The NYC Skyline Is Losing Its Charm

You are an architect in possession of a daring, new, unique design: a spiraling tower that twists gently as it rises, with a welcoming garden at its base that opens up to the street. You boldly march into the Department of City Planning, driven by a sense of determination to leave your mark on New York City. However, the weary attendant at the front informs you that there are several mandatory stops before your proposal can even be considered.

The first destination is the Setback Compliance Desk, where a clerk is armed with a ruler and an encyclopedic knowledge of obscure regulations. The clerk informs you that your building must be reduced by precisely 37 feet. The reason? At its current height, your proposed building might cast a shadow, lasting around three minutes, on a community garden during the summer solstice. The law is the law.

From there, you proceed to the Aesthetic Harmony Committee, a panel of self-appointed individuals who seem to believe that architectural ambition is a public hazard. They study your plans with furrowed brows before declaring your design “too interesting” and potentially disruptive to the “visual rhythm” of the surrounding beige monoliths. Their recommendation is swift and firm: you must replace your elegant curved facade with “a nice, safe, flat wall.”

Finally, you stumble towards the offices of the Affordable Housing Integration Bureau. The commission explains that you can build your skyscraper as long as you also construct 14 units of “affordable” housing in a random neighborhood. 

By the time you leave, your once daring tower has been reduced to a flat 12‑story glass box that looks exactly like the one next to it. Congratulations, you have just contributed to the “world’s most iconic skyline,” now available in bulk at any major city.

New York City’s skyline was once a remarkable symbol of human ambition and ingenuity from the Empire State Building and Freedom Tower to less iconic but equally as stunning buildings. Unfortunately, that era is long gone. Today, the city’s spirit is being flattened into monotonous walls of glass—not because architects have lost their nerve, but because development restrictions have turned imagination and creativity into a liability. 

Developers, faced with years of countless bureaucratic community board hearings, design revisions, and unnecessary safety revisions and regulations, have learned to play it safe. Rectangular pencil towers are relatively quick to design, easy to replicate, and less likely to trigger objections from the countless city development boards. However, compared to the architectural magnificence of the Empire State and Chrysler buildings, the glass boxes of today feel underwhelming. Overregulation has created a homogenized and boring skyline by decaying its previously remarkable beauty. 

Moreover, restrictive development policies have also limited the ability to address pressing urban challenges. Architectural innovation serves a practical purpose beyond the initial aesthetic. Thoughtful design can support greater density, combine residential and commercial uses, and be more affordable to both the business and consumer. Excessive regulation and homogenization penalizes departure from standard models and discourages the creativity needed for New York to adapt to crises.

In addition to development laws, highly restrictive zoning laws have led to decreased affordability for residents and a substantial housing crisis caused by housing scarcity that has distorted the housing market, causing increased homelessness and poverty. By capping housing density, micromanaging buildings, and forcing developers through years of costly approvals, the city also deliberately constrains supply. Although these policies are often justified as a means to prevent overdevelopment, maintain the property value of existing buildings, and preserve neighborhood “character,” exclusionary zoning laws cause an artificial constraint on supply. Fewer units mean higher prices, and only the most expensive projects can survive the endless delays, legal fees, and compliance costs. The result is a pipeline dominated by luxury, uniform towers, while “affordable housing” is reduced to units tucked far from the neighborhoods where demand is greatest.

Since its adoption in 2016, the restrictive Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH), a zoning policy that requires certain new residential developments to include a percentage of below-market-rate units, produced a mere 2,065 approved units in its first five years, a far cry from the 12,000 units it was expected to produce. MIH forces developers to raise prices for regular units to offset the cost of mandated housing. This pricing adjustment places a greater financial burden on market-rate tenants, making housing less affordable for middle-income households. The added cost and complexity also discourages developers from building in areas where MIH applies.

Policymakers and regulatory authorities have at last acknowledged that longstanding housing policies have strangled market supply. The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity (COYHO) initiative passed by the New York City Council on December 24, 2025 is a landmark policy reform that legalizes accessory dwelling units, eliminates parking minimums in transit zones, and allows for residential conversions of underused commercial zones present in the existing MIH. 

While this legislation indicates progress, it does not address the systematic mandated housing problem and is not a comprehensive, necessary overhaul of our city’s degrading housing infrastructure and zoning system, which has continued to inhibit innovation, suppress supply, and decrease affordability in the real estate market. 

Removing a greater degree of restrictive zoning and development barriers will increase market competition and drive builders to meet demand while allowing architects to create more appealing structures. Without bureaucratic policies, developers will be able to bring projects to market faster and at a lower cost. In a freer environment, some will chase high‑end buyers with luxury towers, while others will target the far larger pool of everyday renters and homeowners, because serving that market will become profitable once regulation stops artificially inflating costs. Legislation in such an ecosystem must be aimed at encouraging ingenuity and supporting design. Rather than imposing restrictions that stifle innovation and developmental capabilities, policy should allow for experimentation and adaptation. The goal should be to enable builders and designers to respond to the real needs for customers in the housing market, such as addressing the housing crisis, not force conformity through rigid requirements that have been shown to serve no purpose.

While the COYHO initiative may have allowed developers greater leeway in development and thereby acts as a small step toward the right direction, it has not escaped the structural shortcomings of its forefather, MIH. True reform will only come when the market is trusted alone to deliver abundance and legislation serves as a tool to aid businesses and customers rather than force arbitrary mandates onto them.