![\"Chrysler](\"https:\/\/farm3.staticflickr.com\/2816\/8903969649_38f0491720.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nCould the beautiful views of the iconic Chrysler Building and Grand Central Terminal be forever obscured by the type of development rezoning ushers in?<\/strong><\/p>\n The upcoming weeks and months will be crucial as the public gets more opportunities to weigh in on the proposal. A formal land-use review process is underway. Moreover, in response to the strong reaction the rezoning effort has already engendered, city planners have hired a team of urban planning and engineering consultants to lead public workshops and produce a plan for the streetscape and address concerns about crowded sidewalks and a lack of green space.<\/p>\n Simply put, the forces behind a massive rezoning prioritizing new office towers believe that these changes are necessary so that New York can compete with cities such as London and Tokyo. Some 80 percent of the buildings in this district are more than 50 years old. Those against the city\u2019s push say the plan overemphasizes huge commercial buildings that would obliterate the distinctiveness and heritage of some of New York\u2019s most iconic landmarks and their surrounding neighborhood. Here\u2019s a look at the important elements, what some of the key players say, and the next steps.<\/p>\n The City\u2019s Rezoning Proposal<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n New York City established the current zoning for Midtown East some 30 years ago. Now the city\u2019s planners say they want to “seed” the area with new, state-of-the-art, and sustainable mega-size office buildings. To do so, the city would allow much higher density and support developers assembling large parcels for commercial building development. The plan<\/a> puts primacy on the development of Class A office space (defined as buildings that compete for the most prestigious office users at rents above average for the area and that have state-of-the-art systems and excellent accessibility).<\/p>\n What would gargantuan office buildings do, however, to the skyline\u2019s profiles of Grand Central and the Chrysler Building, and to the neighborhood\u2019s personality? Certainly, the area adjacent to Grand Central Terminal would be in the developers\u2019 bull\u2019s eye if the rezoning takes place, so what kinds of changes are desirable? The rezoning would permit the greatest densities on large sites with full-block frontage on avenues around Grand Central Terminal. The city would require developers who obtain higher density bonuses to contribute to a District Improvement Fund for the area\u2019s transit and pedestrian networks. <\/p>\n But will that be enough? Critics say it\u2019s far from assured that sufficient money would be devoted to improvements, especially to the East Side\u2019s already-overcrowded subway platforms in midtown. Developers who meet certain benchmarks for contributing to the improvement fund could purchase additional density through the sale of air rights from landmark buildings.<\/p>\n City planners estimate that the proposal would generate an additional 4.4 million square feet of development in the next 20 years. However, the Municipal Art Society counters that the city\u2019s analysis undercounts how much development could occur. Architect Stern described just how much the giant skyscrapers would dwarf iconic buildings, in a New York Times <\/em>op-ed piece in April<\/a>: \u201cWith district improvement bonuses, the City Planning study proposes to double the developable floor area on some sites around Grand Central, allowing enough additional square footage to give us a neighborhood of towering office buildings, some as tall as 1,300 feet or more.\u201d Consider, as Stern noted, that the Chrysler Building is 1,046 feet to the top of its spire.<\/p>\n \u201dDismissed Cavalierly\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Nearly 50 years ago, the Municipal Art Society joined with others to save Grand Central Terminal from sure obliteration. Now, the MAS and others who have a differing vision than the city\u2019s say that the lessons of preservation appear to have been forgotten. Those expressing many concerns about the city\u2019s plan include preservation groups such as the New York Landmarks Conservancy and the Historic Districts Council; Community Boards 4, 5, and 6; and some members of City Council.<\/p>\n This Midtown Manhattan neighborhood \u201cis home to some of our most iconic landmarked buildings, as well as many architecturally significant buildings, whose character should not be dismissed cavalierly,\u201d said Council Member Gale A. Brewer last autumn in testimony on the rezoning. \u201cIt would be a pyrrhic victory for the city if hastily planned development blotted out the views of the Chrysler Building, Waldorf-Astoria, RCA Building, Chanin and Lincoln Buildings, the Ford Foundation, and others.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThese towers, like the Empire State Building and Rockefeller Center, are defining of New York,\u201d added Brewer, who represents the Upper West Side and the northern part of Hell\u2019s Kitchen. \u201cWe dismiss them at our peril.\u201d<\/p>\n The MAS maintains that the civic commitment that created today\u2019s treasures in New York\u2019s neighborhoods is missing in the high level of emphasis the Bloomberg Administration puts on new office space to rejuvenate Midtown East. \u201cNew Class A office space will help, but it will not ensure a vibrant and successful business district,\u201d the group asserts in a report that offers various recommendations to the city, \u201cA Bold Vision for the Future in East Midtown<\/a>.\u201d \u201cNew York\u2019s success is built upon the historic commitments of previous generations \u2013 building Grand Central, creating some of the world\u2019s most well-known parks, open spaces and streets, and protecting and enhancing these treasures along the way.\u201d<\/p>\n The city should encourage a diversity of uses and businesses, ensure a better use of the street-level spaces; explore new ways to provide incentives for rehabbing distinctive older buildings; and be more ambitious in investing in public transit, the MAS says.<\/p>\n Are They Landmarks or Relics?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n A reading of the plans and quotes of the various parties \u2013 from the city Planning Department to the Real Estate Board of New York to the civic groups and leaders \u2013 show just how differently they view the neighborhood and especially its buildings. The vision that wins out could foretell which buildings are demolished and which are saved and possibly rehabilitated and repurposed. Landmark status already protects Grand Central Terminal, the Waldorf-Astoria, the Lever House, and 29 other buildings in the area the city has targeted for rezoning.<\/p>\n Still, many others are unprotected and likely vulnerable, should city planners\u2019 rezoning go through as the DCP currently proposes. They include the Pershing Square Building, 125 Park Ave; the Yale Club, 50 Vanderbilt Ave.; the Graybar Building, 420 Lexington Ave.; the InterContinental New York Barclay (originally the Barclay Hotel), 111 East 48th St.; the Swedish Seaman\u2019s Church (former New York Bible Society), 5 East 48th St.; and 661 Vanderbilt Ave. (former Babies\u2019 Hospital). The Municipal Art Society originally identified 29 sites of historic or architectural merit, and of these, has proposed to the city\u2019s Landmarks Preservation Commission that it bestow landmark status on 17 buildings.<\/p>\n \u201cThere needs to be new construction in Midtown. There is no question that that is important,” Ronda Wist of the Municipal Arts Society told NY1 earlier this year<\/a>. “But equally important, and at the same time, there needs to be recognition that historic buildings are important and must be preserved.\u201d Wist added, \u201cWhat\u2019s so terrific about Midtown now is that there are new buildings and old buildings. There are large glass and steel buildings, smaller masonry buildings, lots of different office types, lots of different hotels, and we\u2019d like to see that vibrant mix preserved.\u201d<\/p>\n However, a coalition of business, real estate, and labor groups contends that further landmarking efforts will stunt progress. \u201cMany of the proposed landmarks are on sites that have been identified as best for new development or are in locations that would undermine the potential created by new development,\u201d the coalition, Midtown21C<\/a>, said in its report on Midtown East, called \u201cIcons, Placeholders, and Leftovers<\/a>.\u201d The coalition includes the Real Estate Board, New York Building Congress, Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, Hotel Trades Council, and others. \u201cIn this context, inappropriate use of landmarking runs the risk of slowing or stopping the process of continuous transformation that has created Midtown East and provided a great source of real estate and wage taxes for the City.\u201d<\/p>\n The Pershing Square Building<\/strong><\/p>\n The brickwork and decorative details of the Pershing Square Building<\/strong><\/p>\n Consider, for example, the differing views about the Pershing Square Building, which lies directly across from Grand Central Terminal at 125 Park Ave. (100 East 42nd St.). It is likely a potential development site and thus a vulnerable building. John Sloan, who was the architect for various significant New York buildings, designed this 1923 Romanesque Revival skyscraper, a richly textured buff and brown structure of brick and terra cotta with three-story decorative arches at its base. <\/p>\n Is it worthy of protection or just outdated? The MAS has requested that the Landmarks Preservation Commission consider designating it as a landmark (and the LPC has agreed that it merits consideration). But the Midtown21C report calls it a \u201choldover\u201d of the earlier Beaux Arts era: \u201cThe cubic Beaux Arts design was old-fashioned even before it was finished \u2013 an unpardonable sin in up-to-date Manhattan.\u201d The upcoming deliberations could well determine whether it will ultimately survive.<\/p>\n Time To Weigh In<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n As for what is next, critics of the Department of City Planning\u2019s proposal are at least expressing relief that the city is beginning to respond to their apprehensions. They are welcoming opportunities to better shape Midtown East\u2019s future. Still, the civic groups and local officials remain concerned that the city\u2019s path to rezoning will not be accompanied by enough specifics; the necessary improvements to the transit and pedestrian infrastructure before massive new development takes place; a diverse mix of development and services that will sustain the neighborhood\u2019s quality of life; and sufficient care about designating and protecting New York\u2019s landmarks.<\/p>\n Citizens have various opportunities to weigh in on the rezoning proposal in the next few months, as it goes through New York\u2019s public land-use review process<\/a>. The New York City Planning Commission certified the rezoning proposal in late April, which means that the Community Boards and Planning Commission will hold public hearings and develop their recommendations before it goes to City Council.<\/p>\n In addition, another opportunity to express opinions and offer input about Midtown East will come through the development of a \u201cPublic Realm Vision Plan\u201d with the DCP\u2019s appointment of a consultants\u2019 team. The team includes the Jonathan Rose Company, Gehl Architects, and Skanska. This team will lead three public workshops during the spring and summer.<\/p>\n![\"Pershing](\"https:\/\/farm4.staticflickr.com\/3751\/8904730854_6305e101e5.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Pershing](\"https:\/\/farm8.staticflickr.com\/7363\/8904834257_2286d1c0ff.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n