New York Times Questions Rationale Behind East Midtown Rezoning

East Midtown

Today, the New York Times weighed in with its commentary on the City’s East Midtown Rezoning – and we think they miss the mark.

The piece (which is misplaced in the Arts Section) argues that the plan, developed by the Department of City Planning, calls for too much density, without sufficient focus on infrastructure and mass transit – and it seems to suggest that people won’t be working in high-rises so much (but is silent about living).

Density is good for the environment, and it is good for New York.  It is a key reason why the City’s “carbon footprint” is so low.  Density is also good for the workplace – as it brings people and corporations together.  It is good for neighborhoods and for the life of the City.  The rezoning’s focus on Grand Central (contrary to the main theme of the Times’ commentary) demonstrates an awareness of the basic need to support the highest densities at and around established transit nodes.  The plan is not an irresponsible call for enormous buildings – but an incentive program to encourage the replacement and rebuilding of undersized and obsolete Class “B” buildings.

The plan doesn’t pretend that zoning is a panacea – it’s but one tool in an overall effort to keep New York City globally competitive while also balancing a regional focus among Hudson Yards, Lower Manhattan and Midtown.

The Times piece would be better placed in the Metropolitan section – and would better serve the readers if it were more comprehensive.

(Image borrowed from Department of City Planning presentation of East Midtown Rezoning).