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 ooanamsPage 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 Parkand 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