Why isn't Brooklyn packed with more skyscrapers?

HomrQT · #1 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 2:42 AM**

What's your theory on why Brooklyn doesn't have more tall buildings? Property values in various areas of Brooklyn are through the roof and most of Brooklyn is packed to the gills with residents. You'd think this would establish a climate for tall building construction. And not one supertall yet? What's the hold up?

Hudson11 · #2 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 2:55 AM**

simple, Brooklyn's more spacious, so historically there was no need to build tall. Today there's also a lot of zoning rules which I don't know much about so I wont go into

jd3189 · #3 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 3:20 AM**

Most of NYC's historic growth and power has always been situated in Manhattan. The outer boroughs were always more residential and didn't need offices packed into skyscrapers. They also are more spacious, as Hudson11 explained. Brooklyn is only dense by American standards. It is still pretty standard globally. There are a lot of property owned by single middle class families.

HomrQT · #4 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 3:49 PM**

Ok so potentially zoning regulations and too much property being owned by single families is preventing the buildout? Because I have to believe that a tall dense building would sell out fairly quickly in Brookyln if priced correctly.

Crawford · #5 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

What's your theory on why Brooklyn doesn't have more tall buildings?

Why would there be more tall buildings in Brooklyn? In 95% of Brooklyn, skyscrapers aren't allowed by zoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Property values in various areas of Brooklyn are through the roof and most of Brooklyn is packed to the gills with residents. You'd think this would establish a climate for tall building construction. And not one supertall yet? What's the hold up

Tall building construction has nothing to do with density or property values.

In any case, Brooklyn has a large number of highrises planned and u/c, because of more recent rezonings designed to allow highrises around transit (and especially around downtown Brooklyn).

Crawford · #6 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

Because I have to believe that a tall dense building would sell out fairly quickly in Brookyln if priced correctly.

You realize there are lots of 500-750 ft. buildings being built/planned in Brooklyn, right? The prices for these buildings are as high or higher than pretty much anywhere in the U.S. outside of Manhattan.

HomrQT · #7 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

You realize there are lots of 500-750 ft. buildings being built/planned in Brooklyn, right? The prices for these buildings are as high or higher than pretty much anywhere in the U.S. outside of Manhattan.

No I didn't realize this. Is there a spot on skyscraperpage where they're being discussed, because I only see stuff about Manhattan.

HomrQT · #8 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why would there be more tall buildings in Brooklyn? In 95% of Brooklyn, skyscrapers aren't allowed by zoning.

I was just made aware of zoning issues if you look to the posts above this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Tall building construction has nothing to do with density or property values.

In any case, Brooklyn has a large number of highrises planned and u/c, because of more recent rezonings designed to allow highrises around transit (and especially around downtown Brooklyn).

I believe density and property values have a ton to do with tall building construction...

jpdivola · #9 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 6:23 PM**

Yeah, the lack of tall buildings in Brooklyn is basically a zoning issue. Historically, there was a small cluster of high rises around downtown Brooklyn from the early 20th century. But, downtown stagnated in the later half of the 20th century, with only marginal new construction in that period. Outside downtown, high rises are basically limited to mid-century tower-in-the-park style public housing projects throughout the borough.

In the past 10 years, Brooklyn has embraced high rise construction once again, in a somewhat limited manor. The city rezoned downtown Brooklyn and the Williamsburg and Greenpoint waterfront to allow new high rise development. For better or for worse, these rezonings were accompanied by offsetting down-zonings in other parts of the borough, so the net increase in allowable density was actually pretty modest.

Outside of these high rise zones, most of Brooklyn is low rise row houses. Brooklyn is just as dominated by NIMBYs as the rest of the country, so there is no political will to rezone these areas to allow for greater density. This leaves only room for limited "contextual infill", basically super expensive 3-4 story infill townhouses and 5-7 story tall condos on old industrial lots.

By the standards of most American cities the pace of high construction in Brooklyn would be impressive. But, relative to the enormous scale of NYC, the high rises are basically a drop in the bucket and will do very little to address the demand. Brooklyn isn't really full on embracing high rise living in the way a city like Toronto is.

Fardeb · #10 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

No I didn't realize this. Is there a spot on skyscraperpage where they're being discussed, because I only see stuff about Manhattan.

I do wish there was a space somewhere on here to discuss just outer borough developments as they tend to just get lost amongst all the Manhattan stuff in any general New York thread.

Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg/Greenpoint waterfront, and LIC will collectively have a pretty decent collection of highrises and skyscrapers in the coming years. I think all thats missing is a really distinctive 200+ meter tower in Downtown Brooklyn to cap things off, that would start to change the dynamics quite a bit.

chris08876 · #11 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 7:40 PM**

I was watching a video yesterday, the 29th, of a plane landing in Laguardia and the plane took the usual flight route through Brooklyn and Queens. The amount of new development and high rises sprouting around the boroughs outside of Manhattan is very impressive as seen from the air. You can even see the differences by looking at landing videos from 2009, and comparing them to 2014. The change is pretty dramatic in LIC and downtown Brooklyn.

A lot of it has to do with zoning, but it is changing fast in terms of high rise developments. Certain areas are becoming denser and overtime zoning might change to allow for higher density. Mr.Bloomberg actually altered a lot of zones in Queens and Brooklyn to allow for bigger developments. I'm sure De Blasio with his pro construction stance will see that projects go through.

It will take time, as its easy to look at Manhattan with its 1000's of high rises and look at Queens and Brooklyn and think that there isn't a lot of skyscrapers but there is. Most of the growth in NYC is in these boroughs, (see 2013 census estimates), and it will only further fuel the high rise boom.

scalziand · #12 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 8:34 PM**

HomrQT · #13 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Yeah, the lack of tall buildings in Brooklyn is basically a zoning issue. Historically, there was a small cluster of high rises around downtown Brooklyn from the early 20th century. But, downtown stagnated in the later half of the 20th century, with only marginal new construction in that period. Outside downtown, high rises are basically limited to mid-century tower-in-the-park style public housing projects throughout the borough.

In the past 10 years, Brooklyn has embraced high rise construction once again, in a somewhat limited manor. The city rezoned downtown Brooklyn and the Williamsburg and Greenpoint waterfront to allow new high rise development. For better or for worse, these rezonings were accompanied by offsetting down-zonings in other parts of the borough, so the net increase in allowable density was actually pretty modest.

Outside of these high rise zones, most of Brooklyn is low rise row houses. Brooklyn is just as dominated by NIMBYs as the rest of the country, so there is no political will to rezone these areas to allow for greater density. This leaves only room for limited "contextual infill", basically super expensive 3-4 story infill townhouses and 5-7 story tall condos on old industrial lots.

By the standards of most American cities the pace of high construction in Brooklyn would be impressive. But, relative to the enormous scale of NYC, the high rises are basically a drop in the bucket and will do very little to address the demand. Brooklyn isn't really full on embracing high rise living in the way a city like Toronto is.

It never crossed my mind NIMBY's in New York, but that could be a force to reckon with if they are very neighborhood oriented and able to support each other in large numbers.

HomrQT · #14 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 11:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fardeb

I do wish there was a space somewhere on here to discuss just outer borough developments as they tend to just get lost amongst all the Manhattan stuff in any general New York thread.

Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg/Greenpoint waterfront, and LIC will collectively have a pretty decent collection of highrises and skyscrapers in the coming years. I think all thats missing is a really distinctive 200+ meter tower in Downtown Brooklyn to cap things off, that would start to change the dynamics quite a bit.

I would definitely visit a Brooklyn forum often. I lived in Bensonhurst for a year and like to keep up with parts of Brooklyn I visited. I do believe one really tall building that offers a contrast to across the river from Manhattan would propel Brooklyn into building upwards with more vigor.

HomrQT · #15 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 11:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand

Thanks for throwing these together! I apologize I was too lazy to go locate them. With so many projects happening, Brooklyn deserves its own thread.

Zapatan · #16 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189

Most of NYC's historic growth and power has always been situated in Manhattan. The outer boroughs were always more residential and didn't need offices packed into skyscrapers. They also are more spacious, as Hudson11 explained. Brooklyn is only dense by American standards. It is still pretty standard globally. There are a lot of property owned by single middle class families.

Dense by American standards? Manhattan is one of the densest urban settings in the world right up there with Hong Kong and Tokyo, why are American standards lower?

Crawford · #17 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

No I didn't realize this. Is there a spot on skyscraperpage where they're being discussed, because I only see stuff about Manhattan.

There's actually more construction activity in Brooklyn than in Manhattan. Most years it isn't even close.

And I wouldn't use SSP as a proxy for where buildings are being built. Threads are created because that's where forumers live.

If you just looked at the SSP highrise construction threads, I think one would conclude that Calgary and Philadelphia are the cities with the most robust highrise construction on earth. It may just be that there's someone meticulously documenting every single building going up in Calgary, while no one is doing the same for somewhere else.

Guiltyspark · #18 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 11:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Dense by American standards? Manhattan is one of the densest urban settings in the world right up there with Hong Kong and Tokyo, why are American standards lower?

He said Brooklyn, not Manhattan. American density is lower because we have a relatively low population per square mile compared to a lot of other nations and a large middle class which has historically preferred living in single family homes. It really isn't that hard to figure out.

Crawford · #19 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 11:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomrQT

]I believe density and property values have a ton to do with tall building construction...

Really? Why would you think this?

SF has the second highest urban density in the U.S., and probably the second highest property values. So why does SF not have the second most number of tall buildings in the U.S.?

Chicago is the city with the #2 amount of tall buildings in the U.S, yet Chicago is nowhere close to having the second highest property values.

Or, in Europe, London has the highest property values, yet very few highrises.

Or, even in Manhattan, many of the areas with the highest property values have very few highrises. The West Village may be the most expensive urban neighborhood on the planet (at least on per square foot basis) yet few highrises.

Crawford · #20 Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 11:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guiltyspark

He said Brooklyn, not Manhattan.

Brooklyn has higher density than Tokyo, though. It's quite dense by global, developed-world standards. Probably the only first-world places on earth with much higher density than Brooklyn over a large area would be Hong Kong and Manhattan.

And again, there is more housing construction in Brooklyn than in Manhattan. Much more. Don't take SSP threads as indicative of anything. Last year, Brooklyn permitted 50% more housing units than Manhattan. Brooklyn permitted more than twice as many housing units as the entire City of Chicago.