Letters: More Glass Towers for New York?

To the Editor:

Re "Gotham's Towering Ambitions," by Kenneth T. Jackson (Op-Ed, Aug. 30):

You don't need to be a preservationist to oppose the Midtown East rezoning proposal now being rushed through the approval process. A coalition of New York City community boards issued 44 pages of analysis that questioned everything from whether needed mass transit improvements will ever materialize to why the public should be shut out of the new approval process the proposal envisions.

The City Club opposes the rezoning on legal grounds. And why should the architecturally distinctive buildings immediately around Grand Central Terminal be destroyed when there is plenty of room — and less distinguished buildings — within the large rezoning area?

New York is in no danger of turning into Charleston, S.C. The proliferation of new towers throughout the city answers that concern.

Opponents of the current proposal aren't opposed to "change." They are opposed to a plan that could overwhelm mass transit in the area, ignores historical resources as a key attraction of the city, and does not ensure real benefits to the public.

PEG BREEN
President, New York
Landmarks Conservancy
New York, Sept. 2, 2013

To the Editor:

Kenneth T. Jackson is right that New York City's future requires new skyscrapers: office buildings to compete with other global cities, residential towers to increase supply dramatically.

On the other hand, preservation is also vitally important to the city's character. But those who advocate preservation need to recognize the rising prices and gentrification that result from their efforts and should support aggressive rezoning where the infrastructure can support it.

We can't have preservation, neighborhood stability and diversity without building tall wherever it is feasible. And the city needs a more inclusive, collaborative planning process that would allow these competing values to be worked through comprehensively rather than fought out case by case.

ALLEN J. ZERKIN
Brooklyn, Sept. 2, 2013

The writer teaches negotiation and conflict management at N.Y.U.'s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

To the Editor:

Kenneth T. Jackson's vision of New York's changing landscape makes it much harder financially for those of us who do not benefit from high-paying jobs in big businesses with fancy offices.

As one of the young adults who willingly pay more to live in New York (my hometown), I also cannot envision sustaining the cost of living here while raising a family. And what of the arts, also a historically vibrant presence in the city?

If New York's changes center solely on sparkling new skyscrapers to create more room for businesses and banks, and the overpriced luxury condominiums that seem to accompany them, what is to be left in our city for those who offer immense value beyond the walls of a shiny, glass-walled office?

ELENA HECHT
Long Island City, Queens, Aug. 30, 2013

To the Editor:

New York has always had regulations and guidelines for growth. Furthermore, Kenneth T. Jackson essentially claims that the impulse to preserve streetscapes dooms cities.

No one is saying that East Midtown or the whole city should be frozen; to state it as a position is a straw-man argument favored by the real estate industry.

Despite a national economic recession and the collapse of the housing market, new towers still rose in New York. They will continue to do so, and that's a good thing. We oppose the East Midtown rezoning because it promotes growth without guidance or oversight, and that's not healthy for New York.

SIMEON BANKOFF
Exec. Dir., Historic Districts Council
New York, Aug. 30, 2013

To the Editor:

Kenneth T. Jackson knows better than to mix the zoning issues at stake in East Midtown with a different set of issues involved in landmark preservation.

As a city planning tool, zoning is used to manage sustainable growth for the future, while landmark preservation seeks to protect our architectural and cultural resources that give our cities character, identity and historical context. These two tools are complementary, not conflicting.

Preservationists do not seek to block all change. Rather, we work to accommodate and reconcile growth and change to the existing built environment so that our neighborhoods remain livable and attractive to residents, business owners and visitors alike.

ARLENE SIMON
President, Landmark West!
New York, Aug. 30, 2013

To the Editor:

Why can't New York City be more like Paris rather than Tokyo, London and Hong Kong, the models favored by Kenneth T. Jackson?

Let's compete on a human scale. The city is already unbearably dense, and we have lost so much of the city's uniqueness.

PATRICK D. PAGNANO
New York, Sept. 1, 2013

To the Editor:

As I write this, our beautiful city is turning to glass. As I write this, we are about to enter upon the last days of the most developer-friendly administration since the days of Robert Moses, and yet there's no place to live, unless of course you have millions.

This is not Dubai. Those old buildings are built in such a way that will never happen again: the detail, the materials, the skill, the dignity. Retrofit is just not that hard to do.