unused floor area from the site of the small build ing to the development site. However, the shift ing of excessive amounts of floor area to a development site from the already developed portion of a merged zoning lot has, in some instances, produced buildings out-of-scale with their neighbors Many development sites straddle zoning districts. The rules governing the development of these"split lots "are confusing and too permissive. As a result, split lots have provided an excuse for erasing the distinctions between d ifferent zoning districts, transferring inappropriately large amounts of floor area and producing oversized buildings. The scale of buildings can also be affected by the increasingly sophisticated technology new commercial build ings contain. Much of the space occupied by this equipment is treated as mechanical space"and is deducted from the zoning floor area of a building under the existing zoning. In some cases, these deductions enabled a building to become much larger than is contemplated in the zoning. Many public spaces provided for in the Zoning Resolution have been successful, but floor area bonuses for residential plazas and certain other public spaces have too often produced larger buildings without providing meaningful public benefits Contextual rules in some low-density districts apply to residences, but not to community facilities and commercial build ings This reflects the fact that these nonresident ial build ings require more bulk to fulfill their programmatic requirements. Zoning should recognize these differences in shape and size, but also place reasonable limits on their impact on surround ing communities The realizat ion of some of the less appealing possibilit ies inherent in the 1961 zoning appears with greater frequency now, because market conditions are more favorable than in most of the preceding 40 years and good development sites are in ever shorter supply. With each successive boom in the citys real estate economy, developers use the opportunities that remain in the 1961 zoning to build taller and bigger buildings. Now more than ever, reforms are needed to rebalance the zoning regulation and development economics. Recommendations The goal of the zoning reform proposal was to produce zoning consistent with the following underlying principles The Zoning resolution should contain the simplest regulations compatible with the city's planning objectives. Height and setback controls should be designed to prevent new buildings from disrupting the prevailing character of communit ies in ways that are not ant icipated in the zoning. In the highest-density areas with post-1961 towers, outside the central business districts, towers should be permitted, but should not continue to rise to ever-greater heightsunused floor area from the site of the small building to the development site. However, the shifting of excessive amounts of floor area to a development site from the already developed portion of a merged zoning lot has, in some instances, produced buildings out-of-scale with their neighbors. Many development sites straddle zoning districts. The rules governing the development of these "split lots" are confusing and too permissive. As a result, split lots have provided an excuse for erasing the distinctions between different zoning districts, transferring inappropriately large amounts of floor area and producing oversized buildings. The scale of buildings can also be affected by the increasingly sophisticated technology new commercial buildings contain. Much of the space occupied by this equipment is treated as "mechanical space" and is deducted from the zoning floor area of a building under the existing zoning. In some cases, these deductions enabled a building to become much larger than is contemplated in the zoning. Many public spaces provided for in the Zoning Resolution have been successful, but floor area bonuses for residential plazas and certain other public spaces have too often produced larger buildings without providing meaningful public benefits. Contextual rules in some low-density districts apply to residences, but not to community facilities and commercial buildings. This reflects the fact that these nonresidential buildings require more bulk to fulfill their programmatic requirements. Zoning should recognize these differences in shape and size, but also place reasonable limits on their impact on surrounding communities. The realization of some of the less appealing possibilities inherent in the 1961 zoning appears with greater frequency now, because market conditions are more favorable than in most of the preceding 40 years and good development sites are in ever shorter supply. With each successive boom in the city’s real estate economy, developers use the opportunities that remain in the 1961 zoning to build taller and bigger buildings. Now more than ever, reforms are needed to rebalance the zoning regulation and development economics. Recommendations The goal of the zoning reform proposal was to produce zoning consistent with the following underlying principles: The Zoning Resolution should contain the simplest regulations compatible with the city's planning objectives. Height and setback controls should be designed to prevent new buildings from disrupting the prevailing character of communities in ways that are not anticipated in the zoning. In the highest-density areas with post-1961 towers, outside the central business districts, towers should be permitted, but should not continue to rise to ever-greater heights