NEW YORK | City plans BIG rezoning of Midtown

[1Boston]

You can't keep everything, or NY will just end up as a museum. You have to get rid of the old to make way for the new, its how life works. You don't have to have every old building, just the important ones that people will actually notice if they were gone. If you want NY as a world class museum, then keep all the old buildings and preserve them, but if you want a world class city, then build new, better buildings in their place.

[photoLith]

^
So, the same argument could be applied to Paris, lets tear half of it down then and only keep the memorable buildings.

[1Boston]

Originally Posted by photoLith

^
So, the same argument could be applied to Paris, lets tear half of it down then and only keep the memorable buildings.

You really can't compare the two cities, in my opinion. Paris has no reason to tear down their buildings which are older and in many cases more beautiful. NY needs the space if they want to compete. Also, I don't see why if Paris really wanted to put a building somewhere, they can't just tear down a building that has no historical or artistic significance.

[Minato Ku]

In your opinion maybe but in the reality Paris has exactly the same reason to tear down much of its older buildings as New York.
Paris has growth and has needs as any big cities.

Over 70% of the 180 million sq ft of office space in inner Paris is considerated outdated by the market (over 30 year old or unrefurbished).
Secondly we have a big housing shortage.

Big reasons to replace many older buildings by modern and taller buildings.

[Mr Man]

This is sad news! I'm all for economic growth, height, and density but keep it to the vacant and severely underutilized lots. The city made a mistake by limiting height and density on the Hudson Yards Redevelopment since that is the perfect place to grow Manhattan IMO.

[scalziand]

^^Does La Defense not have enough space for growth?

^Height itself was not limited in the west side rezoning, only density was. Even the density allowed, 20-30 FAR, was high for Manhattan. Would developers propose higher buildings if they had even more air rights? Probably. Is the current limit imposed disappointing? Not for me.

[Rizzo]

I think the city will need to make sacrifices to grow, but any intelligent city would spread the wealth of its office towers. While focusing them around midtown seems like a great idea, you need to balance working and living space with infrastructure capacity that serves it.

I certainly hope this won't result in self mutilation of the city. I know some people are saying "any building worth saving is landmarked" but the city is worth more than a few celebrated buildings. Okay so the city isn't a museum? Well museums are popular places you know...and cities that have maintained a tremendous amount of their building stock have kept economic pace with the rest of the world. The architectural diversity matters too, and it's nice not to see a district dominated by one particular era of construction.

My recommendation would be to make demo selections carefully. My second recommendation would be to build modern offices as tall as economically possibly to satisfy demand, but limit the physical footprint. My third recommendation would be to consider creating new office districts (like Hudson yards) to shift more growth to other areas.

There's always going to be a market for B office space, and there's always going to be conversion opportunities in the future. If I was working in midtown, I'd love to make one of those obsolete office buildings my home if someone will just convert it.

I've never been aware of any "big zoning changes" that have met expectations, so we'll have to see.

[Mr Man]

Originally Posted by scalziand

^Height itself was not limited in the west side rezoning, only density was. Even the density allowed, 20-30 FAR, was high for Manhattan. Would developers propose higher buildings if they had even more air rights? Probably. Is the current limit imposed disappointing? Not for me.

Fair enough, the city did not enact formal height limits. Height was indirectly controlled with the FAR zoning update. The as-of-right zoning is closer to 10 FAR with an additional 10 in density bonuses. It's my understanding that there are portions of the Hudson Yards site where the FAR is far less than 20.

New York already has a program in place where older buildings can sell their air rights to a nearby site. The proceeds from the sale are then used to rejuvenate the existing building. I would have loved to see a much larger allowance for density bonuses in the Hudson Yard plan. Perhaps by ways of acquiring air rights from midtown sites. That would keep some of the property owners in midtown from demolishing their buildings while still providing enough room for New York to grow.

I don't understand the appeal of destroying a perfectly good building only to build a taller one when there are alternative sites available for growth, albeit a limited supply, but they exist.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by 1Boston

You can't keep everything, or NY will just end up as a museum. You have to get rid of the old to make way for the new, its how life works. You don't have to have every old building, just the important ones that people will actually notice if they were gone. If you want NY as a world class museum, then keep all the old buildings and preserve them, but if you want a world class city, then build new, better buildings in their place.

A world class city has bones. A wanna-be class city tears them down.

New York is already world class. What was saved during the disastrous urban-renewal era has helped to keep it world class. I would think that a Boston citizen would be the first to recognize this.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Mr Man

The city made a mistake by limiting height and density on the Hudson Yards Redevelopment since that is the perfect place to grow Manhattan IMO.

The city did no such thing.

The zoning in Hudson Yards is the most generous in the entire city. No neighborhood comes close.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Mr Man

I don't understand the appeal of destroying a perfectly good building only to build a taller one when there are alternative sites available for growth, albeit a limited supply, but they exist.

Because you can only build where it makes economic sense.

Huge buildings need to be near transit. Therefore, huge buildings will generally be built in Manhattan and nearly major non-Manhattan transit hubs.

You can just tell developers to build in some remote location, just because there is available space.

The Grand Central neighborhood is a logical place to build large, because it's a huge transit hub, and you're investing billions in doubling the size of Grand Central (the new lower level station for LIRR) and adding the Second Avenue Subway.

Why would you add all this transit infrastructure, and then not allow any new growth?

[1Boston]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

A world class city has bones. A wanna-be class city tears them down.

New York is already world class. What was saved during the disastrous urban-renewal era has helped to keep it world class. I would think that a Boston citizen would be the first to recognize this.

I'm not saying tear all the buildings down and make new ones. There needs to be a compromise of building new or keeping old, and i think you can do both. And i know that it already is world class, but if we just keep that part of the city like that forever, it will lose its appeal to people who wanna do things other than just look at it. All you have to do is get rid of a few old ones, and put supertalls there, and then that way you can keep the beautiful prewar buildings, but still have attractive office space going up.

[novawolverine]

People ought to realize that there are a lot of spectacularly bland highrise buildings in NYC. Yes, it would be great to expand development to Upper Manhattan, but accomplishing this and redeveloping Midtown, on the east side in particular, are not mutually exclusive. There are areas with nice and old 6 story buildings are preserved w/ bland towers adjacent to it. I agree that in these particular cases, we should keep the footprints smaller, but on the whole, there are plenty of great opportunities to redevelop so that NYC continues to evolve as it always has.

[Dac150]

I think they'll be smart about choosing which sites will be developed - high profile addresses such as 345 and 299 Park retain high profile tenants with long-term lease contracts. Sites you're likely to see face change will consist of those 'stubby' 20-30 floor post-modern office buildings to look as dated inside as they do outside.

This is all very positive, and those who want to see the city continue to economically grow and compete should feel fortunate that these steps will be taken. There's nothing wrong with post-modern 'boxy' buildings - however when they become uncompetitive, change is appropriate.

[mhays]

Yes, they'll be smart, or at least make well-informed bets. "They" being the developers and their financial backers.

But stubby 30-story buildings from the 1980s, however banal, might not be good candidates. That's a fair amount of value to tear down, particularly if they still draw B+ rents. The most developable sites will be the ones with the biggest difference between how much is to be torn down vs. built. For example, you probably wouldn't tear down 300,000 sf and replace it with 700,000 sf. That site would be expensive both for the purchase and the teardown. Rather you'd look for something with less current value, like 15-story buildings that have low FAR due to setbacks or light wells, and are far older than the 80s, with poor systems.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by mhays

But stubby 30-story buildings from the 1980s, however banal, might not be good candidates. That's a fair amount of value to tear down, particularly if they still draw B+ rents. The most developable sites will be the ones with the biggest difference between how much is to be torn down vs. built. For example, you probably wouldn't tear down 300,000 sf and replace it with 700,000 sf. That site would be expensive both for the purchase and the teardown. Rather you'd look for something with less current value, like 15-story buildings that have low FAR due to setbacks or light wells, and are far older than the 80s, with poor systems.

Agreed, makes complete sense - I was more referring to examples from the 50's - 70's that are structurally inefficient in the ways you described. There are no doubt pre-war structures that meet that inefficient criteria as well.

If you take a good look at the area that's in discussion you can pick out some logical candidates that would face the fate of redevelopment - many of which are structures you'd never think twice about.

[NYguy]

I think a lot of you are missing the point...

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

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.

This is the functioning heart of the Big Apple, and it is in need of surgery or a transplant even. You don't get to keep everything the way it was 50 years ago, and expect to compete in the modern world. We are witnessing a spread of modern office buildings around the world like we have never seen.

This section of midtown has long been Manhattan's best as far as the office market goes, but the stock has to be updated for it to remain so. The old office buildings that used to cut it just don't cut it anymore. Construction is just simply different today than it was decades ago. Even as the City builds modern commercial space on the west side of Manhattan (hudson yards) and new space goes up downtown (wtc), the heart of Midtown can't be left to rot until all of the companies have found far more suitable space in other locations, or out of the City entirely even. To put it even more simpler, it's just a matter of the City staying on top of it's game.

As far as the FAR of sites goes, that is what the study will identify - which sites can be bulked up for new construction. Like the Hudson Yards rezoning, it will have to go before the City Council and approval process. It will take a little time to implement, and if the buildings are old now, they won't be any younger in 5 to 10 years.

[Dac150]

^^^ Out of curiosity, what are some examples within the area that you think could qualify for redevelopment?

[Mr Man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Because you can only build where it makes economic sense.

Whoa, hold on there. We've had major breakdown in communication! My prior comment is about a desire to see increased FAR in the Hudson Yards to help meet the demands of Manhattan's office and residential market. The market would likely support higher densities than the base plus bonus FAR currently allow. The area is serviced by local and regional transit. I'm aware the current FAR allowance for that area is among the highest in the city, yet it's my personal preference to see higher density allowances on that site if it could mean less development pressures in Midtown. Based on your prior comment, you don't share my opinion for higher densities. There is nothing wrong with that. Once again, I'm just sharing my opinion and desire for the area among us skyscraper geeks.

I'm not opposed to new skyscrapers in Midtown, but I'm highly skeptical of widespread rezoning with the stated intention of demolishing older buildings to make space for newer ones. It sounds too similar to urban renewal ideals of the mid 20th century. No thanks! If City Planning takes a site-specific approach were underutilized lots can be redeveloped into skyscrapers that reach for the sky as some here have suggested, then I'm all for it. That was not however the impression I received from the article. It sounds like they are doing widespread rezoning of the Midtown area. The article doesn't say what protections are being considered for landmark buildings and other significant buildings like 345 Park in the new zoning. It simply says it would be unlikely that landmark buildings will go, but "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..." That doesn't sound comforting.

[mhays]

With a large scale rezoning, you'd get scattered development of sites without protections and whether the current building is small enough to justify the expense. Urban renewal doesn't seem very relevant...