Reading upon both articles, Both Robert A.M. Stern and Kenneth Jackson have strong and persuasive points of views towards the East Midtown rezoning. Robert Stern, in this article, he gives this impression that he isn’t completely against the moment, but then again he is not completely for it. As an Architect himself, he seems to be for it, but then he questions everything about the on going project. East Midtown happens to be a very populated and dense area in Manhattan, Stern paints out how hard transportation can be in that neighborhood of the New York City. Not having access to much infrastructure as he used, with the new construction, how will people have transportation that isn’t already as difficult as it already is? Stern concludes it would be reasonable to first build more infrastructures. After that is done, He mentions what buildings are worth preserving and which aren’t.
Stern sees many New York buildings that are worth keeping and can be reused for other purposes. He discusses later in this article that placement of the building is an important key, that must be planned properly. An example Stern uses is the MetLife building, right on top of grand central, blocking the old beautiful view Park Avenue use to have. The placing of this building to stern ruined the flow of the grid on Park Avenue. New york city does not need to make all these changes into the “modern world “, because New York City is the one and only. This city is known all over the world and used for business, art, and etc.
On the other hand, Kenneth Jackson is completely for the modern change of East Midtown, He is pushing the reader forward with why it would be a good change for the city. Kenneth Jackson seems to be worried that the city will lose its high status, if the East Midtown rezoning does not happen. The movement is been back and forth with the old over transformation, he states it’s been about fifty years since the last building of a skyscraper....