NEW YORK | City plans BIG rezoning of Midtown

[ThisSideofSteinway]

Originally Posted by THE BIG APPLE

So I guess 285 Madison Ave could be gone soon. There are already plans to tear it down, it's the same building that the lady got crushed by the elevator in. The building is also in the rezoning area.

Well, as long as someone preserves that great carvings that adorn the facade. That was one of the best parts about working at Y&R.

[599GTO]

Why Park Avenue? Park Ave is so beautiful! How about rezoning all of 3rd Avenue which is all crap.

[Double L]

I just don't think we need government intervention. Let the free market encourage developers to renovate or to tear down and rebuild in a more modern way and if it truly is a landmark, designate it as one so it can't be torn down.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Why Park Avenue? Park Ave is so beautiful! How about rezoning all of 3rd Avenue which is all crap.

They are not just picking Avenues, they are picking location - the heart of Midtown. The heart of this great city just can't be left to rot because some want to preserve all of it as a museum to yesteryear. At the same time, you are not going to see whole blocks demolished like some urban renewal plan from years ago.

The plan is in the early stages, but they are discussing allowing more density (if it can be believed) into what is arguably the densest office district in the world (lower Manhattan is pretty dense). Some buildings would likely be razed. Of course, buildings that are no longer attracting those "Class A" office tenants can be converted to other uses, but in the process you would be converting the district into something else as well. The plan is to keep it as a top corporate district in Manhattan, even as the City expands elsewhere.

As mentioned in the article, there are questions whether this would conflict with redeveloping the west side or lower Manhattan. But realisticly speaking, I see Midtown, Downtown, and the Hudson Yards area as 3 distinct business districts in Manhattan. We already know there are companies that will never move Downtown, no matter how much cheaper it is than Midtown. Likewise, there will always be companies that - given a choice - would prefer the more established, world known addresses like 5th, Park, and Madison Avenues than the up and coming Hudson Yards district (Hudson Boulevard isn't built yet). They will compete to a degree, but one will be a preference for some over the others.

By most standards, there are already a lot of big buildings in the area. But by today's standards, the buildings would be bigger. A building of the same size would likely be taller. But unlike the blank slate in the Hudson Yards district, this area is highly developed already. Demolition is the only way you are going to get more here, and more seems to be the key word. It's not only a matter of just trying to use what is already there.

In the google earth photo below, you see the area of the potential Midtown rezoning (right) and the new Hudson Yards district (left).

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Double L

I just don't think we need government intervention. Let the free market encourage developers to renovate or to tear down and rebuild in a more modern way and if it truly is a landmark, designate it as one so it can't be torn down.

Developers can't do that if the zoning doesn't allow it. Who's going to change the zoning if not the government? But putting the zoning in place for the free market to work is exactly what the City is trying to do here. Putting the zoning in place doesn't automatically mean a building is going to be knocked down. Zoning approvals have been put in place for the Hotel Pennsylvania to be razed and replaced with an office tower, but that won't happen until a tenant signs for the building. That's the way it works. The landmarks in the area are already landmarked.

[babybackribs2314]

I think those concerned about the destruction of historic buildings will likely be pleased by whatever results of this. If and when this occurs, redevelopment/demolition (on a large scale) probably won't begin until the 2020s; by this time, most everything from the 60s/70s will be just as outdated as the stuff from the 20s/30s, except the modern crap won't have been landmarked (for the most part; obvious exceptions like the Seagram and Lever House). The 2020s should be prime time for redevelopment of all those heinous relics; let's just hope that stone facades are back in vogue by then, as glass towers are only so interesting...

What would be really fantastic is if we can finally develop something like Duracrete (in Star Wars, it's what they use to build skyscrapers on Coruscant... it's basically indestructible). That would make skyscrapers much more cost-effective and could also revolutionize their design, something that could/should happen soon...

[photoLith]

Not to start an argument NYguy, but I think sometimes that you would want NYC to be completely covered in glass skyscrapers. Here in Houston, we have destroyed almost every smidgen of pre war buildings we had in our downtown area. Its important to preserve places like NYC because many of our great cities have destroyed so much. NYC is a very healthy city with lots and lots of money to restore old buildings, modernize their interiors, and keep them for the future. A city that has this capability should not tear down its old pre war buildings. Hardly anyone lives in downtown Houston and we lose each year a couple more beauties from the past. It will get to the point when basically nothing but glass boxes and pre cast apartment buildings are left. It makes me so mad when cities that have the means and the ways to preserve its old beautiful buildings tear them down. Old buildings can be modernized, London's done it, Paris, Prague, Rome, etc; why can't the greatest city in the world do it?

[Double L]

Instead of using zoning laws to force change and newer buildings, how about loosening the zoning laws so that the real estate industry can retrofit buildings with more modern infrastructure.

[Illithid Dude]

I wouldn't be too worried about old buildings being destroyed. Nowadays, it is in vogue to have, at least the facades, be saved. Look at the Hearst Tower. They did a pretty good job. I expect such work-arounds such as what they did with the Hearst Tower will happen. I wouldn't worry.

[FMIII]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Not to start an argument NYguy, but I think sometimes that you would want NYC to be completely covered in glass skyscrapers. Here in Houston, we have destroyed almost every smidgen of pre war buildings we had in our downtown area. Its important to preserve places like NYC because many of our great cities have destroyed so much. NYC is a very healthy city with lots and lots of money to restore old buildings, modernize their interiors, and keep them for the future. A city that has this capability should not tear down its old pre war buildings. Hardly anyone lives in downtown Houston and we lose each year a couple more beauties from the past. It will get to the point when basically nothing but glass boxes and pre cast apartment buildings are left. It makes me so mad when cities that have the means and the ways to preserve its old beautiful buildings tear them down. Old buildings can be modernized, London's done it, Paris, Prague, Rome, etc; why can't the greatest city in the world do it?

I can only agree with that. The difference between NYC and Dubai? In the 30's, NYC was already a big city with a lot of high-rise while Dubai was merely a desert... When you walk in the NY streets you can feel this glorious past at almost every corner, while, at the same time, you can feel that's its present and near future is as glorious (unlike our European cities). NY can do better than to tear down its past. Tenants want modern towers ? Change the zoning rules and allow higher towers in the area (like the city has done for the "far" west side). Tear down blank office towers from the sixties, build new supertalls on them and convert all pre-war towers into residential towers. Its a win/win solution. Tenants and developers will be happy, the city will keep its architectural treasures and the skyline will look better.

[yankeesfan1000]

I understand where photo and LM are coming from. But from 14th St to 59th St these are just the neighborhoods that are landmarked; Chelsea Historic District; East 17th St Iriving Place; Gramercy Park; Ladies' Mile; Lamartine Place; Madison Square North; Murray Hill; Sniffen Court; Stuyvesant Square; Tudor City; Turtle Bay; West Chelsea; and Bryant Park and Grand Army Plaza are scenic landmarks. Not to mention the dozens of individual buildings and interiors that are landmarked. Wiki page here for that one area of Manhattan.

I think there's a delicate balance that the city has reached in preservation, and in planning for the future. If NY wants to remain one of the premier cities in the world, it needs new office space, plain and simple. While maintaing the past is a huge part of what makes NY such a destination , it's important to not hinder development.

The area we're talking about here is the second largest business district on the planet. So even without this rezoning older buildings will be razed for new ones eventually. Again, I really urge both of you to look at the NY Landmarks Commission website and look at the map of landmarked neighborhoods in Manhattan. People don't realize just how many square miles of Manhattan exist where the city is committed to keeping it just the way it was 100+ years ago.

Anyway, I'm late for work. Hope either of you don't take that as condescending in any fashion, I'm just not sure if either of you know much about the NYC Landmarks Commission, my dad's an architect and always complains about how picky they can be but simultaneously lauds them for the work they do.

[photoLith]

^
I look at NYC landmark commission website at least weekly, and have been for years. NYC has preserved large swaths of the city, but still, large parts of Manhattan are still unprotected from tear downs. But at least jewels like Greenwich Village, etc are fully protected. Still, there are plenty of post war schlock buildings that could be torn down instead. Is anyone going to miss a big glass box from 1970? If a tear down is really needed than the should at the very least preserve the facade and have the tower above setback from the old building, much like they did with the Legacy at Millennium Park in Chicago.

[yankeesfan1000]

Okay, just wasn't sure if you'd looked at their website before.

Honesty, it's just not realistic to expect the city to landmark huge swaths, or even small areas of Midtown. Again, second largest business district in the world and as NYGuy said, this area has been the backbone of NYs commercial real estate market for decades. I completely agree that I'd love to see some big generic 70s boxes gone, or like that building in Chicago and like Hearst Tower over on 8th Ave, see old bases preserved and incorporated into new designs, but it's probably cheaper to tear down an older building.

There's not really a perfect system, but I think the city does pretty well. Some buildings that are worth saving like the Drake are going to be lost, but like you said there are huge parts of the city like where I live in the Greenwich Village that are incredibly well preserved.

This rezoning will be put into affect before Bloombergs term ends, but the WTC and the west side will very likely be built out well before we see the ramifications and effects of this on the East Side on a large scale. Between now and then, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of buildings in the area be landmarked by the LPC, or at least a major review of landmark candidates in the area.

[yankeesfan1000]

Sorry, double post.

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Okay, just wasn't sure if you'd looked at their website before.

Honesty, it's just not realistic to expect the city to landmark huge swaths, or even small areas of Midtown. Again, second largest business district in the world and as NYGuy said, this area has been the backbone of NYs commercial real estate market for decades. I completely agree that I'd love to see some big generic 70s boxes gone, or like that building in Chicago and like Hearst Tower over on 8th Ave, see old bases preserved and incorporated into new designs, but it's probably cheaper to tear down an older building.

There's not really a perfect system, but I think the city does pretty well. Some buildings that are worth saving like the Drake are going to be lost, but like you said there are huge parts of the city like where I live in the Greenwich Village that are incredibly well preserved.

This rezoning will be put into affect before Bloombergs term ends, but the WTC and the west side will very likely be built out well before we see the ramifications and effects of this on the East Side on a large scale. Between now and then, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of buildings in the area be landmarked by the LPC, or at least a major review of landmark candidates in the area.

NYC needs a design/taste czar like Paris or London. Amanda Burden is a dumbass. I don't want to see any more McSams in that city. I'm appalled at the beauty that is razed and the crap turds that are dropped in some of the nicest areas of the city by tacky greedy developers.

[Crawford]

This rezoning will primary affect postwar era (50's and 60's) buildings. It will have very little impact on prewar towers, of which the notable ones are all landmarked.

And this district is dominated by the postwar towers. By definition, any transformation of the district will most affect buildings of this era.

Just walk up Park Avenue from Grand Central. There are very few prewar towers, and those that exist (I can only think of two, the Waldorf and one office building) are both landmarked.

Also, Midtown isn't the second largest business district in the world. It's the largest, by far. NYC generally has far more office space per capita than other global cities, and it generally has fewer primary business hubs than competitor cities like Tokyo.

[uaarkson]

I was going to say, what on earth is the largest "business hub" supposed to be, in that case?

[jd3189]

Couldn't say it better myself.

[yankeesfan1000]

My mistake. I don't know what I thought the largest BD was if Midtown was #2...

Celebrating the Giants win last night+waking up early for work on a holiday=not thought out posts.

[NYguy]

http://www.observer.com/2012/01/the-...-midtown-east/

The Mayor’s Very Big Plans for Midtown East


davidboeke/Flickr

By Matt Chaban 1/16/12

It turns out a one-liner in Mayor Bloomberg’s State of the City may indeed be one of the biggest development proposals of the waning days of his administration. Last Thursday, the mayor declared, “In the area around Grand Central, we’ll work with the City Council on a package of regulatory changes and incentives that will attract new investment, new companies and new jobs.”

At the time, this could have meant any number of things, from tax incentives to a rezoning. The latter would be the most ambitious, but also the most complex, given it would require the demolition of some of the most built-up real estate in the world. According to a spokesperson for the Department of City Planning, the city is studying exactly what the best approach would be for the area, and expects to have the results by the spring, but according to The Journal, a major rezoning, stretching as far north as Central Park, may well be in the works. A statement from City Planning spokeswoman Rachaele Raynoff underscores the challenges such a plan presents:

DCP is undertaking an important study to ensure that, over time, East Midtown continues to maintain its stature as the world’s premier office district, home to a quarter of a million jobs, 13 Fortune 500 companies, and more than 70 million square feet of office space. The area is characterized by a distinguished building stock, urban design excellence, a vibrant pedestrian realm and an extensive and soon to be enhanced transit network.

Preservationists, current tenants, hoity toity private clubs—the list of entrenched constituencies runs as long as the 220 streets of Manhattan. Still, for the right price, and with enough room to build, any deal makes sense. Look no further than Harry Macklowe’s decision to demolish the Drake and build the tallest residences in the Western world in its place.

Does this mean anyone will be tearing down Lever House or Seagrams, or even a non-landmark like 345 Park? At that scale, probably not, but some of the avenues smaller building could be behind the wrecking ball sooner rather than later. Though later seems to be the case.To assuage fears this could compete with the development of the Far West Side and the World Trade Center, real estate insiders tell The Journal any Midtown rezoning would work itself out gradually.