Today's Daily News has an article on a plan to have 95 percent of West Harlem rezoned so that building heights will not go above six stories for residential blocks, eight stories on the avenue and twelve stories on Broadway. This contextual zoning will prevent any large scale new developments from happening on empty lots and some say slow the momentum of gentrification in the area. The Department of City Planning has approved the proposal which would changed West Harlem's zoning for the first time since 1961 but it will take several months for it to go to vote pending a public review period. Only 145th Street will be allowed to have taller buildings so condo development might be able to revive that area in the future. Read more in the Daily News:
LINK
These zoning heights are not so restrictive when compared to most of the new buildings in the last decade. Most recent developments would still be allowed as they fall within these limits. But for vacant lots, it seems too restrictive. One example of a recent large development is the controversial Fifth on the Park, which in my opinion is okay and in fact benefits the area by introducing many new market rate, higher income, tax paying Harlemites. Preventing another Fifth on the Park in West Harlem on a vacant lot is dysfunctional. If the powers that be want to get serious about quality of life and non contextual buildings in Harlem, do something about the housing projects.
ReplyDeleteHey, Westsider. . .you live near Fifth on the Park? I do and while I am sure it's a lovely building it doesn't belong there. Casts a huge shadow *on* the Park for starters. And while I will attempt not to judge my neighbors I don't think I would go as far as to call them "Harlemites.". They tend to scurry down the street and in and out of their building with as little interaction as possible. They certainly don't seem to have gotten the memo that if you have not said "good morning" or "good evening" at least seven times before you hit the corner you ain't doing it right. I usually throw in "have a blessed day" just to make a change.
ReplyDeleteSM - way harsh -- I do not live in 5th on the park but know many great folks that do; and they certainly are interested in the welfare of the community and are pleasant on the street. People, including residents of 5otP, are very congenial in our neighborhood and it is a special part of why I think the future looks bright for central Harlem. 5otP can be a boon for the mount morris area and we all need encourage a community that is inclusive.
DeleteSM, Fifth on the Park residents are Harlemites by virtue of their neighborhood, and are entitled to be regarded as such, however they choose to socialize. They do contribute to the community by paying taxes by virtue of the fact they are likely higher income individuals. It is not good to stereotype as I know many new to Harlem do in fact like to interact and are involved in the community. But I do agree, not every newcomer embraces Harlem’s hospitality and they are missing out on a great part of the neighborhood. As for the building itself, it looks okay, as for the forever mentioned shadow, I thought most folks like shade, especially in the summer months.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Harlem will fight against every effort to make it a better place to live. Amazing...
ReplyDelete@Westsider -- 100% correct.
This is a horrible idea. Not only will it insure that Harlem remains poor and run down, but that development money will go to other areas of the city. Protect the brownstones. Great. But 90 blocks? Give me a break. A homogeneous community that lacks educational and economic diversity will push the best and brightest out and downtown. This kind of "protection" is keeping Harlem down.
ReplyDeleteWestsider--cast a shadow on Central Park and see how fast your project gets shot down.
ReplyDeleteits okay to overbuild on the upper east side BUT not ANY towers in Harlem?
ReplyDeleteand why? to stop "gentrification" .....? Hard working taxpayers coming to the area is a GOOD THING FOR EVERYONE.. Rangel and company want to go back to the 1970s? I think not..
This is a terrible idea. New development is a good thing and something west harlem could use more of.
ReplyDeleteSanou's mom-All of those high rises on cpw, and on 5th, and central park south. All around central park and there are no shadow problems that you speak of
To protect and limit development makes sense on the brownstone side streets as this is Harlem’s treasure, but to limit height on the avenues, especially where the buildings are not that special, then it makes sense to allow Harlem to flourish. I understand protecting the fabulous architecture of lower Lenox for example, but some avenues have vacant lots and cheap low rise store fronts that towers would only improve. So maybe the solution is on an Avenue by Avenue basis. Also limiting height does not protect architecture as a developer can still replace an old building, it just limits the incentive. I fear this rezoning is no more veiled attempt to slow down the development of Harlem.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great debate and i land on the side of building the neighbourhood, look the Upper East sitting right next to the Vanderbilt mansions are highrises and there is nothing wrong with it. This just stinks of pandering to people who will complain about everything and would rather wallow than grow.
ReplyDeleteAlso re the "new" Harlemites yes I would rather if they would embrace the hello and good morning culture but we surely cannot expect everyone to be the same as we cannot expect all the houses to be the same.
More taxpayers = a better Harlem. Look what is going on now on Lenox!!!
A cautionary tale--the first downfall ofHarlem came from overbuilding. All the brownstones and all the grand apartment buildings got thrown up over about ten years' time.
ReplyDeleteY'all are assuming that if you build it they will come.
I also never understand moving somewhere because you like it and then wanting it to change. I reference SoHo. Brrrrrr.
Sanou, I am NOT talking about knocking down perfectly good brownstones and building taller structures, this is about building on empty lots or removing buildings that are beyond help.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that people are still moving here based on recent sales and rentals.
Well, if it would avoid atrocities like the 22 story building slated for the corner of 110th and Manhattan Avenue, blocking morning sun to Morningside Park, I'm all for it.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Burden this is your idea of City planning?
ReplyDeleteBlocking high density development in a area that private developers avoided for 80-90 years? WITH an infrastructure of mass transit that would cost billions to build anew?
While encouraging blank boxes along the Riverfront in Greenpoint where there is NO train directly to Manhattan?
Why? because some NIMBYS and their handmaiden political cronnies would rather wallow in the welfare state?
Here is an idea - instead of handouts how about grants to encourage local Harlemites to start new businesses in the empty retail spaces?
Job creation? increase the tax base? encourage personal growth? Nah, too radical, best to keep things the way they are and fight change