This is Manhattan. 14 stories? That isn't even a high-rise and is smaller than probably the majority of buildings on Broadway.

Fight the rich!!!

7.

#6: yes, i do believe it is a inventory control for the rich. those people on the community boards are all apartment/property owners. However, removing this control will not help the less rich, since anything built is still luxury. this is all about protecting VIEWS and inventory. Ariel probably blocked a good number of great views. Dont forget, the UWS is generally new money, new money = new new yorkers = complain about what should be expected = no view is guaranteed.

8.

hooray rent inflating regulations!

9.

In case anyone really cares, the rezoning proposal actually increases allowed density - much more important than height when considering inventory - along Broadway and throughout much of the rest of the area.

10.

How could Ariel have blocked "a good number of great views"? Once it clears the surrounding buildings (the height of which there are no objections, it seems), then it isn't blocking ANY view because nothing else that is that tall. Your comment makes no sense. What's blocking "great views" is that everybody will build up to 14 stories and stop. So there will not be the occasional tall building that will afford a grand view of the city. This is unfortunate. Can you imagine if the original residents of what is now Midtown had pushed through similar rules? New York would be nothing without tall buildings.

11.

those are the two ugliest buildings in manhattan.

12.

Yeah! Every city in the history of the world has survived by limiting advancement. Thank god there won't be tall buildings...wouldn't want too many rich people clogging up the streets for the other rich people.

13.

It should be noted that these restrictions apply to the streets between 97th and 110th, Riverside to Central Park. That is a limited portion of the Upper West Side, not the entire neighborhood. It is not "51 blocks" the way we think of blocks. I don't know where they get "51 blocks" from. That suggests 110 - 59, the entire UWS, but the article says it is limited to above 97th. It sounds more like 14 blocks. Are they counting each "block" of land? I count 57 "blocks" on the map not counting the PWV super-blocks. Huh?

14.

huh. with these restrictions and the restrictions being fought for in carroll gardens and who knows where else - does this help the proposed buildings going up in Williamsburg? do we believe the numbers they are saying about increases in NYC population?? 200,000 I heard over the next (i forget) years?

hmmmm

15.

#11 - you're absolutely right. They're f'ing hideous.

16.

I actualy like the look of the West building. The East one is one ugly ass ...

17.

Agreed, the Ariel West tower is better looking and better proportioned. Now that the ground level is almost complete, when you walk past it on the sidewalk, you feel like it's just a 3-story building similar to the neighbors because of the significant setback.

But they seem to be putting up some ugly grey cladding on the north and south mid-rise exposures that don't have windows. Wasn't it supposed to be all-glass?

18.

IMO both buildings are not pretty to look at. The "trim" on both buildings are some sort of fake brick that is a plastic-like substance that looks cheap and unattractive. The buildings have no character, and are out of character with the rest of the buildings surrounding it.

19.

that fake brick stuff is what really ruins it for me.

besides the height and cheap looking glass.

i'm shocked people paid such prices for these things.

good thing is that the next hurricane that hits nyc, that east tower is a goner.

20.

No idea what the original plans were but thank g-d it's not just another all-glass tower or a wrapped in mylar thing likes its hideous brother across the street.

I have to agree with you that the west building looks to be a much nicer building than the east one.

21.

I find it ironic that the Ariel towers are what triggered this reaction. Why wasn't there a similar reaction to the truly ugly and "out of character" mega-towers on Columbus in the West 90's and also Park West Village? The notion that these two buildings came along out of nowhere and did something bad to the UWS that had never been done before is absurd.

22.

Exactly. On the contrary, the Ariel towers are the best thing to happen above 96th street (and to property values above 96th street) in a long time. And with the Whole Foods opening on 99th, well, things are loking pretty good.

West does appear to be a much nicer building than the East one but when you've got the Columbia as the measuring stick, anything looks pretty good.

23.

Hight restrictions are not simply about helping a wealthy elite maintain property values. They're needed to preserve the more human scale and character of a residential neighborhood. High-rises are fine in commercial/business areas like midtown. But the UWS shouldn't have to look like an extension of the west 50s (like the UES does to the east 50s).

24.

Hight restrictions are not simply about helping a wealthy elite maintain property values. They're needed to preserve the more human scale and character of a residential neighborhood. High-rises are fine in commercial/business areas like midtown. But the UWS shouldn't have to look like an extension of the west 50s (like the UES does to the east 50s).

25.

Re. Post no. 6. You are no constitutional scholar, are you. First, and that really should be obvious, equal protection in the US does not extend to wealth. Second, if it did, developers still wouldn't have a constitutional right to get obscenely profitable at the expense of the local communities who don't want their high-rise eyesores--read post No. 23. The downzoning has come to pass thanks to the community board (people in all income brackets per UWS stats), and if it hurts anyone, it's only developers (big money) looking to charge $2M for a 600sf "luxury apartment" in hasty new construction--certainly no help for the "poor." Oh, and the subway? Thanks to Ariel and a slew of other rentals/condos built before the rezoning, a commuter now needs to fear for life every morning on the Broadway line. No, Upper West Side CANNOT and SHOULD NOT support higher density of population. You go live in high-density areas, if you so desire. Let local communities decide for themselves what their neighborhood will be like.

26.

#10 is an idiot. the high buildings block the view of people in lower buildings. how can i put it? you are an idiot

27.

All this talk of neighborhood "character" and "human scale" is nostalgic, humanistic rubbish. As if 14 stories were human scaled. As if "character" (define?) weren't a mutable thing that evolves as neighborhoods do. preservationists may be in the business of turning their neighborhood into museum (see old Paris), but manhattan was built on optimism and innovation. Who's to say that in the 21st century, we cannot have comfortable neighbhorhoods rising 50 stories? This is a simultaneous policy, design and financing opportunity. It would certainly reduce our carbon footprint, among other things. But nimbys dont really pay attention to such things, given that they're too busy defending the fort.

28.

All this talk of neighborhood "character" and "human scale" is nostalgic, humanistic rubbish. As if 14 stories were human scaled. As if "character" (define?) weren't a mutable thing that evolves as neighborhoods do. preservationists may be in the business of turning their neighborhood into museum (see old Paris), but manhattan was built on optimism and innovation. Who's to say that in the 21st century, we cannot have comfortable neighbhorhoods rising 50 stories? This is a simultaneous policy, design and financing opportunity. It would certainly reduce our carbon footprint, among other things. But nimbys dont really pay attention to such things, given that they're too busy defending the fort.