His family had been forced to evacuate to the hotel, where he lived for eight years and spent time wandering, often finding himself in the kitchen. It was here, barricaded inside, that Chef Philippe fell in love with cooking, and the cuisine of Lebanon. After death threats and stray bullets became too intense, Mr. Massoud’s parents decided to send him to visit his relatives in Scarsdale, New York. It was only when he had arrived stateside that he was told he was never going back. “It was like coming from a land of chaos to the civilized world,” he says. He was enrolled in high school, and well on his way to becoming a normal American teenager, when one year into his high school experience, he was told that his father had been assassinated.

Philippe continued with his education, even carrying on the family tradition by entering the Hospitality program at Cornell. However, with disagreements on campus, steady news of the chaos surrounding his friends and family, and the loss of his family’s hotel (“my second father,” as he refers to it), he quickly finished up his degree at the Rochester Institute of Technology and left to seek his culinary fortune. He first struck out for New York, where several restaurants were offered to him, only to have the deals collapse one by one. Then he was off to Lebanon, where he trained under the country’s top chefs, most of them former employees of his father. He returned to America in 1999, and soon after opened up Neyla in Washington, D.C., where his signature version of Lebanese cuisine first took root. In 2006, he left Neyla and Washington to launch his full-scale attempt to bring high-fashion Lebanese food to the savvy New York public, resulting in the cult phenomenon Ilili, which is a phrase that is whispered in a woman’s ear, meaning “Tell me…” Thanks to word of mouth and Chef Massoud’s obsession with quality, Ilili has become a New York culinary hot spot.

NYO sat down with Chef Massoud over a smattering of mezza, the Middle Eastern equivalent of tapas, to gain a better understanding of the long road he has traveled to get to where he is, and where he sees the future leading.

Q: How would you describe your restaurant experience so far?

A: The restaurant world has taught me how strong a man’s body is. As a kid, I never got the dose of reality that I did after the first year of employment. It wasn’t until I opened a restaurant that I realized there was another level of energy. Restaurants are made for people crafted out of steel, and they’re not for the faint of heart. It’s perfection, 24/7. The seat you don’t sell today can’t be sold tomorrow, and your product must be reinvented daily. I will always hire a restaurateur to go into other industries, but I will not hire anyone from the outside to be a restaurateur. It takes a special breed.

Q: Tell me more about your childhood.

A: It was magical, adventurous, tragic and horrific, all at the same time. That was what living in Lebanon was all about when you were growing up in a conflict zone. There’s never really time to be a child; you’re an adult as soon as you can stand, in essence. When I compare my childhood with my colleagues’, I realize there is a child penned up in me, looking to have fun and just be a kid.

Q: What’s your favorite thing to make for your family?

A: I keep family meals simple. Perfectly roasted chicken, whole roasted fish with farm market vegetables; the simpler the better.

Q: What restaurants inspired Ilili?

A: None, it has been in my brain since 1989. It is a very personal story of perseverance, of the American dream. Take a guy out of a war zone, give him the opportunity to have a normal life, tell him that he has his rights and see what he can do. It comes from the line between survival and creativity.

Q: What is your favorite dish at Ilili?

A: Ugh, that’s a tough choice … The steak tartare.

Q: You’ve worked for many years as a restaurant consultant. Are there any keys to making a great restaurant?

A: First of all, there is no magical equation to a success. I’d say bring something missing to the market; if it’s already on the market, it better be the best goddamn thing out there! If you’re not opening to be the best, don’t open at all.

Q: How do you balance formal dining with the intimacy of Lebanese cuisine at Ilili?

A: I think, first of all, fine dining is actually eating mezza because if you look at the portions, you’re in essence eating small pieces. The only difference is a linear versus social mezza. The whole point is that it breaks the ice and brings out the community in a group, and that can work in a refined or a casual setting. The menu is vast enough that our guest can steer their meal towards a formal or a social affair, each table is like a mini restaurant, and they decide how they want their restaurant experience to go. I’ve had U.S. presidents dine here, and bachelorette parties that would be censored in any normal circumstances. It really is a restaurant for all occasions. 

Q: What are your thoughts on the Mediterranean diet that has been getting such good press these days, like the recent New York Times piece calling the Mediterranean diet the new hot health buff’s obsession?

A: I think calling it the Mediterranean diet is misleading because that sounds like it’s an exercise in doing things we don’t want to do. Eating the Mediterranean way should come naturally to us, like it does to the rest of the world. Different ingredients can supply the same culinary experience giving you a tenth of the daily fats. When you’re out drinking in the Mediterranean, they have nuts out and people always end up eating a handful while they’re out socializing. Tabbouleh will give you 300 percent of your vitamin C, 130 percent of vitamin A, 50 percent of your fiber and iron, so you’ve already fulfilled half of your needs for nutrition for the whole day. Add some meat and a vegetable, and your body is completely fueled. We’ve seen diets come and go and there’s already diet fatigue in the market, but it is proven eating a balanced diet will help. Your mood will improve, your sleep will be better, and the rest will follow.

Q: Will the Mediterranean diet elevate Lebanese cuisine to the level of Spanish, Chinese or Nordic cuisine?

A: I do believe that what we’re doing in regards to Mediterranean is the beginning of the journey. The cuisine has been dormant for quite some time, but it is a cuisine with an amazing level of fusion thanks to the Silk Road. We have 200 years of culture mixing with each other, which has created an amazing encyclopedia of food treasures yet to be reproduced. Should that interest remain, it will help Ilili further push their message. I’d say it’s a wind that’s blowing in our sail; if it’s a wind that will sustain has yet to be determined.

Q: You’re known for reintroducing Lebanese classics, as well as putting inventive new spins on the cuisine. How far can you take Lebanese before it loses authenticity?

A: You have to realize, the restaurant opened to say: Now that I am in a country that has peace and I don’t have to worry about whether I’m going to live or die tomorrow, how do I see my cuisine evolving? The same way it has evolved in France, in Japan, in Spain, there is no such thing as not being able to keep it Lebanese because that means we’ve stopped evolving. The cuisine is, in my opinion, a barely walking toddler, because there was a hijacking of the evolution of the arts within all the conflict. The only reason I’m getting a lot of credit these days is I was able to dream because I didn’t have to worry about a bomb falling on the head. If everyone had the same advantages I had, I’m sure these culinary arts would have progressed the way we try to do it at Ilili. Tradition is a foundation, and creation is an evolution. If I want to inject a Japanese technique into a Lebanese dish, that’s my creative right; that’s what being creative is all about.

Q: What do you say to people wary of Lebanese food?

A: Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. The number one comment we hear is, “Oh, my! I did not know Lebanese could be this much fun!” Unfortunately, that’s because there are not enough of us doing what Ilili is doing on the market, and I’m hoping that will change over time.

Q: What is the future of Middle Eastern cuisine, and cuisine in the Middle East?

A: I think Middle Eastern cuisine is tied to the evolution of the region, and because of social media and the Internet, things are moving faster in a more fluid direction. However, we’re not anywhere near what the potential will be in five or 10 years. I believe it will be the next to cross the ethnic divide and make its way up to fine dining. As for the Middle East, I think the evolution of the cuisine in its own soil is tied into the security of the region. Aleppo, which is one of the most amazing culinary capitals of the world, is decimated, and a lot of history has been eradicated. The cuisine of the Middle East is in critical condition as long as the region suffers. However, on the artisanal level, there is a powerful movement for slow food and women showing their craft in pop-up restaurants. You have chefs taking pride in the fact that they work as chefs. It’s an uphill battle over there.

Grand Central: progress vs. preservation. (TravelJapanBlog)

When the plan to rezone Midtown East was revealed last year, there was much excitement and much grumbling, but the outlines of the battle to come lacked definition. In retrospect, it seems so inevitable: how could the conflict over the heart and soul of the city's central business district take any shape but that of progress versus preservation?

It is a conflict that haunts, if not defines, every land use debate in the city, and a particularly fitting one for Midtown. The district developed around, and largely because of, Grand Central station—a building that not only epitomizes the conflict, but helped to define it.

Grand Central Terminal lauded for setting the legal precedent that went on to save landmarks across the city, was actually built over the demolished ruins of another landmark—Grand Central Depot. The Depot, despite its relatively recent vintage (it was completed in 1871) and its popularity (it was second as a tourist attraction only to the Capitol in Washington, according to Sam Roberts's book on the terminal) was destroyed without sentiment in the early 1900s, making way for the Gilded Age beauty that now stands on 42nd Street.

The old Grand Central, demolished to make way for change.

But what of the fact that the mansard-roofed station boasted a "magical" 652-foot-long arch-ribbed-vault train shed, had the largest interior space on the North American continent and provided the backdrop wherein we first set eyes on Lily Bart in the House of Mirth? Pretty details all, but progress called. The electrification of the rails was the way of the future and the depot had to go.

To finance its construction, Grand Central Station pioneered the sale of air rights, a practice that transformed the surrounding neighborhood, which was something of a backwater when Grand Central Station was constructed. Its resultant character—which preservationists are so eager to see maintained—was formed by the forces of development, forces that could care less about the past, or the semi-pastoral quality of the land they so eagerly converted into a business district. Nor did its developers seem to have any illusions that the architects' vision of the final station would be sealed in amber. Engineering provisions were made for the construction of a (never-built) tower over the terminal.

The sale of air rights went on to spur development in neighborhoods around the city. So much so that 100 years later, air rights are the centerpiece of the Midtown East rezoning proposal—the powerhouse that is to drive the neighborhood's next transformation.

It is, of course, no surprise that a new and somewhat radical station would be bedfellows with other new and radical things. Nor is it particularly surprising that some years down the road, when Grand Central was no longer so new or so radical, it would nearly fall victim to those same pro-development forces, who saw it as an impediment to change (and profits).

And so, the symbol of brave progress and growth became a beleaguered old beauty that needed to be protected from greed-induced destruction. For most people, it is this, more recent vision, that springs to mind most readily when one thinks of Grand Central. Jackie O. front and center, that arbiter of taste, defending New York's grand monument. It was, moreover, a historic battle: Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City went all the way to the Supreme Court (the first historic preservation case to do so) and established that the city could use its landmarks law to protect a property from being torn down (that the act was not an unjust taking, but within the land-use regulatory power of government).

In the decades since, landmarking has been used to preserve not only buildings, but an increasing number of pockets within the city. And, after three terms of Mayor Bloomberg's strongly pro-development policies, it has increasingly come to seem like the only real tool that community groups and neighborhoods have to stop (rather than simply modify) unwanted changes. As such, the dialogue between the pro-preservation and pro-development forces has become ever shriller, the two camps now diametrically opposed, in our rapidly changing city.

There are many issues with the Midtown East rezoning besides the preservation of unlandmarked buildings. It is, as a growing chorus of critics have complained, hurtling along very (quite possibly too) quickly. The speed leaves little time to examine its impact or whether the city is selling air rights for too little—giving a generous gift to developers that it can ill afford, particularly considering the costs of transportation and pedestrian upgrades that greater density will require.

But the battle lines have been drawn and now we're all stuck squabbling over the historic significance of buildings in Midtown East. Perhaps this is the only way to hash out a plan that's agreeable to both parties, but if the opposing camps' recent publications are any indication, they seem to be moving farther apart rather than closer together.

This past week, both the Municipal Art Society and Midtown 21C, a pro-development group backed by REBNY, released reports each purporting to be the best visions for the future of Midtown East. MAS's report, entitled "A Bold Vision for the Future" lists 17 buildings that it claims would be prime candidates for landmarking. Midtown 21C's report, entitled "Icons, Placeholders and Leftovers" argues that every building worth landmarking has already been landmarked (hence the focus on placeholders and leftovers).

MAS claims that the vibrancy of the central business district owes much to its current character. Midtown 21C argues that the central business district will cease to have any vibrancy if we stand in the way of its "continuous transformation." MAS sees a district with lots of architecturally and historically significant buildings. Midtown 21C sees a district with lots of dowdy and dated office buildings.

Both groups are right; successful cities are successful precisely because they are a blend of the old and the new, tradition and change, historic buildings and fresh development. We should save truly noteworthy buildings and allow developers to tear down the unexceptional and the outmoded. In the months to come, the city must decide what to keep and what to discard, how to preserve the elements that make Midtown what it is, while clearing away the detritus that's stopping it from becoming what it needs to be. We would do well to consider Grand Central, a model of how development can create beloved buildings and how preservation can save them.

kvelsey@observer.com

Subway suspect arguing with the victim. (Screengrab)

The N.Y.P.D. may have a person of interest in the tragic subway homicide that occurred at the 49th Street N/Q/R Midtown station Monday afternoon.

Queens resident Ki-Suck Han died Monday when witnesses say another man pushed him onto the subway tracks after a confrontation. Mr. Han attempted to climb back on the platform but couldn't make it and died from injuries suffered after he was struck by the Q train.

Just before the incident, a bystander captured what appeared to be a confrontation between Mr. Han and a dreadlocked man in his twenties. A New York Post photographer snapped chilling and controversial photos of Mr. Han as he struggled to get out of the train's way.

Witness reports indicate the attacker was a medium-height black male with a medium build in his twenties. He may have been talking to himself before the confrontation.

On Tuesday the Wall Street Journal posted the brief video (below) of the encounter between the suspect and Mr. Han. The younger man appears agitated and angry.

CBS New York reports there is a $12,000 reward for information leading to an arrest in this case.

Going up to come down. (Matt Chaban)

The facade of 1780 Broadway will be retained, but that's it. (Matt Chaban)

No sooner did Extell Development file permits for a new 1,550-foot residential tower on the corner of 57th Street and Broadway then scaffolding started to go up around one of the final properties comprising Gary Barnett's little west side assemblage that will be home to the city's tallest tower. On Friday morning, The Observer happened to be out for a stroll on the crosstown boulevard when we noticed construction workers assembling a sidewalk shed, the first sign of construction commencement.

A source close to Extell confirms that demolition will soon begin on 1780 Broadway, a 12-story building that was once home to BF Goodrich. At the time, this corner of Gotham was known as Automobile Row during the Gilded Age. Because of an agreement with the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission, the facade of 1780 Broadway must be retained as part of any new building, so this will presumably be a careful deconstruction.

It is worth noting that, according to construction documents, the hotel will occupy floors seven through 12, the same height as 1780 Broadway, so it could make a good entrance for the hotel, while the Nordstrom would presumably have its entrance on busy 57th Street, with something quieter for the apartment tenants on 58th Street.

Inside the old, trashed Morton Williams (Matt Chaban)

The building at 225 West 57th Street was also part of the BF Goodrich complex, but the eight-story building was not given protections by the landmarks commission. The only thing holding up its demolition, which is also just beginning, was a Morton Williams grocery store in the ground floor and basement. Construction netting and scaffolding has been up on the building for months, but until a new Morton Williams opened a block down 57th Street, this one stayed open. Currently, the space is half empty, with ripped ceilings and empty cold cases strewn about the space.

Neighboring 117 West 57th Street was torn down last year and has lain dormant.

Is this a sign that this new building might indeed start rising sooner rather than later? "Once a building is torn down, a new one tends to rise," according to our source. "It's quite possible."

That would be an impressive feat, given that One57 is not even finished. Then again, if that building is indeed almost sold out, Mr. Barnett will need something else to start selling to the billionaires of the world, eh? Which begs the question, what could he possibly build next to top these two?

Update:Extell spokesman George Artzt explains that the building is being prepped for future work, but nothing will happen before plans are approved by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission. "We're not doing anything to the building right now," he said. At the moment, demolition is only underway on 225 West 57th Street.

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.

A hypothetical skyline, with 225 West 57th at right, One57 middle, 432 Park at left. (Curbed/NYO)

1780 Broadway, the one piece that will remain. (City Realty)

If King Kong were to swing into New York sometime this decade, he might actually have a hard time figuring out where to go.

In the original 1933 black-and-white classic, King Kong famously scales the two-year-old Empire State Building, cementing it in the conscience of the world as arguably its most famous skyscraper. Four decades later, the giant gorilla set his sights higher, standing astride the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Today, perhaps he might climb atop their succesor, the new 1 World Trade Center. But one gets the sense that King Kong is given to gigantism, so only the city’s tallest tower will do.

Until a few months ago, that would have been 1 World Trade. But since 432 Park Avenue began to rise skyward in April, the 1,397-foot condo tower developed by Harry Macklowe and CIM on the old Drake Hotel site would have claimed the skyline crown. It beats out its downtown rival by 29 feet, so long as one ignores the silly 400-foot sorta spire atop 1 World Trade. Should King Kong arrive sometime in 2014, this slinky tower would probably be his choice.

But a year or two after that, and he might turn his gaze further down 57th Street, past the already striking 1,005-foot One57 tower, Gary Barnett's billionaire bauble nearing completion despite that crane accident. There it would settle on another tower being developed by Mr. Barnett, at 225 West 57th Street, just one block from what was already going to be the city's tallest apartment building when it opens next year. The new tower's height, according to building permits filed last week: 1,550 feet. 

That would make it the world's sixth tallest building—at least until something else comes along and knocks it off its pedestal.

That is a good 50 percent taller than either the Chrysler Building or One57, while all three are about the same size, between 1.2 and 1.4 million square feet. The tower will be slender, but it will also be solid unlike some of its spindly rivals, notably 432 Park and predecessors like the Trump World Tower. (Amazing how that held the record for tallest apartment building for a decade, surpassed by only a few feet by Frank Gehry's Spruce Street tower, and now, it's just off to the races, especially when the 1,050-foot MoMA tower is added into the mix. And never mind all the super-tall office towers on the horizon, like the 1,300-footer at Hudson Yards and all those maybe-taller towers coming out of the Midtown East rezoning.)

The tower will reach 88 stories, which sounds like a lot, but when the overall height is considered, that belies exceedingly high ceilings. At the same time, much extra space will also likely be devoted to mechanical systems to keep such a colossus running, as well as the fact that the first five floors, as construction documents show, will be given over to a Nordstrom, as was announced in July. On the seventh through 12th floors, there will be a hotel, and then, boom, 223 residential units. That is almost twice as many units as One57, though the hotel is also considerably larger there.

"I don't want to confirm anything except to say we've filed permits," Mr. Barnett told The Observer Monday by phone, when asked if the project had financing and was set to rise.

As noted by the eager architecture savants on Skyscraper City and Wired New York, who first noticed the building permits yesterday, construction equipment is already on hand at 217 West 57th Street, one of the lots Mr. Barnett controls and will be building on some day. Similarly, the Morton Williams grocery story at 225 West 57th Street closed last month, paving the way for demolition of that building and its replacement to rise.

This is one of Mr. Barnett's most complicated deals ever, requiring the assemblage of numerous parcels of land and air rights from surrounding buildings and properties, including tax lot mergers and air rights purchases, essentially turning the entire block into a piece of the project, even if some of the buildings thereon will remain standing. "We've been at this seven or eight years," Mr. Barnett said. "We've bought different parcels and air rights, etc, etc, and here we are." Building documents show no fewer than nine different parcels tied up in creating the lot.

Back in the spring, Mr. Barnett told The Observer he was still working on assembling pieces for the project, with the implication that the goal would be to reclaim the title of New York's tallest apartment tower. (The Burj Khalifa in Dubai still boasts the world record, with apartments through the tower's 108th floor.) Previously, it had been speculated that 225 West 57th Street would top out around 1,250 feet, but Mr. Barnett has pushed beyond that to new heights.

"There won't be a spire or anything like that, the floors will go all the way to the top, or almost to the top, with some mechanicals above," Mr. Barnett said. "This is not a gimmick."

On the highest occupiable floor, the 85th, construction documents call for a "residential accessory lounge open to sky." Apartments will be from the 15th through 84th floors, with no mention of layouts (full-floor, duplex, etc.). The building permits also mention another residential lounge on the 14th floor, and the seventh floor houses a number of amenities for the hotel: a restaurant, salon, gym, lounge and "sky lobby." The ground floor has separate entrances for the Nordstrom, the hotel and the residences.

One thing that will not be new is the facade along Broadway, the former BF Goodrich building. Because of a deal struck with the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission in 2009, the old auto building at 225 West 57th can come down, despite the protests of preservationists, but its sibling at 1780 Broadway must remain. A 1920s red brick building, its 12-story facade must be integrated into whatever Mr. Barnett builds. The building will have T-shaped configuration as a result, with section on Broaway, 57th and 58th streets.

What lucky architect gets to design such a multifaceted project? The Observer had heard that Herzog & de Meuron had beat out the likes of Jean Nouvel, Norman Foster and SHoP, but on that count, Mr. Barnett demured. "I'm not going to confirm or deny that, but I wouldn't print that if I were you," he said. The associate architects listed on the construction documents are Adamson Associates, who were the architects of record on all three of Larry Silverstein's World Trade Center towers, Durst's One Bryant Park, the Goldman Sachs headquarters and the still unbuilt MoMA Tower by Mr. Nouvel. So whomever the architect is, it must be a pretty high caliber firm.

Still, Mr. Barnett is taking nothing for granted. When The Observer tried to congratulate him on a new project, and the city's tallest at that, he responded, "Congratulations are only in order when you've finished the building and cashed the last check."

"We're just working hard and hoping the market stays healthy," he added.

No doubt when this project is finally finished some years from now, Mr. Barnett will stand atop it, perhaps out on the residential accessory lounge open to the sky and thumping his chest in triumph. King Kong certainly would.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what the mayor’s motivations are. What matters is that it’s a visionary proposal to bring the eastern portion of Midtown into the 21st century.

If the City Council approves the mayor’s rezoning plan, an area bounded by 39th Street and 57th Street east of Fifth Avenue will be transformed over the coming years. The neighborhood’s aging buildings will be replaced by towers that will soar higher than some of the East Side’s iconic landmarks, including, perhaps, the Chrysler Building. The rezoning plan would rewrite current rules that have limited the height of buildings in the areas.

Potential construction projects could add enough office space to house 16,000 additional workers and would bring a 21st century look and feel to a district that threatens to become tired and outdated in the coming decades. The mayor would like to have the plan in place by the time he leaves office at the end of next year, but that would require City Council approval by next October.

There’s no guarantee that Mr. Bloomberg will get his way on this, but the council’s rejection of the plan would be unfortunate. Critics are concerned about myriad issues, ranging from subway capacity to sanitation. That’s fine—no project of this scale should be without critics and skeptics. The problem is when critics become obstacles simply because they prefer the status quo and when skeptics become cynics who see political agendas lurking behind even the simplest construction project.

Neighborhood residents, building owners and other interested parties should have every opportunity to weigh in on the zoning overhaul. And it surely is important to make sure that infrastructure, including subway capacity, keeps up with the mayor’s ambitions for the neighborhood.

But still, it is important to remember that one of Michael Bloomberg’s enduring legacies is not, in fact, this project or any one project. It is the sense that the city really is moving ahead after decades of crisis management, retrenchment and stabilization. Projects like the East Side rezoning and the Hudson Yards redevelopment project were beyond the city’s ambitions as recently as a decade ago. Under Mr. Bloomberg’s tenure, the city has gotten back to the idea of big dreams and visionary planning. That’s no small achievement.

Other cities around the world are embracing the changes needed to compete and prosper in a century that will be defined by technological change and sustainable development. Mr. Bloomberg has insisted that New York can not remain locked into a 20th century mind-set, whether the issue is outdated zoning regulations or archaic work rules.

The transformation of the East Side would be yet another sign that New York is prepared for today’s challenges—and tomorrow’s.

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?

Going up. (NYT)

So we are obsessed with the changing skyline along 57th Street, so we are always excited and intrigued by new renderings that pop up for it. The latest may also be the greatest, and while 432 Park Avenue is nothing new, the pic that ran in The Times today gives the clearest indication yet of just how big this spindly behemoth will be. At 1,397 feet, the ritzy condo building surpasses 1 World Trade Center, less its spire, by 29 feet, boasting by some measures the biggest building in New York status.

It will also be the most expensive, as The Times, which got its hands on the condo's offering plan, reveals:

The apartments will be large, and very expensive, with an 8,255-square-foot six-bedroom penthouse on the 95th floor being listed for $82.55 million, according to the condominium’s offering plan.

The Park Avenue tower’s 147 residential units, which have already undergone two price increases totaling 3 percent, are being listed, when counted together, for $2.43 billion, a record for a residential development, appraisers say.

That penthouse will not beat out the prices at rival One57, where at least one unit has already surpassed $90 million, nor the previous record holder, 15 Central Park and its $88 million manse-in-the-sky. Will it have the same ability to attract the world's billionaires as those buildings, or are we running out?

Another important question: Who gets to cut the ribbon?

Will it be Harry B. Macklowe, the legendary developer who has survived a roller-coaster career of highs and lows? Or the CIM Group, the Los Angeles-based real estate investment company that acquired the land, on the site of the old Drake Hotel, after Mr. Macklowe defaulted on his loan in 2007?

Both are listed in the tower’s offering plan. While some real estate executives in New York are embracing a familiar narrative for the famously risk-loving Mr. Macklowe for staging yet another comeback, just how involved he will be in the building’s development—and eventual profits—remains a mystery to outsiders.

How could something so insistent and ostentatious contain so many mysteries? Perhaps it is all part of the plot. How better to draw attention away from your skyline-topping rivals?

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."