Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That video makes me sad and angry. The original Penn Station was a magnificent and grand terminal. It was tall, majestic and a modern marvel. I've seen several photos and videos about it and I still cannot understand what kind of monsters would allow it to be destroyed. All just to build that decrepit POS that is the Penn Station of today.
That video makes me sad and angry. The original Penn Station was a magnificent and grand terminal. It was tall, majestic and a modern marvel. I've seen several photos and videos about it and I still cannot understand what kind of monsters would allow it to be destroyed. All just to build that decrepit POS that is the Penn Station of today.
There were no monsters. It was commercial property owned by Penn Railroad. The railroad was bleeding money left and right in the 1950s because of the rise of car and air travel. It couldn't afford to keep the building and tried selling it off. Nobody was willing to buy it, so that's why it was destroyed.
What doomed the building was the arrogance of both Penn R. and the architect. I don't have the book about all this on hand right now, but what I remember reading was that someone warned him that he should build a hotel or office space over the main section so the railroad could rent it out and help pay for the upkeep. He refused, arguing that it would ruin the integrity of the design. The Penn R. didn't give the matter a second thought because it thought it was king of the world and would always be able to afford to maintain it. Just thirty years or so after it was built, the station fell into disrepair because of how expensive it was, and if you look at old photos of it, you'll see that it was a grimy, shabby mess.
I'm just putting this out there because I'm getting frustrated by the mythos surrounding the destruction of Penn Station. It's sad that it was destroyed but the anger is misplaced. It should be directed at the architect for not building the hotel like he was asked and at Penn R. for not pushing him on it or at least scaling the design down to a reasonable size that wouldn't wind up costing gazillions of dollars in maintenance over the years.
Last edited by EastFlatbush; 02-12-2018 at 08:39 PM..
There were no monsters. It was commercial property owned by Penn Railroad. The railroad was bleeding money left and right in the 1950s because of the rise of car and air travel. It couldn't afford to keep the building and tried selling it off. Nobody was willing to buy it, so that's why it was destroyed.
What doomed the building was the arrogance of both Penn R. and the architect. I don't have the book about all this on hand right now, but what I remember reading was that someone warned him that he should build a hotel or office space over the main section so the railroad could rent it out and help pay for the upkeep. He refused, arguing that it would ruin the integrity of the design. The Penn R. didn't give the matter a second thought because it thought it was king of the world and would always be able to afford to maintain it. Just thirty years or so after it was built, the station fell into disrepair because of how expensive it was, and if you look at old photos of it, you'll see that it was a grimy, shabby mess.
I'm just putting this out there because I'm getting frustrated by the mythos surrounding the destruction of Penn Station. It's sad that it was destroyed but the anger is misplaced. It should be directed at the architect for not building the hotel like he was asked and at Penn R. for not pushing him on it or at least scaling the design down to a reasonable size that wouldn't wind up costing gazillions of dollars in maintenance over the years.
Unfortunately, this is a very typical attitude of architects. The more respected they are, the more arrogant they are and the more they wind up costing clients over the long run. I love Santiago Calatrava to death but he is one of the most hated architects right now because of that typical arrogance of, "I don't care how much it costs you in the end; you won't touch my precious design. Oh, and BTW, if my brilliant design goes billions of dollars over budget for you, too bad, so sad. I'm a genius, and I'm not changing a thing."
There were no monsters. It was commercial property owned by Penn Railroad. The railroad was bleeding money left and right in the 1950s because of the rise of car and air travel. It couldn't afford to keep the building and tried selling it off. Nobody was willing to buy it, so that's why it was destroyed.
What doomed the building was the arrogance of both Penn R. and the architect. I don't have the book about all this on hand right now, but what I remember reading was that someone warned him that he should build a hotel or office space over the main section so the railroad could rent it out and help pay for the upkeep. He refused, arguing that it would ruin the integrity of the design. The Penn R. didn't give the matter a second thought because it thought it was king of the world and would always be able to afford to maintain it. Just thirty years or so after it was built, the station fell into disrepair because of how expensive it was, and if you look at old photos of it, you'll see that it was a grimy, shabby mess.
I'm just putting this out there because I'm getting frustrated by the mythos surrounding the destruction of Penn Station. It's sad that it was destroyed but the anger is misplaced. It should be directed at the architect for not building the hotel like he was asked and at Penn R. for not pushing him on it or at least scaling the design down to a reasonable size that wouldn't wind up costing gazillions of dollars in maintenance over the years.
Hold on there pal...
At the time the Pennsylvania Railroad was one of the most largest and important companies in United States. Indeed railroads were still then the "tech" sector of their day; everyone wanted to work for them and they attracted best talent.
You obviously know little about great rail road terminals/stations as they nearly all the world over at that time and before were huge soaring spaces, without hotel, office or whatever plonked on top.
We all have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight in that we *know* what happened in the years after NYP opened. A world war, and the rise of automobile then air travel (all in large part pushed/funded by federal spending) while simultaneously keeping a boot on the neck of railroads literally ran them out of business by the scores.
Yes, by the 1950's until it was finally torn down NYP was a dark, dank, dirty and rather gruesome place. Equally yes this was due to the change in fortunes of the PRR who longer could afford upkeep. But then again neither could New York Central for Grand Central Terminal and scores of other such buildings all over USA.
The only reason Grand Central Terminal didn't get the design treatment you seem to advocate (plunking a large building right down the center) was thanks to the interference of Jackie Onassis, NYC and others who not only got GCT landmarked but fought Penn-Central all the way to SCOTUS.
Even then that victory would have been rather shallow as Penn-Central had neither the funds nor will to keep up GCT. If the state via MTA didn't take out a long term lease on that place, *and* pour millions of state (and indirectly tax payer) money into GCT it would still be the busted, broken down, dirty, filled with homeless and perverts place it was in the 1960's well into the 1980's.
"If only folk understood issues from the minds of the times. Remember, in 1960, Penn Station, majestic as it was, was an old, decrepit structure owned by a bankrupt railroad company. Most of the public (not just developers and urban planners) wanted modern buildings. Add to the fact that NO ONE came to the rescue of either Penn Central Rail or Penn Station, and you have a big train station that's got to go.
"Also, the New Penn Station and Madison Square Garden were, at that time they were built, the face of the new modernism. Landmarks preservation was an idea that was professed from the few (and don't sit here and lie stating that most of the public still wanted old buildings in the 1960s!). The landmarks preservation movement had to work hard over the course of 20 years to influence the public (and a Jackie Onassis face didn't hurt!) of the benefits to preserving the old classic structures."
And I'll add, on 2/13/2018, that railroad, as a main form of transportation, was phasing out, in favor of cars and planes....!
At the time the Pennsylvania Railroad was one of the most largest and important companies in United States. Indeed railroads were still then the "tech" sector of their day; everyone wanted to work for them and they attracted best talent.
You obviously know little about great rail road terminals/stations as they nearly all the world over at that time and before were huge soaring spaces, without hotel, office or whatever plonked on top.
We all have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight in that we *know* what happened in the years after NYP opened. A world war, and the rise of automobile then air travel (all in large part pushed/funded by federal spending) while simultaneously keeping a boot on the neck of railroads literally ran them out of business by the scores.
Yes, by the 1950's until it was finally torn down NYP was a dark, dank, dirty and rather gruesome place. Equally yes this was due to the change in fortunes of the PRR who longer could afford upkeep. But then again neither could New York Central for Grand Central Terminal and scores of other such buildings all over USA.
The only reason Grand Central Terminal didn't get the design treatment you seem to advocate (plunking a large building right down the center) was thanks to the interference of Jackie Onassis, NYC and others who not only got GCT landmarked but fought Penn-Central all the way to SCOTUS.
Even then that victory would have been rather shallow as Penn-Central had neither the funds nor will to keep up GCT. If the state via MTA didn't take out a long term lease on that place, *and* pour millions of state (and indirectly tax payer) money into GCT it would still be the busted, broken down, dirty, filled with homeless and perverts place it was in the 1960's well into the 1980's.
Nothing that you said contradicted anything that I said. All you did was state facts that aren't really relevant to the specific reasons behind Penn Railroad's demise, in an attempt to "show me up" and establish yourself as the resident expert here who has a sole claim on history here and the only one that anyone should be listening to.
I don't know what relevance Jackie Onassis/GCT has to do with anything. I was talking about the fact that the railroad could've incorporated the hotel from the beginning. I wasn't talking about mutilating a preexisting structure with a new one designed by a completely different architect. If the architect had done that, the costs of maintaining the station wouldn't have been as steep and Penn R. maybe would've been able to hold onto it much longer or find a buyer. As it stands, it was so derelict by 1960 (because it had been neglected for decades) that it would've been impossible for a new buyer to fix the building. Besides, it was considered such an eyesore that everyone was happy to see it go at the time. Very few people put up a fuss, outside of a few architects.
The fact that Penn Railroad was getting hammered by air and car travel may be true, but that's not why it targeted Penn Station for demolition. As "New York's Pennsylvania Stations" by Hilary Ballon put it, Penn R was losing money hand over fist from Penn Staton in the later years, because the real estate the train yards occupied was so expensive that the terminal was operating at a major deficit. The railroad was then forced to reconsider the very exact thing that it had been proposed when the station was first built, to maximize its "real estate" (add a new addition, repurpose the building, etc.) to help pay for the costs of the station. When it couldn't come up with a plan to repurpose the station and later couldn't find a buyer to take it off its hands, that's when it was slated for demolition. Which goes back to what I said, that Penn Station was doomed as soon as the architect rejected the idea of adding a hotel to it.
I don't understand this argument I keep hearing from people who say stuff like, "But...but...but...GCT survived." As I have to keep reminding everyone, the circumstances behind why GCT survived and Penn Station didn't were completely different. Unlike Penn Station, when NY Central Railroad announced plans to demolish GCT in the 1950s, various groups stopped it in its tracks. Also, it was the destruction of Penn Station that played a large part in why GCT was never demolished. If it hadn't been for both preservationists of the 1950s and the destruction of Penn Station, GCT would not be here. In fact, it would've actually been demolished a decade before Penn Station:
Quote:
In 1954, Robert Young, chairman of New York Central Railroad, consulted with architect and real estate advisers as to how best to utilize the air space over Grand Central Terminal. Architects Webb and Knapp advised the construction of a five million square foot office building to be constructed as a single tower with 80 stories. Consequently, New York Central Railroad proposed a plan to tear down Grand Central Terminal and construct a skyscraper (to function as office space) in its place. New York organizations with an interest in preservation rallied to stop the demolition. The City Club, Citizens Union, and Municipal Art Society all sought to create an alternate plan. Additionally, the threatened demolition of Grand Central Terminal was one of the factors that motivated Albert S. Bard to draft the Bard Act (the enabling legislation to the New York Landmarks Law). Grand Central Terminal | NYPAP
So yes, NY Central "kept" GCT but it didn't keep it because it was in love with the building or was smarter than Penn Railroad in terms of preserving it. It would've demolished the building if given the choice but it didn't because of outcry. GCT then fell into disrepair under NY Central's ownership, and the company later went bankrupt in 1970 after it merged with Penn R. So it's not like this myth everyone keeps painting that NY Central was the more intelligent, conscientious railroad that found a way to preserve GCT whereas Penn Railroad wasn't.
Last edited by EastFlatbush; 02-13-2018 at 09:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
