The Municipal Art Society is worried that the Midtown East upzoning would allow development that would block views of the Chrysler Building, among other landmarks.

Based on the arguments made by those both for and against the Midtown East rezoning—a "sweeping proposal," wrote New York magazine architecture critic Justin Davidson, with "swollen ambitions for the skyline"—one might think that the proposed land use change, which would affect 78 blocks between Second and Fifth Avenues and East 39th and East 57th Streets, would be a dramatic revision of New York City's most hallowed business district.

Crain's New York Business calls the plan "essential." The Post’s Steve Cuozzo, ever a friend to big real estate, says it's “vital to the city's future, a way to ensure that Manhattan's most desirable commercial zone can compete in the future with global capitals like London and Shanghai."

Meanwhile, opponents of the plan to rezone the area north of Grand Central Terminal have painted it as a death knell for some of New York's most iconic sites, and a massive imposition on an already-overburdened transit system. "The rezoning study makes no mention of protected-view corridors," wrote starchitect Robert A.M. Stern, coming out against the plan in today's New York Times. "I can hardly make my way to the stairways and escalators that lead to the Lexington Avenue subway platforms."

The Municipal Art Society, which has proposed landmarking 17 pre- and postwar towers in the area (the Historic Districts Council has a list of 33), commissioned mock-ups of potential new towers that could obscure the district's most famous buildings, writing, "The verifiable photo simulations show how iconic buildings such as the Chrysler building will not be visible from many vantage points if development occurs as proposed."

But delve into the actual numbers on the proposed rezoning, and it starts to look like much ado about nothing. As the Wall Street Journal’s Eliot Brown pointed out on Twitter, only 3.8 million square feet of office development is expected beyond what would be built without any zoning changes, according to an environmental assessment released by the city on Friday, or 4.4 million square feet of total extra development taking into account all uses. (While more than 14 million square feet of new office space could rise, two-thirds of that would replace existing buildings.)

Compare this to the rezoning of Manhattan's far west side earlier in Mr. Bloomberg's term, where nearly 26 million square feet of new office space was allowed in Hudson Yards—an area with far worse transit and less new investment ($8.4 billion for East Side Access, which will bring the Long Island Rail Road into Grand Central, versus just $2.1 billion for the 7 train extension to 34th Street and 11th Avenue)—and the Midtown East rezoning starts to look downright puny.

With just 3.8 million square feet of new office development expected out of the plan in an area that already contains 70 million square feet of office space, the Midtown East upzoning would barely add more floorspace to the district than the Port Authority is building in One World Trade Center—3.5 million square feet of floorspace in one tower alone.

Even the Williamsburg and Greenpoint rezonings, which added over 30 million square feet of residential development rights, dwarf what Mr. Bloomberg and the real estate industry want to add to Midtown East.

Given the relatively small numbers involved, both sides should drop the histrionics: the Grand Central upzoning just isn't that grand, and isn't going to make or break Midtown East either way.

If you build it, they will come. Promise. (Edward Reed/Flickr)

One of the big debates that has been raging around the rezoning of Midtown East is how it might impact development already underway around the city, much of it funded in part by the public sector, and thus taxpayers. Should these projects fail, Joe Public could lose out on his investment.

The World Trade Center and Hudson Yards have been two focal points, but Manhattan West, which broke ground yesterday, ought to be considered, too. While the project's backers bragged at the groundbreaking about building without public subsidy, they are still competing for the same anchor tenants as their rivals further east. Furthermore, the $2 billion the city contributed to the construction of the 7 train nearby is to be paid back through property taxes on the new projects. No new development, no bond proceeds, big trouble for the city.

Still, Mayor Bloomberg is standing by the decision to fast-track the Midtown rezoning and ensure it gets completed this year.

"There's lots of development going on all over the city, not only on the West Side but downtown, at the World Trade Center, in Brooklyn and Long Island City," the mayor said. "People are surprised by how much interest there is."

Still, the mayor thinks there are provisions being taken to protect these projects. "That's why we set the five year sunrise," the mayor said, referring to the delay in the rezoning taking effect until 2017. Some landlords have complained about the delay, as has Post columnist Steve Cuozzo.

"We think that's a decision to give people plenty of breathing room to get their projects off the ground," the mayor said of the sunrise provision.

John Zuccotti, the former Brookfield chairman who was on hand for the groundbreaking yesterday was unconcerned about the Midtown East rezoning, as well. "I think the rezoning will come in its time, but it won't be as tranformative as this because they're building where there are already office building," Mr. Zuccotti said. "Here there was nothing, and it's all gonna change." It is this total transformation, this neighborhood from nothing, its brand-new glowing greatness, that will make the project so appealing (and cheaper) to companies and residents.

Not that the transformation comes as a surprise to Mr. Zuccotti.

"It all started with Battery Park City," he said, where Brookfield (then Olympia and York, still led by Mr. Zuccotti) was one of the first builders, creating the World Financial Center. "I was there when the ships left, and it was clear we had to find a whole new use for the West Side. My father took me to the Normandie when it was on fire, so I remember the old West Side, and it's not that anymore, hasn't been for a long time."

"From Nelson Rockefeller to Michael Bloomberg, that's been the transformation, and here we are."

Don't block my landmark, bro. (Getty)

Add a few more names to the growing list of people concerned about the speed with which the city is executing the Midtown East Rezoning—ones that carry some serious political clout. In addition to the community boards, a few civic groups and local Councilman Dan Garodnick (who's vote will be crucial to get the rezoning through the City Council), four new Midtown reps have just sent a letter to the mayor saying the rezoning needs more time to be perfected.

"Because this rezoning is so important, it is critical that it is done correctly the first time and is responsive to the concerns of the area’s current stakeholders even as it lays the groundwork for the area’s future," Congresswoman Caroline Maloney, Assemblyman Dan Qart and state senators Liz Krueger and Brad Hoylman write. They ask the Department of City Planning to withdraw the plan currently in the works, which is expected to be certified in the coming weeks, "in order to permit sufficient time for community input."

The Midtown East Rezoning seeks to give developers incentives to tear down their aging buildings by adding new air rights to certain blocks in Midtown, with an emphasis on Park Avenue and the area around Grand Central. Locals fear that there will not be sufficient public benefit and that the plan is a giveaway to developers. Air rights will have to be purchased from the city, which would fund new open space improvements and mass transit projects, though there is skepticism the project would generate enough funds to create meaningful investments.

A City Planning spokeswoman was not immediately available to comment, but when Mr. Garodnick raised similar objections, she said:

As with all of our projects, we have been carefully analyzing the area and meeting with area stakeholders, including the community boards, to discuss the issues and proposed policy solutions so that an appropriate long‐term zoning framework for East Midtown can be created. There is ample time to complete all the necessary review and analyses for this project, and we are committed to continue working closely with the community and other stakeholders as the process moves forward.

The four politicians lay out a number of specific concerns they have about the plan as it is currently configured, including more information about public realm improvements, a study of adverse impacts, a commitment by developers to build sustainable projects and concern over the fate of numerous landmarks, both officially designated and those not, but otherwise noteworthy.

One request is particularly interesting, and no doubt alarming to the development community, given how open it would be to debate and interpretation: "a special review process for buildings that could disrupt iconic features of New York’s skyline such as the Empire State and Chrysler buildings." Talk about encasing the skyline in amber, precisely what this rezoning is meant to undo.

"While we support the concept of encouraging the development of more iconic Class A office buildings in East Midtown," the four conclude, "we ask that your office and the Department of City Planning heed the community’s request to allow more time for deliberation and consideration of the community’s questions and recommendations to ensure that this plan serves the neighborhood, both current and future."

To that end, the Municipal Art Society has put forward 17 buildings it believes the city ought to consider protecting before the Midtown East rezoning goes into effect. The administration is rushing toward approving this plan sometime next year, but survey of the area's historic buildings actually has more time than it might seem to proceed, since it has promised the rezoning will have a sunrise provision preventing it from taking effect until 2017. Still, that does not mean any of these buildings could be saved from being torn down and becoming the next Empire State Building.

“City Planning’s proposed East Midtown re-zoning has the potential to dramatically change the area and threaten the mix of old and new buildings that define the neighborhood as uniquely New York," MAS president Vin Cipolla wrote in a release. "A holistic vision for the future of East Midtown must support a mix of businesses, people and buildings. Retaining the diverse, and historic, building stock is a critical component of maintaining a vibrant and successful business district.”

The administration wants to rezone Midtown East, particularly Park Avenue and the area around Grand Central, to allow for new, modern towers. Currently, more than 80 percent of buildings in the area are half a century old or older. To entice developers to tear down their buildings, they are being given generous development bonuses. In some cases, this could create spires bigger even than nearby landmarks like the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings.

As you can see from the list of 17 buildings MAS has selected out of hundreds in the neighborhood, this is not exactly a call for freezing the neighborhood in amber, as some might say (Columbia real estate director Vishaan Chakrabarti, among others, once sneered at the idea of preservation in the heart of the city's central business district). But there are some good candidates, both old (Yale Club, Graybar Building) and modern (450 Park) worthy of consideration.

The problem the city and the activists encounter when pursuing such a program, however, is that development and preservation are inherently at odds. Consider 445 Park Avenue, a late 1940s office tower designed by Kahn & Jacobs. In its plea to the city, MAS describes it as, "The first post-war office building on Park Avenue–and the first fully air-conditioned commercial structure in New York City–445 Park Avenue set the stage for future development along Park Avenue."

This is certainly some sacred history, but it underscores the very reason the administration has undertaken this plan. It wants to do away with old, obsolete offices like this very one, with outdated mechanicals and inferior (by modern standards) ceiling heights. In fact, in the Department of City Planning's presentation on the subject, we see a number of old buildings that look quite a lot like 445 Park Avenue.

Just as there was a major fight over the creation of the Downtown Brooklyn historic district, one envisions that Midtown's developers, already licking their chops over the possibilities of this rezoning, could be in full-on revolt should any of these landmarkings come to pass.

That does not mean they should not be pursued, simply that one is at odds with the other, and it is up to the city to determine what to do. As has been perhaps the biggest complaint thus far, the city may not be leaving itself enough time to do so.

A Cuomo conundrum? (DCP)

Basically everybody but the Bloomberg administration and select landlords in the area wants to see the Midtown East Rezoning delayed. While there is a general consensus that creating room for bigger, more modern office buildings in the heart of the city's central business district makes sense, many planners and community groups fear the administration is rushing the plan to get it done on the mayor's watch, rather than taking the necessary time to figure out exactly what to build.

Now, the three community boards directly effected by the rezoning are calling on Governor Cuomo to intervene, and their rationale is an interesting, if desperate, one.

The Tri-Board Task Force on East Midtown, which is comprised of members of community boards 5, 6 and 8, is arguing that Hurricane Sandy has introduced great uncertainty into the city's future, particularly as far as infrastructure is concerned, and so the rezoning ought to be put off until the city figures out how to bolster itself against future disasters.

"The tragic events of the past few weeks have brought to light our city’s unique vulnerabilities in a world of climate change," states a letter the task force sent to Governor Cuomo (you can read the full text below). "Throughout the city, waterfront and low-lying areas, including Lower Manhattan and the far East and West sides of our borough, were devastated by storm surges while our transportation network ground to a halt as subway lines and tunnels were flooded. Incredibly, parts of North America’s largest central business district lost power for an extended period of time."

The irony here, of course, is that the sector of the city set to be rezoned was one of the refuges not impacted by the storm, beyond impacts to the subways and other ancillary problems caused to low-lying areas. It makes sense that planning resources might be put to better use working on emergency preparedness issues, rather than rezonings, but it also seems disingenuous to suggest that Midtown is somehow vulnerable to the next superstorm.

Then again, look at happened with the One57 crane. And who knows which ConEd plant might blow next time, leaving uptown or Midtown, rather than downtown, without power.

"We hope that in light of recent events, both the city and state will take a long, responsible, and critical look at how this East Midtown proposal, and other similar development proposals, can reflect altered circumstances, ensuring we build smarter," the letter concludes. "The current timetable does not allow for that."

Appealing to Governor Cuomo, who has taken a keen interest in how the city and state rebuilds after Sandy, is not a bad idea. But governors in general, and this one in particular, have a habit of deferring on local issues like this to the local authorities, in this case City Planning and City Hall. Still, it doesn't hurt to ask, and these are crazy times we're living in, what with Category 1 storms and 30 FAR towers buffeting the city. Anything could happen.

"That's my next job, to find three more sites so I can build all these buildings," Mr. Levinson joked, seated at a conference table inside his sleek white offices on 57th Street on Monday. He was surrounded by renderings and models by Zaha Hadid, Richard Rogers, Rem Koolhaas and the winning architect Norman Foster.

"For us, it was really a blend of what's the right concept for Park Avenue, a place that has not had a new building for almost 50 years, an avenue that is quite possibly the most important commercial boulevard in New York City, quite possibly the United State, and what is the place of a new build down the street from Seagrams and Lever House, two of the greatest buildings ever built," Mr. Levinson explained. "We had to determine for that setting what's the right firm. So really, it's a blend of the concept and the firm we can work with."

Mr. Levinson emphasized that this was not a traditional architecture competition, where he was selecting a design so much as a firm. He acknowledged that Lord Norman Foster had a head start, but as the competition got underway, that choice became harder to make.

"Things we knew early on about the Foster organization, it's a very deep bench with a great deal of knowledge about office buildings," Mr. Levinson said. "There is an emphasis on function, the techtonic aspect, but also an emphasis on form, how it fits into the Park Avenue context and makes an impact."

Foster proposed a set of three floating towers—Mr. Levinson called them separate buildings connected by a central spine—with each higher segment held aloft by dramatic trusses. In the spaces between the office blocks are vast open spaces, some 42-feet high, that will be open to building occupants and occasionally the public.

"We wanted to address the public realm, how does a building fit in to the public realm, the way people approach the building," Mr. Levinson said.

This was true of all the designs, but the way they addressed them were different. Rem Koolhaas conceived of a dramatically torqued building, with retractable walls throughhtout to reveal the spaces or protect them from the elements. Richard Rogers created what Mr. Levinson joked was an "Adirondack park." Like Mr. Foster's plan, there are three discreet office volumes, but here they are held up by a robust orange structure with diagonal cuts to make room for pocket parks, planted with tall pine trees—certainly nothing else like it in New York. Zaha Hadid created a sinuous building that resembles a giant white flower. It has cutouts at the base of the petals, in the towers four corners, which would have been open to the sky.

"Rogers we knew would have an exoskeleton, something very muscular, Zaha would create something real organic, Rem would have some movement and a very cerebral project and Foster would have elegance with an emphasis on the presence of the building," Mr. Levinson said.

It is a challenging commission since all the firms were given the task of peeling back 75 percent of the current boxy building that sits at 425 Park Avenue, then building back up from the base that remained. This was part of a zoning quirk that were Mr. Levinson to demolition the entire building, he would actually be forced to build something smaller than the current building, about 500,000 square feet compared to 650,000.

Mr. Levinson is eagerly awaiting the Midtown East rezoning, which might remove certain impediments to his project, like a better base to the building, but he also admitted that he does not expect to build an even bigger building, even though the new zoning would allow it, up to 24 FAR, compared to the 18 FAR the building currently has (current zoning only allow 15 FAR, but since the building was built before the zoning was revised in 1961, it is bigger than that).

"We are building a bespoke office building," Mr. Levinson explained. "I don't think we need to go much bigger than what we have now. Around Grand Central, bigger might work, but this is the Plaza District, this is a bespoke office building, and I believe this is the right size for us."

Mr. Levinson said he was not joking about finding a place for all these architects in his stable. "We actually do hope to work with all the firms in the future," Mr. Levinson said. No doubt the city's architecture cognoscenti hopes he does.

Hey, hey, up she rises. (DCP)

We're kind of embarrassed to admit that this never occurred to us until just now, reading The Times' recap of the Midtown East debate. Sure, all the familiar arguments on both sides are there—the city is moving too fast, the city is not moving fast enough, the buildings are too big, they are not big enough, we must compete, we must consider the consequence—but there is also are new argument that should have been obvious from the start, though no one has brought it up, at least not publicly, until Charles Bagli spelled it right out.

But many of New York’s prominent corporations, law firms and other businesses are not about to decamp for a spectacular skyscraper in Hong Kong anytime soon. Part of the obsession with taller buildings is about prestige and worldwide bragging rights, for size and architectural supremacy.

New York did not invent the skyscraper, but it has become a synonymous symbol of our city. The Woolworth Building, Empire State, Chrysler, both World Trade Centers. The skyline has never been stagnant. This mayor and his planning potentate Amanda Burden have never been satisfied to let zoning lie, transforming almost every corner of the city over the past decade. Why let the very heart of it be, either?

Holding out for hotels. (Getty)

Everyone has been praying for the inclusion of churches and synagogues in the Midtown East rezoning, but no one has checked in on the situation of hotels yet.

The religious institutions fear they will not be able to profit from the rezoning the same way their private neighbors will. Now, the hotel union and its political backers are worrying that hoteliers might be in the opposite position, of profiting too much from the rezoning. They are requesting that the Department of City Planning require special permits for new hotel development within the rezoning area. So far, the Department of City Planning has reservations about the proposal.

The Hotel and Motel Trades Council, which represents some 30,000 hospitality workers in the city, is arguing that without requiring developers to seek a special permit, hotel construction might outstrip that of office development, which is the main goal of the rezoning. The rezoning area stretches roughly from 57th Street to 39th Street between Fifth and Third avenues, with a heavy emphasis of promoting development along Park Avenue and around Grand Central.

A special permit also helps ensure union jobs within any hotels that do get built, as The Observer's David Freedlander explained in a profile of the union's boss, Peter Ward. By making hotels pass through the city's public review process, they require the stamp of the City Council, which is hugely pro-union. Granted requiring this support explicitly is forbidden, but that is what private negotiations are for.

The union thus sees this provision not only as a boon for office builders but also the city's hard working masses. "Many hospitality jobs are middle-class jobs in New York City because of the Hotel Trades Council contract," union political director Josh Gold said. "By implementing a special permit process, we can ensure that this area is not overrun by too many hotels. Protecting middle class hotel jobs is a clear way to stem growing income inequality in New York."

The union points to areas like Hudson Square and Times Square, where hotels have proliferated, at times in direct competition with office space. The Hudson Square rezoning already features a hotel special permit prevision to put an end to the new hotels (there was a minor boomlet with the Trump Soho and some budget-rate places) and instead encourage new offices down there.

The hotel union wants to see the same thing in Midtown, but the Department of City Planning, in its initial analysis of the area's needs, does not yet consider such a permit necessary, and even sees it as a possible detriment to the redevelopment of Midtown East.

"Hotels provide accommodations for visitors, space for meetings, conferences and entertainment, foot traffic for businesses in the area and jobs for New Yorkers," a department spokeswoman said in a statement. "East Midtown is, in fact, the ideal location for hotels–it is centrally located with excellent access to mass transit, and is home to some of the city’s best business, landmark and tourist destinations. Hotels in East Midtown are key to the continuing growth of New York City’s tourism industry, and they have always been integral to Midtown’s identity and success."

Councilman Dan Garodnick, who will have final say on the Midtown East Rezoning should it enter public review next year as planned, disagrees with the department's stance. He said in an interview he was worried about having hotels overtake other types of commercial development. He also cited neighborhood concerns as a reason to require special permits for hotels.

"From a community perspective, I hear about hotels from my constituents all the time," he said. "When you have neighborhoods that are residential, with hotels in them that are 24/7, it can cause problems. There are deliveries, there's catering, drop-offs, visitors, conferences. From a land-use perspective, they're a totally different animal."

While this is far from a comprehensive list of the commercial development coming to town—and no doubt more will be announced in the years to come—these are the projects that first came to mind. If you think of any good ones we forgot—maybe Solow's East Side project, or some new towers around Moynihan Station—do let us know in the comments.

They want more to look at. (Getty)

Earlier this week, Councilman Dan Garodnick called on the Department of City Planning to slow down the planning for the new Midtown East rezoning that would add possible a dozen new skyscrapers to the Manhattan skyline. The argument was that with such an important rezoning—the city's fate as a competitive marketplace hangs in the balance!—more time was needed to consult all the parties and get the plan right.

For essentially the same reasons, the department is now arguing that it cannot wait. Time is of the essence to get these new projects underway.

In an email statement (in full below, with highlights by us), the department argues that developers need time to to assemble their sites and start building when the restriction preventing new projects before 2017 lapses. Previously, the department had argued that it was not as though all these new buildings would be built overnight, but rather this was a long-term plan that would take decades to fully develop. This raises the question of whether waiting six more months to debate the plan, as Councilman Garodnick and the local community boards are asking for, would really hurt the plan.

"We want to make sure that there is certainty, and we also want to make sure this is done right," Councilman Garodnick said in a statement. "The proposal has merit, and allowing a few more months to what will be a decades-long process would help ensure that all issues are vetted and considered."

The department remains eager to finish this before the end of the Bloomberg administration, though it must also be careful not to anger the Council, which after all has final say on all rezonings.

The purpose of the East Midtown rezoning proposal is to secure the area’s future as a premier business district by encouraging the development of a small number of new, state-of-the art Class A office buildings over the next two decades. Recognizing the fundamental importance of East Midtown to the City’s economic future, the Mayor has made this rezoning a priority for the Administration.

Under the proposed timeline for this project, the first new buildings are not likely to come online until later this decade or next, but this can only happen if we set in place zoning mechanisms now. Adopting a predictable zoning framework in 2013 is a necessary prerequisite for the development of new high-end commercial buildings over the long term. In the near term, property owners need certainty and predictability to make significant financial commitments that will ultimately lead to these new developments. It takes many years to assemble sites, and yet more time to decant, demolish, and prep the site for development. Having the new zoning in place within 2013 will provide the certainty and predictability necessary.

With these new developments will come much needed improvements to both the on‐street and below ground pedestrian networks. We are proposing that major new office towers be required to contribute to a fund for specific and targeted transit and pedestrian improvements in and around Grand Central Terminal that will reduce subway congestion points, increase capacity on platforms and transform Vanderbilt Avenue into a signature pedestrian gateway

As with all of our projects, we have been carefully analyzing the area and meeting with area stakeholders, including the community boards, to discuss the issues and proposed policy solutions so that an appropriate long‐term zoning framework for East Midtown can be created. There is ample time to complete all the necessary review and analyses for this project, and we are committed to continue working closely with the community and other stakeholders as the process moves forward.

Some have compared East Midtown to Hudson Yards, saying that the Hudson Yards rezoning took years before it entered the public review process. East Midtown is a vastly different proposal than the Hudson Yards rezoning, which contemplated a complete transformation of the area equivalent to adding half of downtown Boston’s office space floor area. This was in addition to new streets, parks and open space, more than 14,000 apartments, an expanded Javits Center, a Sports and Convention Center and the extension of the #7 subway. In East Midtown, our proposal is much more targeted—it builds on the existing character of the area and is designed to facilitate a substantially smaller amount of new development.

Any delay of this proposal means uncertainty for East Midtown. Given the importance of East Midtown to the City—for its jobs, tax base, and its critical transportation role—we must put into place a new regulatory framework that strengthens, not stymies, East Midtown’s continued competitiveness on the global stage.