Comments on: How to Sidestep FAR Restrictions: Mezzanine Floors http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/ Urbanism for Capitalists / Capitalism for Urbanists Sun, 20 May 2012 15:18:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: BC real estate http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-4963 BC real estate Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:49:02 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-4963 Holy smokes that is so low, surely that can't be legal?? Holy smokes that is so low, surely that can’t be legal??

]]> By: BC real estate http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-8815 BC real estate Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:49:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-8815 Holy smokes that is so low, surely that can't be legal?? Holy smokes that is so low, surely that can’t be legal??

]]> By: Sean LeRoy http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-4786 Sean LeRoy Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:24:40 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-4786 In the City of Kirkland, WA we've written into the code that floor area w/ more than 5' of head room would count toward FAR, usually applied to attic areas, though. Our code is written in such a way as to limit 'bulk and mass', but I agree that it often is counter-productive toward even that end! In fact, come to think of it, one neighborhood - who has the opt-out option - chose not to have an FAR reg; and from that standpoint you could argue that the other 'restrictions' work better anyways to achieve the necessary balance. In the City of Kirkland, WA we’ve written into the code that floor area w/ more than 5′ of head room would count toward FAR, usually applied to attic areas, though. Our code is written in such a way as to limit ‘bulk and mass’, but I agree that it often is counter-productive toward even that end! In fact, come to think of it, one neighborhood – who has the opt-out option – chose not to have an FAR reg; and from that standpoint you could argue that the other ‘restrictions’ work better anyways to achieve the necessary balance.

]]> By: Sean LeRoy http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-8814 Sean LeRoy Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:24:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-8814 In the City of Kirkland, WA we've written into the code that floor area w/ more than 5' of head room would count toward FAR, usually applied to attic areas, though. Our code is written in such a way as to limit 'bulk and mass', but I agree that it often is counter-productive toward even that end! In fact, come to think of it, one neighborhood - who has the opt-out option - chose not to have an FAR reg; and from that standpoint you could argue that the other 'restrictions' work better anyways to achieve the necessary balance. In the City of Kirkland, WA we’ve written into the code that floor area w/ more than 5′ of head room would count toward FAR, usually applied to attic areas, though. Our code is written in such a way as to limit ‘bulk and mass’, but I agree that it often is counter-productive toward even that end! In fact, come to think of it, one neighborhood – who has the opt-out option – chose not to have an FAR reg; and from that standpoint you could argue that the other ‘restrictions’ work better anyways to achieve the necessary balance.

]]> By: Benjamin Hemric http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-4754 Benjamin Hemric Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:46:10 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-4754 NYC's original zoning code (1916-1961) did not employ a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) regulation system and was thus, conceptually speaking at least, a much better (and, also, more market urbanism-oriented) zoning code, in my opinion. If I remember correctly from what I've seen of the 1916 code so far, the 1916 code was much more circumspect than the current one, and it restricted itself, more or less, to regulating the kind of things that a zoning code should be, so it seems to me, legitimately regulating -- the allowable negative impacts (e.g., shadows) that a given property owner can impose on others (and vice versa). Furthermore, it seems to me that the regulations in the 1916 code were better related to what was being regulated (e.g., the width of a street being the basis for height and set-back regulations, with the regulations for a certain width street varying from one type of zone to another). And while these regulations did differ from one zone to another (making them, indeed, "zoning" -- zoned building regulations, rather than city-wide ones), the variations among the various zones were, if I remember correctly, relatively modest ones. Also, unlike today's zoning, it seems to me that the 1916 code was more tolerant of a mix of uses. For instance, the South Village (which is now thought of as being a part of SoHo), was (if I'm understanding the regulations correctly) an "unrestricted zone," which allowed for a mix of residences and light industry. (If I recall correctly, one impetus for the 1961 revision was, in fact, that planners, like James (?) Felt [someone Jane Jacobs thought of as the enemy], believed that the 1916 code was too lax in its separation of uses.) Today's F.A.R.-based NYC zoning code, on the other hand, seems to be specifically set up so that "planners" (and community groups) can "regulate" (in truth, "micro-manage" and stifle) the amount and location of new development within the City. The emphasis moved from setting allowable limits (e.g., how much shadow I can create for my neighbor and how much shadow my neighbor can create for me) that might reasonably differ somewhat from one type of zone to another (e.g., manufacturing vs. residential) to making it feasible for urban planners to try to plan for (i.e., spur) or restrict development -- in much the same way that economic planners once tried to spur economic development in certain sectors of the economy (and in certain localities of a nation) while retarding it in others. NYC’s original zoning code (1916-1961) did not employ a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) regulation system and was thus, conceptually speaking at least, a much better (and, also, more market urbanism-oriented) zoning code, in my opinion. If I remember correctly from what I’ve seen of the 1916 code so far, the 1916 code was much more circumspect than the current one, and it restricted itself, more or less, to regulating the kind of things that a zoning code should be, so it seems to me, legitimately regulating — the allowable negative impacts (e.g., shadows) that a given property owner can impose on others (and vice versa).

Furthermore, it seems to me that the regulations in the 1916 code were better related to what was being regulated (e.g., the width of a street being the basis for height and set-back regulations, with the regulations for a certain width street varying from one type of zone to another). And while these regulations did differ from one zone to another (making them, indeed, “zoning” — zoned building regulations, rather than city-wide ones), the variations among the various zones were, if I remember correctly, relatively modest ones.

Also, unlike today’s zoning, it seems to me that the 1916 code was more tolerant of a mix of uses. For instance, the South Village (which is now thought of as being a part of SoHo), was (if I’m understanding the regulations correctly) an “unrestricted zone,” which allowed for a mix of residences and light industry. (If I recall correctly, one impetus for the 1961 revision was, in fact, that planners, like James (?) Felt [someone Jane Jacobs thought of as the enemy], believed that the 1916 code was too lax in its separation of uses.)

Today’s F.A.R.-based NYC zoning code, on the other hand, seems to be specifically set up so that “planners” (and community groups) can “regulate” (in truth, “micro-manage” and stifle) the amount and location of new development within the City. The emphasis moved from setting allowable limits (e.g., how much shadow I can create for my neighbor and how much shadow my neighbor can create for me) that might reasonably differ somewhat from one type of zone to another (e.g., manufacturing vs. residential) to making it feasible for urban planners to try to plan for (i.e., spur) or restrict development — in much the same way that economic planners once tried to spur economic development in certain sectors of the economy (and in certain localities of a nation) while retarding it in others.

]]> By: Benjamin Hemric http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-8813 Benjamin Hemric Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:46:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/02/24/how-to-sidestep-far-restrictions-mezzanine-floors/#comment-8813 NYC's original zoning code (1916-1961) did not employ a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) regulation system and was thus, conceptually speaking at least, a much better (and, also, more market urbanism-oriented) zoning code, in my opinion. If I remember correctly from what I've seen of the 1916 code so far, the 1916 code was much more circumspect than the current one, and it restricted itself, more or less, to regulating the kind of things that a zoning code should be, so it seems to me, legitimately regulating -- the allowable negative impacts (e.g., shadows) that a given property owner can impose on others (and vice versa). Furthermore, it seems to me that the regulations in the 1916 code were better related to what was being regulated (e.g., the width of a street being the basis for height and set-back regulations, with the regulations for a certain width street varying from one type of zone to another). And while these regulations did differ from one zone to another (making them, indeed, "zoning" -- zoned building regulations, rather than city-wide ones), the variations among the various zones were, if I remember correctly, relatively modest ones. Also, unlike today's zoning, it seems to me that the 1916 code was more tolerant of a mix of uses. For instance, the South Village (which is now thought of as being a part of SoHo), was (if I'm understanding the regulations correctly) an "unrestricted zone," which allowed for a mix of residences and light industry. (If I recall correctly, one impetus for the 1961 revision was, in fact, that planners, like James (?) Felt [someone Jane Jacobs thought of as the enemy], believed that the 1916 code was too lax in its separation of uses.) Today's F.A.R.-based NYC zoning code, on the other hand, seems to be specifically set up so that "planners" (and community groups) can "regulate" (in truth, "micro-manage" and stifle) the amount and location of new development within the City. The emphasis moved from setting allowable limits (e.g., how much shadow I can create for my neighbor and how much shadow my neighbor can create for me) that might reasonably differ somewhat from one type of zone to another (e.g., manufacturing vs. residential) to making it feasible for urban planners to try to plan for (i.e., spur) or restrict development -- in much the same way that economic planners once tried to spur economic development in certain sectors of the economy (and in certain localities of a nation) while retarding it in others. NYC’s original zoning code (1916-1961) did not employ a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) regulation system and was thus, conceptually speaking at least, a much better (and, also, more market urbanism-oriented) zoning code, in my opinion. If I remember correctly from what I’ve seen of the 1916 code so far, the 1916 code was much more circumspect than the current one, and it restricted itself, more or less, to regulating the kind of things that a zoning code should be, so it seems to me, legitimately regulating — the allowable negative impacts (e.g., shadows) that a given property owner can impose on others (and vice versa).

Furthermore, it seems to me that the regulations in the 1916 code were better related to what was being regulated (e.g., the width of a street being the basis for height and set-back regulations, with the regulations for a certain width street varying from one type of zone to another). And while these regulations did differ from one zone to another (making them, indeed, “zoning” — zoned building regulations, rather than city-wide ones), the variations among the various zones were, if I remember correctly, relatively modest ones.

Also, unlike today’s zoning, it seems to me that the 1916 code was more tolerant of a mix of uses. For instance, the South Village (which is now thought of as being a part of SoHo), was (if I’m understanding the regulations correctly) an “unrestricted zone,” which allowed for a mix of residences and light industry. (If I recall correctly, one impetus for the 1961 revision was, in fact, that planners, like James (?) Felt [someone Jane Jacobs thought of as the enemy], believed that the 1916 code was too lax in its separation of uses.)

Today’s F.A.R.-based NYC zoning code, on the other hand, seems to be specifically set up so that “planners” (and community groups) can “regulate” (in truth, “micro-manage” and stifle) the amount and location of new development within the City. The emphasis moved from setting allowable limits (e.g., how much shadow I can create for my neighbor and how much shadow my neighbor can create for me) that might reasonably differ somewhat from one type of zone to another (e.g., manufacturing vs. residential) to making it feasible for urban planners to try to plan for (i.e., spur) or restrict development — in much the same way that economic planners once tried to spur economic development in certain sectors of the economy (and in certain localities of a nation) while retarding it in others.

]]>