DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
(GY OF NEW YORK.
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
‘August 12, 2015
Dear Senators, Assembly Member, Borough President and Couneil Members
‘Thank you for your July 23% leter regarding recent “supertal” buildings along 57 Street and
We are beginning to assess some of the issues you and others have raised ~ particularly the
impact of shadows on Cenval Park. At least one concern you mention ~ the abuse of tax
abatements — was a driving force behind the de Blasio administration's push fora major revision
of the 421-a program. As aresult of the Mayor's efforts, significant changes were adopted by
the legislature this past session which should reduce, if not eliminate, the ullization of the
program for multi-million collar luxury penthouses: 421-a will no longer be available for
condominiums and co-ops ir midtown Manhattan. And, ofcourse, we also agree with you that
the strictest standards of safety must be adhered to throughout the construction process,
It's important to note, however, that Midiown Manhattan has always been a high density
bulk area given its concentration of mass transit and is role as the city's premier business district
‘These new high-rise buildings were built pursuant to existing bulk and density regulations, No-
new floor area allowances — either through rezoning or bonus - were created for these “super
tall” developments. Given the important role Midtovin Manhattan plays inthe city's economy,
wwe have no immediate plans o reduce the current as-of-rght density or bulk requirements The
supertall” buildings occu: due to a redistribution of available development bulk from
neighboring sites through zoning lot mergers. Additional bulk on one portion of the merged
zoning lot requires a permanent retirement of potential bulk that could otherwise have been built
‘on another part of the merged zoning lt.
‘anata Seat 2M, New YareN S0DT 216
thie) neoaen FAX nels
‘een ooanamsPage 2
‘August 12, 2015
Letter to Elected on Super-Tall Buildings
Tn S7™ Street Corridor
‘Thus, “super tall” buildings do have the effect of presciving existing height on neighboring
sites, which usually also means that buildings with different heights and of cifferent eras (even.
iF not of landmark quality) ave much less ikely 19 be demolished. This often leads to-a move
imerestng streetscape and pedestrian experience, as well as resulting in an incredibly dynami
iconic skyline that i the envy of the world. 11 avoids a solid wall of very all buildings along
certain sieets and avenues. The 57" Steet corridor hae always had w mixed-height character
which these new additions actually may help preserve. The lower-scule fabri alvo allows for
‘move light andl arto the steets and sidewalks.
We share your eancem about the effect of shadows on Central Park, which we all recognize is
‘an invaluable public resource. AS we think about the effect of these new buildings on the park
we note that the shadows of tal, slender towers move more swiltly and efficiently than those of
‘squatter buildings with a simiat built FAR,
‘Thus, there are tnde-ofls between slender buildings which east a shadow deeper into the park
in certain periods ofthe year, but for very short time, as opposed to 4 wall of somewhat fess
{all buildings, like the Wall of apartment-hotel buildings along Central Park South, that cover 2
segment ofthe southern portion of the park for much of the day throughout the year. This is &
rather complex balancing of impacts which we will continue to moniter,
[uu fora to discussing this with you faster as we Lautan to assess the Situation,
‘Attachment (1)July 23, 2015
Carl Weisbrod
Chair
Department of City Planning
22 Reade Steet
‘New York, NY 10007
Dear Chair Weisbrod!
We write to voice aur concer about the impacts of as-f-ightsupertall buildings in the 57th
Stret corridor below Central Park and ts environs, We ask for yourassistance in mitigating the
proliferation of these buildings, ineluding implementing the recommendations of Manhattan
‘Community Boat 5.
Many New Yorkers ate surprised to lear that these buildings could be constructed asoFight
with no public review. We believe that their enormous size and scale adversely impact the
Surtounding community, most dramatically on the southern part of Cental Park.
‘A recent report by Community Board S's Sunshine Task Force itemzes concems ofthe
‘community and preservation advocates that we share. We are especially concemed about:
4+ The lack of transparency in approval of lege towers,
‘+The lack of protectin far ae and light in open space, especially the impact on
Central Park. The report notes thatthe New York City Zoning Resolution does
not currently contain any provisions to address shadow impacts on parks fom
nearby development and observes tht other cites, including Boston and San
Francisco have suceesfilly implemented ordinances protecting public spaces
From shadows.
‘+Tax loopholes and the abuse oftax abatement programs like 421-, that were
‘reated to encourage the development of affordable tousing and not mult-
nillion dollar luxury penthouses.
‘+The vulnerability of historic resources,
++ The concems for constuction safety of pedestrians, seighboring buildings
construction workers and the general population.
\We also draw your attention tothe petition being circulated by the Committee for
Environmentally Sound Development. It urges 8 stop to mega-development near Central Parkand calls upon the City to focus on environmental impact and quality of ie issues (eg
‘congestion trai, noise, diminished sunlight, sewers, garbage, ec.) when large projects are
being proposed. These issues should be taken into consideration when revising curren zoning
regulations. The petition demands:
+ Height imi,
+ Environmental impact studies for buildings over 25 stores, with no asofright
buildings ofthat height
+ Consideration of existing density and congestion on neighborhood streets.
Operable windows
‘+ Adherence to Public Trust and Open Space Doctrine.
‘+ Prohibition of tal buildings in low-lying areas subject to sea rise and storm
surges.
+ Prohibition of shadows in parks caused by new development.
+ Designation of landmark sites to ensure contextual zoning in Historie Dist
‘We appreciate the complexity ofthese issues, and we want to srke the right balance between
allowing irresponsible new developmen, proteting quality of lif, and preserving our valued
patks and other open spaces. Accordingly, we ask the Department of City Planing to seriously
consider te recommendations contained in Manhattan Community Board $'s report and to
consider the Commitee for Environmentally Sound Developments petition. We look forward
to your response and to working with you and appropriate community organizations on these
Sincerely
wet. DoD I2
Dat De g OBee Leakey
Daniel R.Garodnisk Gale A. Brewer Lic Krueger
Coun Member Maiacan Borough President Stat Senor
Brak k oh Larrys
Myon Gg
Brad Hosinan Corey tohnson Ma Levine
Sue Semor ‘Cou ember Coun Member
Richard N. Gottfried
Assembly Member