It's been over 50 years, but for many, the destruction of Charles Follen McKim's original Pennsylvania Station still stings (hey, even Mad Men mourned its passing). But now, there is a hopeful (if improbable) plan from Richard W. Cameron—principal designer at Atelier & Co—to bring back the civic jewel of a long-gone New York.
According to Traditional Building's's Clem Labine, Cameron's plan has three main goals [...]."
— ny.curbed.com
45 Comments
there are some original parts exist.
idiotic
"Essentially blowing a hole in the argument that replicating the past stifles innovation and creativity."
They got us on the ropes, boys! Better pop into our wright-o-copters and scram quick before they start calling our Corbu glasses Hitleroculars! Somebody grab the dodo head before they scrape it for DNA. Next thing you know we're up to our chins into dodo retroviruses with nowhere safe but interstellar space. They can have Manhattan, but they'll never take me alive!
EIFS is innovative, can't they use EIFS to do this at half price?
So, we're going to spend $2.5 bn, on a system built on 19th century technology?? How about this country get serious about high speed rail first, then we can decide if trains that move 268 mph, require train stations of this sort?
This is another example of the importance symbolism and identity in architecture hold in the public's imagination. This is part of the emotional aspects of architecture that are never discussed because they are too subjective and squishy for some, yet hold the key to why some places are loved so intensely while other's are just put up with. Like someone interested in their DNA tests or salvaging what they can from a house fire, we are strange creatures, and our emotional make-up will always confuse those who need linear answers for non linear issues. The Germans have re-built all sorts of monuments, as have the French and Italians to say nothing about the Poles. Good for New York City to even talk about this.
Miles - how about these princies vs mode of operation? (ref. Schumacher discussion )
Another case of how the new media can only rehash the past. As for serious proposals, there was a good SHoP one a few months ago.
This blog post should have been "Let's daydream about how great Penn Station was." Next week, we will daydream about some other things that won't happen.
Chris, not sure how this applies to the discussion about principles. Aesthetics are not ethics. If you want to get into jockeying for the commission I'm sure we could find some grounds for discussion.
FYI, my father - a romantic modernist - was one of the leaders in the fight to save the original station, which was destroyed for economic reasons (the wrong principles).
"Aesthetics are not ethics" Nicely put. Don't know if it will resonate with extremists on either end of the aesthetic spectrum, but it bears repeating.
Aesthetics are not the same thing as ethics. Thats true. But they often relate to our values and our judgment. They can be an expression of ethics.
Yes davvid, aesthetics are employed by many to express ethics, both good and bad, but we have the right to make our own minds also. If we allowed aesthetics to be politicized, whether they be modernist or traditionalist, would you be content to let their interpretations stand, especially if they where hateful people? I won't give those people that power.
The problem with the original Pen Station was an economic one, all of the space above the tracks and building was not used for revenue, that is why it was raised in the first place. Think of the enormous amount of housing hotels and offices that could be a part of this project, and if the plans included grand public spaces that are subsidized by rents and sales of condos all the better, but the land is too valuable to not develop vertically, and economic pressures could push this redevelopment to an incredible size and cost.
Also don't count on affordable housing being a part of this project however nice that would be.
Peter N
Peter,
The problem with Soho and Greenwich Village is also the fact that the space above the buildings aren't used for revenue. Think about the enormous amount of housing hotels and offices that could be built over those neighborhoods! The land is too valuable to not develop vertically. All I see are the potential $$$'s
Now we are talking about principles.
"If we allowed aesthetics to be politicized, whether they be modernist or traditionalist, would you be content to let their interpretations stand, especially if they where hateful people? I won't give those people that power."
Interpretations are always in flux. If "traditional" architectural aesthetic were somehow coopted to express a new kind of egalitarianism, it might win over some people like me. But it still seems like an expression of privilege, elitism, double standards and a general detachment from culture, philosophy and technology. It also expresses a call for some kind of historical reversal.
Its not as though modern/contemporary architecture isn't also fraught with problems and but at least its engaging and absorbing societal changes.
davvid,
Who gets to decide when an aesthetic is "coopted"? If you allow others to define inanimate objects for yourself, I think you are no different than those Christian Fundamentalists who fear societal progress simply because it doesn't align with your ideology. Fortunately, traditional architecture doesn't have to win over people like you...it already has the broad support of the public who simply see the beauty inherent in its proportions, details, and historical allusions.
I don't begrudge your feelings about traditionalism, but when schools foist this ideology on it's students, it does the exact opposite of what an institution of higher learning is supposed to do. For what it's worth, when I think about cultural meanings, I see the classicism of Renaissance Europe and the New York Public library as embodying our 2000+ year humanist tradition, but to each their own. But even as an architect trained to read the cultural meanings in buildings, I live in a world of shapes and spaces, light and shadows, beauty and ugliness, just like when I was a kid. It's a shame that so much beauty must be deemed off limits to young architects eager to learn the noble art of architecture simply because some cynics insist on coloring the world in their own politics. At least I'm old enough to recognize that all imposed identities involve two people to make them real, the one creating the illusion and the one living the reality.
The only interesting thing about this is how a the Internet takes a random guys historical daydream seriously.... More seriously than more well thought out plans. For today anyway.
Lightperson, It is definitely a day dream. Like when one looks into those old black and white photos of Penn station's glass vaults and imagines themselves waiting in the smoky light to take a train somewhere else. Or like the daydream that some art provokes by shedding beauty in what might otherwise be an ugly and depressing day. That is the true magic of art, to give us a sublime feeling, be that through Rothko, Gehry, or Penn Station, whatever your taste or mood. I don't think this will ever happen myself, but it's provoked an interesting discussion...which makes this day dream worth while, at least for me.
Yes, it is important and nice to remember Penn Station. But instead of arguing for a direct remake, why use it to advocate for something new and different? Perhaps Curbed and the Internet machine isn't smart or savvy enough to make this connection, but I liked the SHoP proposal, which was actually serious and looked like more relevant and 2015 solution. I used to argue for the Calatrava path as a Grand Central type in the face of cost-critics, and the typical knee jerk architect bashers because that work seems now.
Even though the Renaissance was inspired by the classical age, a direct remake is usually met with derision. It would wake in 2015 (or 2025) to be lost in time. It's better to daydream than seriously advocate for bad idea, or worse another daylong meme discussion piece birthed by the PR wing of the design media.
I was in Grand Central on Monday evening, and was having breakfast on the terrace of the NY Public Library on Monday morning. Neither of those buildings is "lost in time", whatever that means. Both are beloved by New Yorkers, and not because they are of archeological interest. To use a slightly cliche saying, "They aren't good because they are old, they are old because they are good".
What I meant was that you shouldn't bring dead things back to life. I think that is the moral of most gothic literature...
Why not?
Because its impossible. Accept the loss and move on. Thats the psychologically healthy approach.
davvid and Light person,
Are you aware of how much reconstruction there is around in Europe? For example, the campanile of Venice which has fallen down a number of times or the central square of Warsaw after the Nazi's flattened it to crush the Poles sense of identity and worth. Had they built Bauhaus type structures, would the citizens have been more psychologically healthy? Now flip to Penn Station. Do you really think commuters going back to New Jersey will be 'confused' about what century they're in or do you think they'll be amazed at Penn Station's architectural virtuosity and wonder why they didn't get a taller glass tower in it's place? These are questions that go to the heart of what you are asking, if you are willing to answer them not as modernists but as humans.
To take this thought experiment a little further. Do you think a person walking down a street believes the Gothic Woolworth building in NYC is confusing in it's medieval garb? How many kids from the Bronx are even aware of the gothic's affiliation with medieval times (assuming they are worthy of consideration)? My guess is for those paying attention, they are delighted with the patterns of light and shadow running across the surface and wishing their tower block had an ounce of the beauty they see. Similarly when I'm in the Alhambra, I'm not concerned with the cultural referenced when entranced by the light and shadow play through an arabesque screen wall or the exquisite balance between the out door and indoor rooms. These responses have nothing to do with the rational mind, yet because of modernism's ideologically inspired censoring of our built history, of it being put behind a mental glass box, making it as inaccessible as a museum relic, we deny our students the ability to learn the artistic lessons that made those works still able to speak to us regardless of culture and time.
The fear that allowing this kind of beauty to penetrate today's curriculum and displace all that modernism has created, the good and bad, is unfounded once you take politics out of the art. Fay Jones, Ronchamp, Zaha's beautiful curves or even the jewel like modernist box in a Scandinavian landscape. They are as beautiful in their own way, just not the only kind we need restrict our selves from studying and employing. There are indeed traditionalists of classicists intent on destroying everything modern, but they are few and still not over the modernist indoctrination that taught them we need to only look at the immediate past for inspiration. Like a great musician or cook or writer who finds inspiration from all over the world, we need to find a path that recognizes beauty's underlying humanism, because that's the truly psychologically healthy approach.
and this is why we have the Landmarks Preservation Commission......EkE you can partially thank Jacky O. for maintining your recent breakfast spot...........here is a radical proposal for Architecture school - 6 studios MAX, 2 intro to design general, 1 full-on traditional, 1 full-on modern, the last 2 choice of student based on Profs available - i.e. Parametricist or Cartoon Diagrams or Regional Vernacular..............Building Technology should be one semester preservation and one semester current methods, and one semester experimental.............................................what is quite depressing is you take the escalator down under the round Madison Square Gardens (where Penn stood) wait for your train in shitty 70's ish paneling and lighting and you notice these 18"x18" photos of the interiors of the former Penn Station. its like a bad dream.
Chris, we have a deal. Btw, it isn't radical, it's actually quite balanced for a change.
It's not impossible at all. The design is well documented, and the technology and craftsmen exist. All it takes is the will to do so, and I think there is a growing group of people who loved Penn and would like to see it, or something as nurturing and beautiful, replace the soul-sucking ugliness of what is there now.
Regarding the issue of whether the craftsmen exist to construct such a stone clad building today, I assure you they do. A small anecdote: I was walking through Midtown a couple of days ago, and walked by St Patrick's Cathedral, which is undergoing an extensive restoration, inside and out. They have just removed the scaffolding on the exterior, and it is stunningly beautiful. It's so great to see the building the way Renwick intended. They are still replacing damaged pieces of the stone cladding. I watched one craftsman taking measurements of a column base molding that needed replacement, and making measured drawings of it to take to the shop. Others were carefully repointing the existing masonry. My immediate thought was, "this is clear evidence that the claim that the craftsmen who can do this work don't exist is false. I'm seeing it right here on the sidewalk on 5th Avenue."
You'd be surprised at how expensive replacing a few stones at St Patrick's is. I've worked on many of these kind of projects and they are not cheap.
Its funny how this proposal is cited as what "everyday people" would want, as opposed to modernist egotist architects. As I read, everyday people lost interest in a decaying and dirty structure while architects fought to preserve it. Most "modernists" aren't anti-classical, they just feel like using cell phones instead of rotary, you know? in fact the original Penn Station, with its iron work, glass ceilings was modern in its day, so to recreate it is to betray the impulse of architecture and creativity (so you can see how this appeals to the anti-architecture internet crowd).
You build something different and suddenly people will grow to love it over time. Then they take it for granted. If anything Penn died so others could live, but perhaps we didn't learn our lesson...one persons Penn Station is anothers Madison Sq Garden.
It's unhealthy to have a discussion that can't go anywhere, why don't these link bait sites try to drive interest in things that are doable. I don't think anyone actually believes it....
Rebuilding Penn Station to the original McKim Mead & White design is a great idea!
Any replacement of the existing Penn Station would be better than what currently exists, but would never be as good as what once was. Why would anyone want to build something that isn't as good as what once was?
There is this idea persisting that a reconstruction of the original design would be regressive, or going backwards. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, modern technology can be used to provide more efficient construction. The original Penn Station was built stone block on top of stone block, but a reconstructed Penn Station could have all of those stone panels assembled on a steel frame that is crane lifted into place. Repetitive carved detail can be executed by CNC machines.
It is also false to assume that a reconstruction would lack creativity. Anyone who ever works on a restoration project knows that there is a lot of creativity involved when it comes to using reconstructing missing architectural elements utilizing the technology and crafts that are available today. It would be no different with a reconstruction of Penn Station.
Finally, when its all done, there's no reason that I can see why a reconstructed station can't have wifi.
Yes! You can have your classical architecture AND still be able to use your cell phone.
Who wants to tell Madison Square Garden preservationists?
This is such a BS debate made up by the Internet. What a backwards and ignorant culture we live in. Same people that tore it down are the same kind of people that go for this feel good blog crap. Enough!
If the Eiffel Tower was destroyed should it be rebuilt in place as a restoration, rebuilt with technological updates and modern functions, or replaced by an entirely new structure that maximizes the potential of the real estate?
Not that Penn Station was the Eiffel Tower, but back in the day visitors to New York arrived either by train or boat. Such structures are a reflection of place and time and have deeper meaning than their appearances. Should Ellis Island be cleared for luxury condos? Does everything have to be new and "modern" (read maximized for financial return)?
The Eiffel Tower and Ellis Island are in no danger of being developed into luxury condos. Any more salacious hypotheticals we can debate?
MRouchell, I believe that both Penn Station and Grand Central were built using frame with stone veneer.
Here is a picture of one of old Penn's clad columns as seen during demo:
http://cdn.archinect.net/images/514x/v2/v2bosdin5syvf30z.jpg
I actually think this further strengthens the debate for rebuilding the original design by MMW. The construction technology has not really changed so much that the approach would be all that different if rebuilt today.
Do it NY!
Lightperson said:
"You build something different and suddenly people will grow to love it over time. Then they take it for granted. If anything Penn died so others could live, but perhaps we didn't learn our lesson...one persons Penn Station is anothers Madison Sq Garden."
- People haven grown to love the current Penn Station over time. I've never heard of a public building more universally panned. Are you interested in stepping up and defending it as a piece of architecture?
"It's unhealthy to have a discussion that can't go anywhere, why don't these link bait sites try to drive interest in things that are doable. I don't think anyone actually believes it.... "
- Oh, it's "unhealthy", is it? It's so amusing to me how people suggest that discussions should be squelched as "unproductive" or "unhealthy", when we should be getting on with paving the way to the shining future, I suppose. I'm sorry, but this sounds positively totalitarian.
"One entered the city like a god. One scuttles in now like a rat."
-Vincent Scully
trip to fame, I think you're right about the construction of Penn Station with the caveat that many of the buildings in the transitional phase between load bearing and steel construction where a combination. Columns carrying the floors and the façade carrying itself. This is the ideal IMHO since the thickened exterior allows for a nice façade expression the way one understands gravity's effects while opening up the interior for more flexible rehabilitation. The Empire State building was a curtain wall 12" think. Brick veneer with block backup laid solid, but carried on a frame. Try driving wind blown rain through that construction versus a thin cladding and the caulk joints used to keep the elements out.
Louis Kahn intuitively understood the expressive capabilities of solid masonry exterior walls such as the Library at Andover and recently Moneo and others. With our concrete technology and laser cutting stone technology, we can build urban architecture as resilient, sustainable, and most importantly, beautiful as they did in the past. We just have to clear the detritus of 100 years of brainwashing.
Nobody loves Penn Station, but the same can be said for all below ground uriney NYC spaces. Where do you put MSG? On top of this massive nostalgia construction you'd have to replace MSG and then Javits (the only space for it). So that's probably a WTC size project or bigger. There's no way any politician will justify that kind of unnecessary spending when the parks, schools bridges and more are falling apart.
There's no way any politician will justify that kind of unnecessary spending when the parks, schools bridges and more are falling apart.
Apparently you don't understand how politics works and haven't seen what's happening in NYC.
Trip to Fame,
There was an early comment about spending $2.5 billion and having to use 19th century technology to rebuild Penn Station. It is an interesting comment given that the original building was built in the 20th century.
From a technological stand point, the original Penn Station is not that different than the way we build today. It was a steel framed building with granite cladding on the exterior. We still build steel framed buildings with granite cladding. Back then the steel was riveted together; today we use high strength bolt connections. The granite cladding is usually thinner than what was used in 1910. Also, the granite can now be secured to the structure with non corrosive stainless steel anchors, and we have better sealants and waterproofing products available today, but by and large, the technology is still the same.
Thayer-D,
Interesting re: transitional systems.
MRouchell,
Yes, which was the main reason I indicated the similarities in the techniques used to erect Old Penn with what would likely be used today.
I actually can't imagine it would cost more than your typical "Starchitect" skyscraper or landscraper, but would be much more beloved for its civic contributions for generations to come.
24x36 not 18x18
I agree with Thayer-D and think lightperson and davvid are completely full of shit. I hate modern glass architecture, it's boring and ugly. I think it would be wonderful if the original Penn Station was rebuilt in the manner of the majestic, glorious Beaux Arts masterpiece of McKim Mead and White. Beaux Arts works for train stations, as proven by the great train stations in Washington, Denver, Philadelphia, and Grand Central. Commuters and visitors would be able to enter New York City in the elegant manner provided by the original Penn Station. Cost is estimated to be 3.5 Billion, less than the 4 Billion spent on LaGuardia and the new World Trade Center station. The foundations of the original Penn Station are still there and so are 354 original drawings by McKim which are held by the New York Historical Society. Modern computer methods could digitize the drawings in 3D and modern construction methods could rebuild the original station much more easily than in 1910. The rendering by Jeff Stikeman of Penn Station on 7th Ave between 31 and 33rd sts . is beautiful. Who wouldn't rather that work of beauty than another ugly glass building?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.