***SPAM*** Re: Re: NP: Ad Coelum

[David Morris]

Real estate air rights are on offshoot of NYC vertical setback requirements
going back to the 20's.  Unlimited vertical development was envisioned to
likely result in streets as sunless canyons.  So setbacks as buildings got
higher were required.  A wonderful group of renderings by Hugh Ferness in
1922 shows how these requirements might be interpreted into architecture.

http://archleague.org/2010/12/hugh-ferrisss-zoning-envelope-drawings-exhibited-at-annual-exhibition/

David Morris

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 1:19 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> FREE THE AIR SPACE!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 14, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The concept of air rights in NYC - that a short building can sell it's
> "air space" to a larger building that wants to build higher than it would
> be allowed to - strikes me as illogical and larcenous. All hail the real
> estate developers!
>
> http://www.airrightsny.com/?m=1
>
> Laura
>
> *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID*
>
>
> Smoke Teff <smoketeff at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey y’all,
>
>
>
> I’m working on an essay right now that deals a little with questions of
> property law, specifically this ad coelum doctrine (idea that land
> ownership extends infinitely upward and downward), set against the larger
> notion of the human’s relationship to the sky, the politics of public space
> on an airplane, some other things…
>
>
> If any of you have any particularly interesting/relevant information or
> thoughts to send my way, I’d be interested. Especially things that might
> shed some light on the extent to which this was actually a new idea
> whenever it first gets supposedly uttered (Wikipedia says some people
> credit a 13th century Roman scholar named Accursus), the extent to which
> it represents an evolution in a living person’s public understanding of
> property ownership/rights at the time, the details around its becoming
> understood embraced versus becoming officially codified in rule of law,
> maybe even the evolution of how a human thinks about such things like the
> sky, the ground, etc... (you might get the sense here I’m trying to get a
> sense of the human’s sense of frontiers, the way the human first *sees *a
> space and sees it as colonizable/ownable…)
>
>
>
> One thing I’m trying to understand is the spirit and political context in
> which this first makes its way into the public’s imagination, perhaps maybe
> wondering how it might be understood against/in relation to the
> Renaissance, what currents of change might run through them both and
> into—eventually—modernism, etc.
>
>
>
> Is there something kind of populist about this? At least populist relative
> to whoever was allowed to own land… Or if not populist then does it
> indicate broader humanistic trends? Or is it strictly a legalistic
> framework for solving obvious neighbor disputes?
>
>
>
> Bonus points if anyone has anything particularly interesting or salient to
> do with the mile high club, or aviatory sex in general.
>
>
>
> Thanks and lots of love.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170414/c352acc7/attachment.html>