Bill de Blasio

De Blasio to Skyscrapers: Drop Dead!

“We’re going to ban the classic glass and steel skyscrapers which are incredibly inefficient," said the mayor of New York City.

|

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said Monday he plans to crack down on "the classic glass and steel skyscrapers" because of their energy inefficiencies. While de Blasio does not appear to have plans to impose a blanket ban on glass and steel skyscrapers (i.e. all of them), he does intend to impose burdensome regulations that will hurt many building owners and discourage new construction.

De Blasio was asked on Morning Joe by co-host Joe Scarborough how New York's "Green New Deal" can "provide a road map" for members of Congress looking to implement policies that will fight climate change. Congressional efforts—led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and others—to pass a Green New Deal made headlines in February, though the measure failed in the Senate last month by a 57–0 vote.

"We're actually making the Green New Deal come alive here in New York City," de Blasio told Scarborough. "It's three very basic ideas. One, the biggest source of emissions in New York City is buildings. We're putting clear, strong mandates, the first of any major city on the Earth to say to building owners: 'You gotta clean up your act. You gotta retrofit. You gotta save energy.'"

Building owners will have until 2030 to implement these changes, he added, or else face fines of up to or exceeding $1 million. That's where the part about the skyscrapers came in. "This mandate is going to ensure that we reduce emissions," he said.

"We're going to ban the classic glass and steel skyscrapers which are incredibly inefficient," de Blasio said. "If someone wants to build one of those things they can take a whole lot of steps to make it energy efficient, but we're not going to allow what we used to see in the past."

NYC's government, de Blasio went on to say, will become completely reliant on renewable energy "in the next five years."

The mayor's remarks came four days after the New York City Council approved legislation that imposes new emissions standards on buildings bigger than 25,000 square feet (about the size of a grocery store, according to CNBC). The city, which wants to cut its carbon footprint by 80 percent in the next three decades or so, is hoping that big buildings will lower their carbon emissions 40 percent overall by 2030. Different types of buildings won't be allowed to exceed various emissions caps. De Blasio planned to sign the legislation on Monday.

About 50,000 buildings will be affected, CNBC reported. Religious structures and hospitals will not have to meet all of the standards, and rent-controlled buildings will have more time to comply. Public buildings and low-income housing will also receive some exemptions.

There's no question that the legislation will cost building owners a pretty penny—$4 billion in total, Mark Chambers, the director of the Mayor's Office of Sustainability, told The New York Times. And with so many buildings receiving exemptions, the costs will be borne by a smaller group of landowners.

"The real estate industry and other stakeholders support the goal of reducing carbon emissions 40 percent by 2030," Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) President John Banks told Crain's New York. "The bill that passed today, however, will fall short of achieving the 40-by-30 goal by only including half the city's building stock."

Building owners may also be hesitant to lease space to tenants who might use more energy. "The approach taken today will have a negative impact on our ability to attract and retain a broad range of industries, including technology, media, finance, and life sciences," Banks told Crain's New York.

"There's a clear business case to be made that having a storage facility is a lot better than having a building that's bustling with businesses and workers and economic activity," REBNY general counsel Carl Hum added to the Times.

There's also the issue of how realistic it is for some buildings to meet the new legislation's stringent standards. Ed Ermler, the board president of a group of landlords that owns 437 apartment units in Queen, told the Times he's already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to improve energy efficiency in those buildings. "To get down to even 20 percent from where I am today, with the technology that exists, there's nothing more that I can do," he said. "It's not like there's this magic wand."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

105 responses to “De Blasio to Skyscrapers: Drop Dead!

  1. There’s no question that the legislation will cost building owners a pretty penny—$4 billion in total, Mark Chambers, the director of the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, told The New York Times. And with so many buildings receiving exemptions, the costs will be borne by a smaller group of landowners.

    Say it ain’t so, Joe!

    It ain’t so, Joe. If those costs are just the retrofit costs, then the costs for this half of the buildings would not change one iota if other buildings were also retrofit.

    Or are you counting the million dollar fines? Say which it is, Joe!

    1. The expected improvements are greater for the buildings that do not get exemptions, because the policy aims for the city as a whole to reduce emissions by a certain amount.

  2. What an asshat.

    1. Please stop insulting asshats by associating them the the NYC mayor. Thank you.

      1. Certainly sounds as if Seyton has moved into the realm of asshats in support of the commie Mayor. This is a another horrible idea and I want to know what this commie and his wife did with $880 million of taxpayers money that is now unaccountable

    2. skyscrapers to De Blasio…eat shit & die you gravy sucking pig!

  3. When i think “Efficiency”, i think NYC’s regulatory infrastructure and municipal agencies

    Oh, and real estate developers. Those guys are the Henry Ford -meets-Frederick Winslow Taylor of our times.

    1. Plus the fact that NEW YORK CITY is arguably the densest urban municipality in the country.

      I guess we could make the city more energy-efficient by bulldozing the entire place and letting it go to grass, but this commie turd is delusional if he thinks the primary feature of its landscape is going to be entirely switched around in 12 years before everyone dies from urban heat stroke.

      1. In the mid-20th Century, one prominent environmentalist suggested letting Manhattan return to nature and developing the outer boroughs more. I can see the point of letting the center of a city become a park and having the remaining ring grow with time so that the thickness of the city never becomes too great to handle.

        1. Sounds like New Yorkers are going to get (some more) thickness that’s too great to handle.

          I’m sure they’re used to it by now.

  4. Fast forward a few years: “Today the Mayor of New York City wondered why nobody constructs new buildings in the city anymore. He suspects a Russian plot.”

    1. well we have until 2030 to figure out how to undo the De Blasio blues

  5. I’m sure the mayor’s office will have all sorts of exemptions for the right players.

    1. when will we discover that De Blasio has “friends” in the retro fit business?

  6. Just hastens the day that NYC collapses under its own weight.

    1. Think ‘Escape From New York’. Except instead of felons, we will dump all the progtards there that won’t leave the country.

      1. Not only dump them in NYC, but San Francisco and Los Angeles as well.
        More news, although you may have heard it before.
        Chicago has elected a progressive as a mayor.
        If you think Chicago is awful now, just wait until the end of her term.

        1. There was Escape From LA, too. But no Escape from San Francisco.

          1. No one ever escapes from San Francisco.

            1. Today’s Wall Street Journal had an article about a San Francisco couple who retired in France to take advantage of the lower cost of living there.

  7. Trash like DeBlasio must be dealt with if we’re going to survive as a country. This guy is a blatant communist traitor.

    1. I agree DeBlass0to is a commie retard.

      1. Back in 2002 he actually held a reception for Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. That’s the level of Bolshevism coming from this piece of shit. In addition to him being just a generally execrable person.

      2. Emphasis on retard.

    2. The Libertarian Party needs to focus more on areas that are ruled by one party, such as New York City.

      1. That may not be a bad idea.

      2. Maybe pick off some city council seats, or the state assembly.

      3. Progtards won’t vote for a Libertarian… Maybe somebody who called themselves an independent and spent all their time talking about Cosmotarian feelz issues like gays, weed, etc… But if they won they’d be voted out the next time around when it was discovered they weren’t for pissing away endless tax payer dollars or retarded things like sculptures of people who look like child molesters and such (we have one of these in Seattle. Really creepy).

  8. Remember, sick building syndrome was caused by putting energy efficiency above everything, including fresh air.

    There will be unintended consequences.

    1. There will be consequences; they will NOT be unintended – – – –
      This is just another salvo in the ‘private enterprise must die’ war.
      Notice there will be “exemptions”. The aristocracy of pull.

  9. Comrade. The Empire State Building is totally racist and sexist and what have you.
    Tear it down !!!

    1. Yeah, I’ll bet Kate Smith once rode an elevator to the observation deck!

      1. I love her song “Wuthering Heights”…wait that’s Kate Bush.

        1. But she looked great as a vampire in tight leather!

          Oh, wait that’s Kate Beckinsale.

          1. She looked even better in Almost Famous…wait, that’s Kate Hudson.

            1. I especially enjoyed her in the African Queen…oh, that was Kate Hepburn.

  10. Skyscrapers to De Blasio: Drop Dead!

  11. So I guess setting up a massive cannabis grow facility in greater NYC is not going to happen. It’s good to see that they’re going to force growers out of the city. Should be an interesting supply and demand situation they’re setting up.

    1. More hypocrisy from DeLasio, who is a huge pothead.

  12. What was it that made our large cities in the northeast so Democrat to begin with? Was it the New Deal? Is there an issue?

    I always vote for the Democrats because . . .

    How do New Yorkers finish that sentence?

    1. “I always vote for the Democrats because they promised me free shit.”

      My sister moved to New York City. She votes Democrat now because she wants more subsidies to pay for housing.

      1. She really doesn’t get it, does she.

        1. That city takes otherwise well-informed and intelligent individuals and turns them into mindless drones that repeat the same progressive talking points over and over again. The difference between my sister before she moved to NYC and after she moved to NYC is like night and day. She’s become a lot more rude and loves to spend holidays screeching to the family about how white men are terrible.

          Needless to say she gets invited over less and less, and now the family barely talks to her. When she’s not there, its a peaceful and fun time at with the family. When she is there, everyone is walking on eggshells and the energy in the room is so weird. Its not that we don’t want her around, its just that the progressive political talking points is all she ever talks about now. We used to have really fascinating discussions about economics, religion, culture… now she can’t even handle a policy disagreement without it immediately going to race and gender. It’s really irritating, I wish I could have my real sister back.

          1. I have such a love/hate relationship with NYC. It is truly an amazing place. But, so many of the people are brain dead, or don’t care so they go along to get along.

            1. I don’t get why so many people love NYC. It’s people are rude, the city smells like piss, every metro stop results in 5 people asking you for money, the traffic blows, the regulation is extreme, government corruption is rampant, the cops are out of control, the prices are astronomical…

              NYC is total trash in my opinion, but I’ve never been a city person. The shows the put on in NYC can be amazing – but the city itself is just something I have to barely tolerate while I go to the shows I want to see. I am glad other people enjoy it though.

              1. I don’t get why so many people love NYC. It’s people are rude, the city smells like piss, every metro stop results in 5 people asking you for money, the traffic blows, the regulation is extreme, government corruption is rampant, the cops are out of control, the prices are astronomical…

                I guess people really enjoy having a entire smorgasbord of restaurants to go eat at 24/7 in relative safety, but that wouldn’t have even been possible if Guiliani hadn’t cleaned up the city.

            2. “I love it. I hate it. I use it twice a day.”

        2. I don’t know, man, sounds like she understands the situation rather well.

        3. She deserves to get it, good and hard.

    2. In New York City, the neighbors hate you if you say you vote Republican.

    3. …they’re the only ones that get elected. Positive feedback.

  13. How much energy does vacant office space save?

  14. De Blasio is pretty tall – right? Shorter, smaller people are generally more efficient when it comes to energy use. Perhaps the mayor should consider dropping dead.

  15. Nothing a few airliners can’t fix.

    1. Some people should do something.

  16. How much energy does an empty building use?
    How much tax revenue does an empty building generate?
    Hey, wait a minute – – –

    1. They’ll probably try to pass a law making it illegal for those companies to move.

      Seriously, I bet they try that shit if it gets bad enough.

      1. NY State tried that after the civil war. Didn’t work out too well for them.

  17. Say what you will about old time progressives, but at least they believed in progress. The new kind just want everyone to live in a yurt.

    1. Yurts are not “energy safe”. That campfire in the middle belches out toxins and CO2. Then the heat leaks out through the sides. The real culprit is people. If we just got rid of them, their by-products would cease too.

  18. Thank God he’ll be long gone before the whole thing blows up in their faces.

  19. The Great Libertarian-Progressive project is going to be wonderful!

    Very gay … but not happy.

  20. Will solid concrete with tiny little windows be ok? So, De Blasio wants New York to look like communist era Russia?

  21. I know of a certain other organization that wanted a couple of New York skyscrapers to drop dead…

    1. The Village Green Preservation Society?

    2. Reason reviewed their manifesto and noticed the environmental talking points. It’s like every mass terrorist wants to save the whales. At what point to we worry about people who want to save the whales?

  22. “We’re going to ban the classic glass and steel skyscrapers which are incredibly inefficient,” said the mayor of New York City.

    Says real estate mogul DeBlasio who made his fortune building buildings in crowded, high-density, high cost, urban areas. “Sprawl’s where its at, yo” he was quoted as saying.

    1. “This mandate is going to ensure that we reduce emissions,”

      ‘We’? I think the word you’re looking for here is ‘you’.

      NYC’s government, de Blasio went on to say, will become completely reliant on renewable energy “in the next five years.”

      And I’m sure New Yorkers are quite pleased to hear that the NYC government will effectively shut itself down in the next five years.

      The city, which wants to cut its carbon footprint by 80 percent in the next three decades or so. . .

      Stop doing that. The *city* wants to do nothing. The city is just a collection of buildings. The *people* living there certainly don’t want to do it – or else they’d already be doing it since nothing is stopping them.

      The ‘city government’ doesn’t even want to do it. Because its a collective if inertia-bound bureaucrats.

      A TINY FUCKING MINORITY OF POLITICALLY POWERFUL PEOPLE WANT TO IMPOSE THIS COST ON EVERYONE ELSE and will use the violence inherent in the state’s monopoly on violence to do so.

      Religious structures and hospitals will not have to meet all of the standards, and rent-controlled buildings will have more time to comply. Public buildings and low-income housing will also receive some exemptions.

      So they’re basically admitting that they’re not serious about it and this is really just a way to use that violence to shake people down for ‘campaign contributions’.

      “The real estate industry and other stakeholders support the goal of reducing carbon emissions 40 percent by 2030,” Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) President John Banks told Crain’s New York. “The bill that passed today, however, will fall short of achieving the 40-by-30 goal by only including half the city’s building stock.”

      Building owners may also be hesitant to lease space to tenants who might use more energy. “The approach taken today will have a negative impact on our ability to attract and retain a broad range of industries, including technology, media, finance, and life sciences,” Banks told Crain’s New York.

      IOW ‘we totally don’t support this and expect that it will seriously hurt our bottom line and, goddammit, its not fair that we’re getting fucked and those guys over there aren’t but we’re afraid of the repercussions if we don’t pretend to play along’.

      1. If the oceans heat up much more we’re all gonna die, so there’s that.

        1. 11 years, 11 months baby!

  23. So what has happened in the last 50 years in NY?
    Early 70s: NY mayor kind of old school Dem machine guy.
    Late 70s: mayor actually decent guy, but still lefty ideas.
    Late 80s: fucking dufus mayor
    90s-mid 2000s: best mayor NY has had since LaGuardia
    Late 2000s-mid 2010s: decent economics, but socially progressive dickhead
    Late 2010s: another fucking dufus mayor

    1. I’ve met NYC shit libs who even said Giuliani ran the city awesome… Yet the funny thing is, they don’t realize that the reason shit got better with him in charge is because of his ideology.

      Bearing in mind he’s no libertarian, or even that good of a conservative… But compared to everybody else in NYC he is 1000x better.

  24. It’s about time for the return of Brutalism.

    1. Well, DeBlasio is a Commie of the post-WW2 stripe.

      1. How hard is it to say we can still make cool glass skyscrapers but more efficient? Progressives can at the very least not put their own nuts in a vice in ways that the activist base wasn’t even thinking of yet.

        1. To be fair, he’s probably just saying this stuff because he thinks it sounds cool.

  25. They need that new technological marvel – shutters. Like to protect against tornadoes. They need to be insulated. And since you can’t open the window to close the shutters, they will have to be operated by remote control from shutter headquarters in Manhattan.

  26. There is no way they can retrofit every building in new York in 12 years. these idiots think that making a command makes it so, it just not possible. It comparable to when California made it a requirement that 10% of all cars in California be electric by 1999. we are still waiting for that to happen.

    1. Well California doesn’t count. They are run by a special kind of liberal retards!

  27. Another equally rah-rah story on the same subject in Popular Science where it says “The analysis found that 67 percent of New York City’s climate-changing pollution comes from its building stock. (The other 30 percent comes from the transportation sector.)”

    It’s a city. Where else could it come from but inhabited buildings? The crops? FFS.

    1. If San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle could figure out how to power the city on hobo shit, they’d be 100% renewable overnight.

  28. Wow, DeBlasio, AOC and our Orange-in-Chief. NYC has so much to be proud of.

  29. 40% fewer emissions will be achieved once 40% of businesses leave NYC…

  30. Skyscrapers reduce sprawl — which is a good thing.
    I continue to have this argument with my Green friends.

      1. The colon-parentheses emoticon does convert to an emoji.
        I will continue to explore this phenomenon.

        1. 😉

          1. Good find!

    1. Why is reducing sprawl a good thing?

      Because it jacks up the cost of living for no good reason? Because it means people have to live in tiny shitty boxes instead of nice houses with yards? I could go on.

      I have no problem with people deciding to live in sky scrapers… But all the bullshit laws designed to limit sprawl are bullshit. One of the main reasons housing costs have become insane in major cities in recent decades. When cities were allowed to sprawl even the biggest cities in the country had affordable housing. Magically that trend stopped once urban growth boundaries and similar nonsense (dumb zoning, etc) came into play. Now cities smaller than NYC was 100 years ago are more expensive than NYC ever was, even as recently as 10-20 years ago. It’s nonsense.

  31. NYC’s government, de Blasio went on to say, will become completely reliant on renewable energy “in the next five years.”

    Oh my god this guy’s such a fucking lying hack. He won’t be anywhere near 100% “renewable energy” in the next 100 years.

  32. Public buildings and low-income housing will also receive some exemptions.

    Why?

    1. Forget you asked and I’ll donate to your reelection campaign.

  33. Building owners may also be hesitant to lease space to tenants who might use more energy. “The approach taken today will have a negative impact on our ability to attract and retain a broad range of industries, including technology, media, finance, and life sciences,” Banks told Crain’s New York.

    I have a hunch that most of the people working in those industries live in the suburbs in high performing school districts anyway. Time for those companies to move out to the suburbs too.

  34. Work has begun on a spiral ramp to make the top of the Chrysler building Tesla accessible.

    https://tinyurl.com/y4y4qsoq

  35. ROFLMAO–Holy fucking shit. The demarxocrats are the gift that keeps giving. He is getting ready to announce his POTUS run. Campaign slogan “There is a ton of money in the U.S., its all in the wrong hands”. bahhahahaha, can’t wait for the debates!!

  36. BTW, the U.S. is 15% of the worlds emissions. China and Africa account for the bulk of carbon. Africa keeps throwing up coal mines. Not to mention that the U.S. is gearing toward nuclear (non-carbon energy) with 80% less waste through–you got it—capitalism, innovation and investment.

    Something is in the NYC water supply-sewer waste, medical waste? What gives with these morons.

  37. Well, New York? What did you think you were going to get?

  38. NYC’s government, de Blasio went on to say, will become completely reliant on renewable energy “in the next five years.”

    Yeah, sure, in 2024 all NYDP patrol units will be Priuses.

  39. NYC’s government, de Blasio went on to say, will become completely reliant on renewable energy “in the next five years.”

    Retard. And not trying hard enough: how about NYC becomes energy independent in 5 years? That would show the world, right, Bill?

  40. I’m holding my break for AOC comes out with promise that makes the mayor’s look meek by comparison. Is there no limit to the insanity on the left? These whacko dolts can’t even prove that the very thing they are trying to protect is even in any sort of trouble (the planet, from the non-scary global warming spook). But then to come up with plans that would regulate business and productive individuals into oblivion, without so much as a smidgeon of self-consciousness, is beyond the grasp of any reasonable person. There isn’t even an argument for such absolutely insane ideas. And these are the voices of the left.

  41. Mayor DeASSio continues to live in liberal clown world.

  42. […] a couple of days in late April, to take the most recent example, de Blasio told anyone who would listen that he wanted to prohibit developers from constructing glass and steel […]

  43. […] a couple of days in late April, to take the most recent example, de Blasio told anyone who would listen that he wanted to prohibit developers from constructing glass and steel […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.