A New York State appellate court ruled Tuesday that the controversial tower at 200 Amsterdam Avenue can keep all 52 of its floors, despite a lower court’s earlier ruling which would have forced the developer to remove about 20 of them.
The project has faced opposition since the very beginning, with opponents arguing developers SJP Properties and Mitsui Fudosan illegally “gerrymandered” a zoning lot in order to build higher. Despite ongoing litigation, though, the developers continued to build.
Tuesday’s unanimous ruling appears to be one the building’s opponents will have a tough time coming back from.
In a statement, SJP Properties chairman and CEO said “This ruling is a crucial victory for the Upper West Side and New York City’s economic recovery,” adding that “We believe in the resiliency of New York City and are looking forward to relaunching sales and delivering 200 Amsterdam, which is nearing completion and on track to welcome residents this coming summer.”
Construction of 200 Amsterdam Avenue first kicked off in 2018; they finished building to the top – 668 feet – and launched sales soon after in September 2019.
Why am I not surprised that the real estate industry has once again been given the okay to trample on communities? One can only shake one’s head in dismay.
Trample? The building lot assembled and and constructed LEGALLY. There was no case. The changes that were made to the lot assemblage issue afterwards can NOT be applied retroactively. End of story. Any argument to the contrary is fantasy wish fulfillment.
Hard for me to get my head around someone getting DOB approval to build, building the approved thing, and then being told to remove floors already built, which is perhaps why the ruling here by an informed court was unanimous.
If the approval process needs to change, change it for future builds.
Being forced to remove floors has already occurred once or twice, so the precedent has already been set. It would simply be the tallest building for which it has been done.
Those cases were completely different. So no, there is no precedent for illegally requiring a developer to take down stories of a building. Olive Freud and Helen Rosenthal and you, apparently, lose this one.
Sanity prevails. Great news!
And these NIMBYs aren’t gonna demand affordable housing, they don’t want their views blocked. They would be just as opposed to this building if it were built for low income households. And it has nothing to do with “contextual” development, as there are taller towers planned for the UWS, which means this tower will eventually be in “context”. And I’ve never heard of a NIMBY calling for lowrise buildings to be demolished to be “contextual” with surrounding highrises. They’re wealthy folks who don’t want their views blocked, nothing more.
Another example of developer stranglehold on the system. Though the prosecution of this case by anti height people seems to have been mishandled. Would be nice to have some pols who are not beholden to developers and real estate. The air-rights scam is nuts.
I would call it “pro-contextual” rather than anti-height. It is more than a semantic difference.
Did anyone think to force the Developer to rent the lowest 20 floors as affordable housing?
Actually, yes. There have been moved toward creating 80/0 or 75/25 housing on the site. Not sure if that has gone through. But keep in mind that “affordable” housing is not really that affordable, particularly for those who really need it. 🙁
If that hasn’t already gone through, as part of the initial agreement, would the developer be under any obligation to provide that now?
Generally, things like that are worked out prior to the start of construction. If a building is “as-of-right” (i.e., built without the need for any special variances or permits), the developer has the option of including 80/20 or other breakdown of affordable units. However, when variances are required, one of the “trade-offs” is that they will include such 80/20 or other affordable housing. This building had required significant variances, one of which was the subject of a separate lawsuit. So my guess is that the building will include SOME number of “affordable” units. But I have not seen the underlying development info or legal documents. The Community Board would be able to answer this question very quickly.
Grotesque!! I am all for first-class architecture that will add to the beautiful and landmarked upper west. This building is out of scale for the neighborhood, throws darkness all over the place, adds nothing but tax shelters for people that will never live in there, and adds NOTHING to the charm, open sky, and personality of the neighborhood it has bullied it’s way into (by buying up air rights in the 1960’s from unsuspecting Lincoln Towers). It is the FARTHEST thing from a “victory for the upper west side”, and nothing to do with “NYC’s economic recovery” inasmuch as the super-talls on west 57th are. An architectural eyesore.
Don’t mince words – tell us what you REALLY think! LOL. Seriously, though, very well-written, and I simply say “ditto.” Thanks.