The architects of the neighboring pre-wars probably didn't imagine their lot line walls would still be exposed 100 years later (TripAdvisor)

Standing on Sixth Avenue and peering west down 26th Street, one is greeted with a familiar Manhattan sight: a sheer wall of buildings, flanking the street on both sides. But look a little closer, and a gap emerges in the street wall at 125 West 26th Street, with the blank brick walls and sparsely-placed, unadorned lot line windows of the neighboring pre-wars peeking out from the sides.

This wouldn't be unusual if it was an empty lot—something a developer was sitting on until the time was right to build—but approaching the gap, it becomes clear that there is already a building there, and a tall one at that—a Holiday Inn. It just doesn't meet the sidewalk.

Tall, narrow, strangely setback hotels have been sprouting like weeds across the lower half of Manhattan these last few years, their builders rushing to fill the city's seemingly insatiable demand for hotels of all kinds. In 2011, developers added 4,404 new hotel rooms to the city’s existing 74,025 rooms, according to The New York Times. At 5.9 percent, it was the highest annual increase on record.

Which explains the hotels, but why are they all set back from the street wall, sticking out like sore thumbs and violating a central tenet of good urban design?

According to Robert Cook, a land use attorney at Anderson Kill & Olick, the decision by developers to build these odd-looking towers is driven, like all things real estate, by two considerations: economics and zoning.

"From the owner and developer's perspective, it's much less expensive to build and maintain a building that goes straight up," Mr. Cook told The Observer, "and this is particularly important for hotels, because they can get a cookie-cutter layout on each floor. This way, they don't have to work around the issues of where the core is going to go," as they would if the building has a setback above a certain height.

When combined with New York City's notoriously fickle zoning code, the financial pressure to build uniform floor plans can yield some awkward results.

If a building meets the sidewalk, it must step back to respect the sky exposure plane (Dept. of City Planning)

The crux of the zoning issue is the Department of City Planning's rules about what is known as the "sky exposure plane." When a building rises straight up from the sidewalk, the architect must often set the building back on floors higher than 85 feet, or about eight stories—something that hotel builders worried about costs are loathe to do, as it would require different floor plans above the setback.

To get around this restriction, builders can use what's known as "tower regulations." Builders are allowed to violate the sky exposure plane, Mr. Cook explained, so long as the structure doesn't occupy more than about half the lot and the base of the building is pushed back at least fifteen feet from the sidewalk (or ten feet on wide streets). In other words, developers can build straight up as tall as they'd like, without having to vary the size of the building's floor plates.

Buildings using tower rules (or another called the "alternate front setback" rule, which mandates a similar gap between the sidewalk and the structure) can also sometimes qualify for the "plaza bonus," which allows structures to have more floorspace if they include a public plaza in front of their buildings. These plazas have largely fallen out of style among urban designers, but the incentives to build them remain in effect in New York City's 1961 zoning code—a code which has been tweaked in the intervening years, but never fully overhauled and replaced.

The 85-foot upper setback rule is meant to allow light and air to reach the street, but the idea that buildings should narrow above this height is a modern one, and not one that pre-war builders followed. The Four Points by Sheraton at 158 West 25th Street, for example, is surrounded by 12-story pre-war buildings with no setbacks, something that would be illegal today. A Hampton Inn at 116 West 31st Street sits directly across the street from a 16-story loft building dating to 1912. Shooting straight up from the sidewalk for its full height, it is about twice as tall as a building without setbacks is allowed to rise today.

The Fruit Roll-Up on on West 37th (New York YIMBY)

Gene Kaufman and Peter Poon are the architects of choice for Manhattan's set-back hotel builders. Their designs are often pilloried on the city's real estate blogs, earning comparisons to lunchbox treats.

"Besides the lack of windows, the front of the building is bifurcated by what appears to be an enormous Fruit Roll-Up," New York YIMBY's Nikolai Fedak wrote of Mr. Poon's Courtyard by Marriott at 307 West 37th Street. The design deficiencies of Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Poon's hotels are only magnified by their awkward size and placement on the lot.

Nor is criticism limited to the nether-reaches of the blogosphere.

"I think those dinky hotels are something of a blight," Vanity Fair architecture critic Paul Goldberger wrote in an email after being contacted by The Observer. Mr. Goldberger dubbed them "this decade's version of the 'sliver' apartment buildings that went up a generation ago, when developers were sneaking mini-high rises into townhouse-sized parcels."

Should the Department of City Planning decide to do something about these "sliver hotels," it has two options: do away with the required setbacks above 85 feet (or at least raise the height at which these setbacks are necessary, for example in areas where pre-war buildings are already violating the rule), or stop allowing developers to take advantage of the alternate front setback rule and tower form.

In recent years New York City planners have begun to address the issue, but only across relatively small areas and in response to private rezoning applications. For example, in a district encompassing the mid-block portion just south of Penn Station, for example, the code requires builders to meet the sidewalk and set back above a certain height. The Department of City Planning's summary page highlights one of these sliver hotels as something the new zone would prevent, though the featured building is not actually within the rezoning area.

The Hudson Square rezoning, initiated in response to a request by Trinity Church, a large landowner in the neighborhood, will also forbid such hotels set back from the lot line.

But for the Manhattan landowners who don't have the clout to get their own personal rezonings, the old rules stay in effect, and the set-back sliver hotels will continue to rise.

Bring it up. (dBox/L&L Holdings)

Who needs the Midtown East Rezoning to transform the area when you have intrepid developers and unlikely circumstances? O.K., so both of those are super-rare, so bring on the rezoning,

In the meantime, though, we can occupy ourselves with David Levinson's daring plan to tear down 75 percent of 425 Park Avenue and replace it with a dynamic new tower by Lord Norman Foster. Foster + Partners have emerged victorious from a competition Mr. Levinson's L&L Holdings held over the past few months between some of the world's most high-profile designers. The British Pritzker Prize winner beat out fellow starchitects Rem Koolhaas, Zaha Hadid and Richard Rogers (no Americans, unfortunately).“We are grateful to each of the firms for the thoughtfulness and creativity they demonstrated throughout the process,” Mr. Levinson said in a release. “There is no doubt that each group was fully capable of helping us realize our vision of a 425 Park Avenue tower that redefines the modern office environment while also respecting and enhancing the timeless allure of the Plaza district.”

The project poses an unusual challenge. Because the existing 32-story building was built in 1957, it is larger than current zoning (created in 1961) allows. Were Mr. Levinson to demolish the entire building, he would be forced to replace it with a smaller structure. But his clever real estate attorneys have determined that they could retain the base of the building, building a replacement up from there, and, through some zoning wizardry, maintain the new building at the current one size, 650,000 square feet.

425 Park today.

The new building as currently conceived will reach 687 feet, considerably taller than the 370-foot structure it will be replacing. The design by Foster + Partners is interesting in part because it looks somewhat like a midcentury office tower in the Seagrams/425 Park vein, except that it has been judo-chopped in two spots and is now held up by giant trusses. This not only breaks up the scale of what would likely be a massive building but also creates two terraces, an increasingly popular amenity in office towers. On the street, a rendering shows a vast plaza, providing much-needed open space (even if there is a building overhanging it) in the heart of Midtown.

Should the Midtown East Rezoning be approved, it would allow Mr. Levinson to potentially build a tower 50 percent bigger than what he already can do, but he would have to wait until 2018 to do so, because of a special provision in the rezoning to protect the development of projects at Hudson Yards and the World Trade Center, where millions more square feet of office space is already poised to come online.

Lord Foster is best known for his pioneering work on what became known in the 1970s and '80s, when he began to build serious projects such as the  HSBC headquarters in Hong Kong and London's Stansted airport, as high-tech or high modern architecture. In New York, he has built the new Hearst Building and the Sperrone Westwater Gallery on the Bowery as well as designing 2 World Trade Center, the second tallest building on the site that is indefinitely stalled at the moment.

For those eager to get a look at all of Foster + Partner's designs for 425 Park, as well as the three losing proposals, they will be on display Oct. 18 and 19 as part of the Municipal Art Society's annual MAS Summit, to be held at Jazz at Lincoln Center.

Correction: An earlier version of this post stated the new building would be not much taller than the existing one. In fact, the new building is almost twice as tall. It also credit Lord Foster with designing the Pompidou Centre with Richard Rogers. It was he and Renzo Piano that built the Paris museum. The Observer regrets the errors.

How you doin'?

We often think that zoning codes, the string theory of our cities big and small, as shaping every inch of the built environment. But really, zoning is more like the mold into which we pour our hopes and desire. Emphasis on desire.

The Times reports that a zoning law meant to bar smut sellers and strip joints from residential neighborhoods has been struck down in court. It used to be common for shops to carry a mix of licit and illicit goods, pretending, life those softcore flicks on Cinemax, that it wasn't what it really was.

To stop these so-called 60-40s, for their mix of nice and naughty merch, any shop with 40 percent or more sexual goods would have had to move at least 500 feet from a residential area.

As usual, the First Amendment trumps all.

On Thursday, Justice Louis B. York of State Supreme Court ruled that the mixed-use establishments were not shams and did not create a public nuisance in their communities, and that the city had sufficient tools to close any establishment that skirted the 40 percent rule.

In a discussion of the case attached to his decision, Justice York wondered whether the city’s failure to study the negative impacts of the 60-40 establishments suggested that “what the city is really regulating is the content of expression, clearly a violation of the plaintiff’s rights to freedom of speech.”

[...]

Justice York’s decision included nine pages of descriptions on how some of the mixed-material establishments segregated their sexually oriented material and included nonsexual material of legitimate interest to consumers. For example, an area in Ten’s Cabaret in Manhattan that is separate from the establishment’s topless dancers has held events featuring the pop singers Mariah Carey and Janet Jackson, he wrote.

But come on. Would the Village really be the Village without those skeezy shops on West Fourth Street? Times Square has been cleaned up, even as the 2001 law has had no effect. Do we really need it now?

Really. Really? (kerry!/Flickr)

Much as we want to be, The Observer is no real fan of the transformation of the Fourth Avenue from grotty auto shops to shoddy "luxury" apartment buildings. As usual, The Journal's Robbie Whelan delivers another brilliant diagnosis for the city's architectural woes, and this time he focuses in on "Brooklyn's Burden."

Sadly, the damage already is done. Fourth Avenue, anchored at the north end by the sublime Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower, could have one day become one of New York's grand avenues, a broad street full of life, mixed uses and appealing architecture.

But the Planning Department lacked such foresight in 2003 when it rezoned the noisy avenue to take advantage of the demand for apartments spilling over Park Slope to the east and Boerum Hill and Gowanus to the west. Focused primarily on residential development, it didn't require developers to incorporate ground-level commercial businesses into their plans, and allowed them to cut sidewalks along Fourth Avenue for entrances to ground-level garages.

Developers got the message. With the re-zoning coinciding with the real-estate boom, they put up more than a dozen apartment towers, many of them cheap looking and with no retail at the street level, effectively killing off the avenue's vibrancy for blocks at a time.

The city finally got wise and passed another zoning change last year, correcting some of these mistakes. But it was too late. Walking along parts of Fourth Avenue today is like walking in the suburbs, bereft of the interaction between pedestrian and building, except for occasionally having to dodge a car darting out of a garage.

It closes with one of the strongest damnations of City Planning boss Amanda Burden, who has been honored by most every planning agency and civic group on the planet: "After Mayor Bloomberg leaves office at the end of 2013, Ms. Burden may be replaced as head of the Planning Department as well as chairwoman of the Planning Commission. Let's hope her replacement makes his or her mistakes before taking power."

This was clearly an awful oversight, but how much is Ms. Burden to blame, and how much is this the fault of the system with which she is trapped?

This is precisely why there is a war on landmarks, because so many New Yorkers are clamoring for more historic districts precisely because it is the only means of quality control in the city's "built environment." Just a block up the hill is Fifth Avenue, and the start of the Park Slope Historic District, one of the nicest and most expensive stretches in New York.

The historic district was just expanded for the third time, an outcome that makes developers red and blue. But can you blame the neighbors? When left to their own devices, some of these guys can do no right.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Mr. Whelan's name as "Robby," not "Robbie." The Observer regrets the error.

Paradise? (Steven Duffy)

The arguments for NYU’s, creatively named, “2031” expansion have been predictable in their rhetoric: You shouldn’t—and, frankly, can’t—stand in the way of change. The majority of press in the city has adopted this stance and backed the new proposals. Now Manhattan borough president, Scott Stringer, has given his approval, albeit with stipulations that reduce the build by some 20 percent.

Those who disagree with the 1.9 million square foot expansion have been cast as one-dimensional curmudgeons who are stuck in the past. “Change never comes easy to New York” read a Times op-ed. Really? In more polemic media, the anti-expansion crowd have even been accused of wanting to “steal” one of NYU’s buildings.

“I think they pretty much get what they want, I feel like they are a little principality,” Diane Peterson said of the university, sitting on a stone slab in La Guardia community gardens, the southern block of the two “Super Blocks” that most of the 2031 plan is based upon.

Ms. Peterson has maintained her plot, where she grows tomatoes and roses amongst other shrubs, for more than three decades. Although NYU does not own the land that La Guardia Gardens is situated on—it belongs to the Department of Transportation—if the planned expansion does go ahead the garden will be embedded in the midst of a construction site for some 20 years.

“When we first had this garden in 1981, there were people in building 505 that didn’t want the garden here,” Ms. Peterson said, referring to one of the Silver Towers while recalling the original birth of the garden, which may hold sway with the current conflict. “They were making a lot of noise at the community meetings, saying there wasn’t enough room for a garden—acting like it was a nuclear plant we wanted,” she said, leaning forward. “So we—the original people in the garden—went to the building, and it turned out most of the people were in favor of it, just they didn’t make any noise about it.”

The garden pops up out of nowhere, a little unexpected green retreat of solitude in the middle of the city. Indeed the scene on a recent Saturday, as three regulars kicked back in lounge chairs, made it seem like a Virginia shrub garden had been transposed to downtown Manhattan. But for the din of traffic from Houston, a viewer would be forgiven for thinking it wasn’t. Twenty-five people have their own plots, but the garden is open to the public, the gardeners grow everything from shrubs to roses, tomatoes to garlic. Situated where it is, in some of the most expensive real estate around, its existence really is an anomaly.

“I can’t tell you,” said a concerned Ellen Reznick, when trying to explain what the garden meant to her and the community. She has had her plot for 10 years. “We get a throng of visitors, people are in awe of this,” she continued. “It’s such a vitally important space. Not just for the neighborhood, but for visitors and tourists too.” Supporters of the planned expansion argue that it is nostalgia for an imagined old Village, and stubbornness to change, that stands in the way of progress. But is that always so bad? “I think about it all the time,” said Ms. Reznick, her expression almost pained, “I think about it and with great agitation.”

NYU Director of Public Affairs Phil Lentz said that the university is studying how to minimize any impact to La Guardia Gardens as much as they possibly can, although that’s being met with some skepticism.

“They believe that even though it’s city land, that they can go under or over,” said Gretchen Irwin a relative newcomer to the garden, maintaining a small plot with her husband since last summer. “It’s very sneaky, NYU is supposed to be a university, but they have a tax exempt status. They are actually one of the biggest real estate developers in the world. They’re not doing this for purely educational reasons.”

To the casual by-passer the gardeners could be accused of overstating their point, but NYU has bypassed zoning laws in the past. Ms. Peterson herself recalled a meeting at Cooper Union, when the plans where put forward for new dormitories on Third Avenue, between 11th and 12th streets. “There was a long table with all the NYU people at it, and they said ‘NYU has always had 30,000 students and it was not going to expand’, they have 44,000 students now and they want 60,000.”

Walk across the street. and you’ll find Washington Square Village, NYU’s faculty residence buildings, which is the second of the two “super blocks.” On weekends the playground is a clamor with the echo of children, many of them NYU offspring. Across the way, others read under trees and eat al fresco. Part of Borough President Stringer’s stipulations to NYU 2031 mandated that a temporary playground be operated throughout construction. However, that hasn’t been enough to calm some faculty members, who are concerned about what will happen to their neighborhood.

“My concern is that even after I’m not alive, they’re going to ruin this area in terms of density, there’s going to be so many buildings and people that it’s not going to be the Village anymore, its going to be like Midtown,” said retired professor Pat O’Hara, who has lived in her apartment in Washington Sq. Village for 25 years.

“We are in fear and dread, we’ve had to think of moving,” said another current faculty member, who didn’t want to be named (“not tenured, so…”). “We love our apartment, we love our community. The fear is the noise pollution, it will be unlivable having a construction site here.”

The lifeblood of any school is arguably the faculty, and the university has managed to take advantage of the strong New York allure, but **the advent of cranes and diggers may make some think twice. “They won’t attract quality, they’ll attract adjuncts,” said the anonymous professor. “I mean, they always attract adjuncts! But they won’t attract quality.”

“The University could really decline,” Ms. O’Hara agreed, “they are not looking at that issue, and it’s a really important one.

“We think the reverse is true,” NYU’s Mr. Lentz countered. “NYU’s lack of academic faculty and lab space has been an impediment to attracting the type of faculty members that we want, and without more space we are not going contribute to greater faculty at NYU.”

The fact is the plans are going to the City Council this summer, and with the backing of the current mayor—and the prospective ones—all points towards NYU’s expansion happening, with the likely possibility of a few more concessions.

For Diane Peterson and her friends at La Guardia, they will continue to go about their business, toiling their small patch of land, until told otherwise. If worst comes to worst for Ms. Peterson, she’ll have to adapt. “Window boxes” she said, laughing candidly, “Window boxes… that’s it. Window boxes are all I’m going to be gardening!”

realestate@observer.com

Shrink to fit. (wilm23/Flickr)

Maybe the Fulton Mall just needs some zoning changes to save its mom and pop shops. That's what they're doing on the Upper West Side, tired of all the giant Duane Reades and Chases. New zoning requirements would limit the size of stores on Columbus and Amsterdam avenues, protecting the character of the neighborhood and possibly discouraging national retailers, who tend to prefer bigger spaces.

Not surprisingly, landlords are not happy about the proposal, according to The Journal.

It's opposed by leaders in the real-estate industry who say the zoning rules are a blunt instrument. The Real Estate Board of New York, an industry association and lobbying group, said a similar regulation along East 86th Street during the late 1970s didn't deliver what supporters hoped.

Property owners had to grapple with cumbersome rules, and in the end, chain stores opened along the thoroughfare anyway, said Michael Slattery, a senior vice president at REBNY. McDonald's and other fast-food chains don't need as much space as major retailers or banks were able to move in. The regulation was eventually repealed.

"This was tried before and failed," Mr. Slattery said. "It's ignoring the changing nature of retail."

Funny that developers hate the cudgel that is New York City zoning, except when it benefits them. This is only the latest showdown for REBNY on the Upper West Side, as the real estate group is vehemently opposing plans for a West End Avenue historic district, fearing it will diminish development. Heaven forefend.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Don't worry, we've got it. (Brookfield)

The protestors occupying Wall Street/Zuccotti Park are worried about the new plans to clean up the park tomorrow, calling it an eviction notice. The mayor showed up last night, politely informed the occupation of the move, and asked them to make way for Brookfield's cleaning crews.

The protestors have responded by calling for bucket brigades, but according to a source with intimate knowledge of the site, they may not have to. It appears Brookfield, and not the occupiers, would be breaking the law if they tried to return and were denied access.

Our guy, who has worked on POPS across the city, including Zuccotti Park, emailed us with this take on the clean-up:

That section of the zoning code I sent you yesterday or the day before is the only zoning section that touches on what can be prohibited in POPS, and it's not much. Based on my all my interactions with City Planning technical staff, they are advocate aggressively for the public and often use the example of homeless people occupying benches and seats as things the owner cannot prohibit.  It is, after all, public space, regardless of who "owns" it.  The zoning resolution is on the occupiers' side.

A love letter from Brookfield to the Occupiers. (Getty)

On the other hand, Brookfield does have an obligation to clean up the site, but between Mayor Bloomberg supporting the occupier's Constitutional rights to be on the site and the narrow latitude given to POPS owners on closing down the site, it would be hard for Brookfield to somehow post new signs, or security, to prevent protestors from returning. Were they to do so, the  public retribution would be swift and look bad for the city and the developer. Instead, the administration seems prepared to wait this out, until the weather grows worse.

Part of the challenge is that the signage Brookfield is allowed to post prohibits listing any already illegal activity, because the city did not want to promote POPS a place where such activity would take place. Speak no evil, so no evil. Now, it's complicating matters. When the weather turns, it will be interesting to see what happens, but our source thinks he has the perfect solution.

"Bloomberg is just banking on the cold weather to disperse the crowds," the source writes, echoing something protestors have already been telling The Observer. "OWS needs to pick up the POPS book and see if they can't find an indoor POPS open 24 hours and set up camp their for winter." Or, just consult the online list.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Big time.

It may be the worst shopping experience after the Trader Joe’s in Union Square. Still, when Century 21 is good, it’s really good. Dress shoes, bow ties, and some of the best clearance deals in town—if you can stand slapdash shelves and crammed clothes racks, the flood of tourists fighting for clothes and the woefully indifferent staff, the store can be a goldmine.

These problems could be disappearing as Century 21 plans to expand its downtown flagship in the coming months, according to Crain’s. Well, everything except for the rudeniks behind those red aprons.

Earlier this year, Century 21 filed a zoning change to allow it to expand by 76,000 square feet within its current location across from the World Trade Center, between Broadway and Church Street. The zoning change was approved by the City Council’s Zoning and Franchise subcommittee yesterday, and it is expected to pass the main committee later today.

Century 21 currently occupies 120,000 square feet, the cellar and first three floors, at 22 Cortlandt St. The retailer wants to add floors four to six, which had been occupied by an office tenant but are currently vacant. If approved, the store's flagship will grow to 196,500 square feet.

Racks upon racks upon racks.

Century 21 began the application process for an expansion in May in a move that is seen as a positive development for not just the store, but for lower Manhattan in general. Community Board 1, as well as the City Planning Commission, unanimously approved the expansion in June and July, respectively.

The store has long been viewed as an anchor and symbol of resilience for lower Manhattan after the 9/11 terrorist attack.

It is not clear when the store plans to unveil its larger space (The Observer has called to find out), but assuming it can complete it by next summer, when all the tourists return, and no doubt queue up for the new 9/11 memorial that opens this week--an expected 4 million a year--the crowds will be more crazed than ever. Century 21 will need the space.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

The New Jersey-based developer owns a parking lot at 249 West 28th Street, where it plans to build a large apartment tower with an affordable housing component, but needs the area rezoned. Edison and the Department of City Planning have submitted concurrent proposals to rezone the former Fur District, spanning from Sixth to Eighth avenues and 28th to 30th streets to allow for some large residential development, while trying to preserve cheap office space and forestall new hotel development.

The proposal is likely to stir up a decades-old questions about the future of midtown west, an area once dominated by garment manufacturers and now dotted with empty cheap office lofts, with condos and hotels in between. A previous proposal to rezone the Garment District to allow for more office development has stalled. New apartment towers south of Penn Station could, however, create additional pressure to rezone the Garment District, even as Brookfield is set to erect a massive mixed-use development at 33rd Street and rumblings of progress are also being felt at Hudson Yards--all likely to bring an influx of residents to surrounding areas. 

In an apparent effort to preempt some of that opposition, the proposal requires developers to replace any office space over 50,000 square feet that is lost to demolition. Plus, a few more well-moneyed condo and rental dwellers can only help the office market, right?

"Adding a measure of residential development to these business districts," said planning commissioner Amanda Burden in a statement, "can foster a more lively working environment while preserving and protecting existing office space and distinctive building stock." (The new zone will also restrict development of hotels with more than 100 rooms, a move that could rankle developers, who have targeted it as a prime hotel development area.) 

Community Board Five will hold a meeting to discuss the rezoning proposal next Wednesday. Edison Properties has not yet prepared a statement or appointed a spokesperson. 

lkusisto@observer.com 

Update: An earlier version mistated that Community Board Six would review the proposal. 

The rezoning would affect buildings between Washington and Greenwich streets, from 10th to 12th streets. The effort is expected to take six months to a year to complete.

The area currently has no height limits and allows bonuses, or greater sizes, for "commercial developments," such as hotels, and "community facilities," such as dorms. The new zoning would impose height limits on new development, limiting it to 40 to 65 feet at street wall, and a total height limit of 80 feet. Bonuses for commercial and community developments would be eliminated and all designs for new development would be subject to public hearings and approval by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, called the current zoning "outdated" and "anomalous."

A proposed hotel at 145 Perry Street was approved last year by the LPC, which reduced the height from 90 feet to 78 feet, after opposition from preservationists. In September, two townhouses adjacent to 145 Perry were listed at a combined $44 million for 14,000 square feet.

Developer Robert Gladstone of Madison Equities is developing the two townhouses in conjunction with the hotel which he called in a Times story "the love of my life - I've wanted to do that for a very long time."

But Mr. Gladstone may have to wait longer: Unless he builds the hotel's foundations or can show "substantial expenditures" before the new zoning takes effect, 145 Perry Street would have to conform to the new regulations. The GVSHP site notes that, following the LPC's height revisions, the hotel's current design will "roughly conform to the height limits of the new zoning," but may still require reductions. Mr. Berman said that construction had not begun on the hotel.

The GVSHP also identified other areas where current buildings are smaller than zoning currently allows. The group argues that this would open the door for demolition and new development, which it says would compromise the largely residential character of the neighborhood.

A COALITION OF preservation groups, including the GVSHP, Greenwich Village Community Task Force and Community Board 2, have been pushing the City Planning Commission for a rezoning of the area for over a year-and-a-half.

In a letter to the commission's chair, Amanda Burden, in April 2008, the group urged a change in zoning, citing 145 Perry and another mixed-use building, at 685 Washington Street, as "rather large development proposals" that didn't fit the character of the neighborhood. Six months later, in another letter, the GVSHP again called for rezoning and said it had not received a response from City Planning.

In September, a set of local elected officials threw their support behind the movement, reiterating height concerns and pushing for a more restrictive zoning. A letter to Ms. Burden was signed by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, State Senator Thomas Duane and Assembly Member Deborah Glick. They stated that they felt in 2005 that the LPC's designation of the area as a historic district would protect it from "non-contextual development," but now had additional concerns. On Nov. 18, the elected officials informed residents that City Planning had decided "rezoning is warranted and that a [contextual] district would be appropriate," giving much credit to Community Board 2, which it called "instrumental."

City Planning will begin conducting an environmental assessment, followed by public hearings, although timeline details were still unavailable, according to the letter.

A City Planning spokeswoman confirmed that the agency planned to downzone the neighborhood.

rli@observer.com