Based on the pictures I can’t imagine anyone legally living there.
I don’t know for sure, but I imagine usable windows are required for living spaces.
I don’t know for sure, but I imagine usable windows are required for living spaces.
But in this part of town, the advertising rights alone probably vastly exceed any possible revenue from renting the building for residential use. It’s kind of like the tiny building in Times Square that has the ball on top. I don’t think people even realize there’s a building behind all of the billboards, but it was original New York Times building.
Renting any part of that building out is likely not worth the hassle compared to the ad revenue, as you noted.
It was the second New York Times building! The original was on Park Row.
I don't think you meant this as specific as it sounds -- I suspect this requirement applies to coops, condos, and maybe even if you want to get official permission to use it as an owner-occupied single-family dwelling.
I think there's actually a parallel rule that theoretically applies to owner-occupied buildings, but for obvious reasons there's a lot less enforcement. Beyond real estate agents not listing an illegal bedroom as a bedroom, for example, nobody is going to hunt you down for using a non-bedroom as a sleeping place.
My first instinct was perhaps they raised the ceiling in the first floor to occupy some of the second. But thinking on it more, high ceilings without windows to go with them usually don't make the space feel that much bigger. You can spend up to a couple feet on crown molding but beyond that you're well into diminishing returns.