WhatTheHeck5205 |
Jul 22, 2018 9:18 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876
(Post 8256077)
Yet again, what would an untamed NYC look like? One that is a sandbox for developers ambitions and dreams?
|
An “untamed” NYC would probably be very bland and boxy and not even remotely as appealing as it sounds. Zoning laws determine the overall shape and massing of a building, which is equally, if not more important than facade ornament in determining a building’s architectural identity. The setback shape of the ESB, Chrysler and every other prewar tower in NYC—exactly the style this tower seeks to emulate—are the direct result of zoning restrictions. The same goes for the plazas of the Seagram, Lever House and other midcentury towers, as well as the shape of 53W53, Hudson Yards, Bjarke’s pyramid and literally every other major tower of this cycle. So while I’d absolutely be in favor of eliminating height limits on at least part of the site, as the 1916 zoning code did, under no circumstances should we abandon the zoning code entirely.
Imagine if NYC were to abandon all zoning laws. 99% of new buildings would likely be giant shoeboxes built right up to the lot line on all sides. Only the most high-end developments would sacrifice potential floor area for the sake of design. This would leave us with something like the Equitable Building as the best case scenario—worst case, the XYZ Buildings on 6th Ave, repeated ad infinitum. The end result would be much less Coruscant and much more Judge Dredd—and NYC would likely lose much of its appeal in the public’s imagination.
So, not trying to pick a fight, I just gotta remind everyone of the positive impact zoning laws—especially setback, sky-exposure plane and light court requirements—have had on design. For that reason, I wouldn’t suggest eliminating them—or God forbid, NYC will start to look like Houston :haha:
(Nothing against Houston btw, they just have absolutely no zoning laws at all and their boxy af skyline shows it).
|