|
|
| Re: Penn Station (1331964) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 12 |
||
|
| (1332607) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Wed Jan 7 15:59:29 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Wed Jan 7 09:55:35 2015. in my hope boro of Da Bronx its called The Major Deegan.chud1. :).... |
|
|
| (1332608) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 7 16:03:15 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 15:14:45 2015. The argument that the "neighborhood was dying" helps disprove any claim that this was the only available site. This was the era when whole "dying" neighborhoods were torn down and replaced with housing projects, highways and various other "urban renewal" crap. Lincoln Center was being built at the time and that didn't occupy the site of a landmark rail terminal and occupies an even larger site. The same sort of parcel acquisition and street closure would then be used to build the World Trade Center. |
|
|
| (1332610) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 16:15:08 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 7 16:03:15 2015. ALL OUTSTANDING POINTS!There was also a general disrespect for landmarks that the destruction of Penn Station began to chip away at. I'm not arguing Lincoln Center wasn't a good thing (my wife would kill me if I said so), but you can see what the neighborhood was like in some of the scenes from West Side Story. Nowadays the nouveaux riches would be snapping those up as townhouses. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1332612) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Jan 7 16:17:54 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 15:09:27 2015. Not only that,the Interstate highway system marked the beginning of the end of private ownership medium & long distance passenger railroad trains.Built with taxpayer $$$ while the railroads had to finance and maintain everything out of their own farebox in addition to paying real estate taxes on its plant. A one-two punch that they never recovered from. |
|
|
| (1332613) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 16:26:06 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Jan 7 16:17:54 2015. Quite so. The introduction of jet planes also sucked business from long distance trains. |
|
|
| (1332618) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Jan 7 16:41:17 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 15:04:19 2015. I didn't give it that name. |
|
|
| (1332619) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Jan 7 16:45:58 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Jan 7 16:17:54 2015. Also of major importance were the mail contracts. In many cases the "head end" mail and express business changed a money lposing passenger train into a profit overall. |
|
|
| (1332624) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 7 17:31:07 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 7 15:53:47 2015. I agree. Nearby plots could have been acquired, with equally good transit access. |
|
|
| (1332626) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 7 17:33:35 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 08:50:07 2015. Never officially, but Manhattan-centrics call it that. |
|
|
| (1332627) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 7 17:35:02 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 08:53:17 2015. The traffic reporters on WINS started out calling it RFK right after the change. Now they say RFK-Triboro -- which leads me to wonder whether the change will ever catch on. |
|
|
| (1332628) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 7 17:36:17 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 09:01:02 2015. "California Red-Legged Frog Throgg's Neck Bridge" Frog's Neck Bridge would be a lot simpler. |
|
|
| (1332629) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Wed Jan 7 17:37:12 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 7 15:53:47 2015. I am and will be adamant that it is not a matter of 'blaming' MSG for Penn Station's demise - the fact is that Penn Station, as it existed in the early 60's was doomed no matter what was going to replace it- the Pennsy simply could not afford keeping it as it stood then. It had stopped being the main entrance way for long distance travelers to enter the city. The commuter traffic was lower. I am very sure to heat the place in wintertime was a BITCH. Just remember that any changed mae to it to 'save' it, would have changed it to the point where the 'character' of it would have been changed anyway - and people would have bitched about that also!Also remember it COULD have been worse - that site could been just another faceless mid-60's skyscraper! At the very, very least the city got a public place where many, many memories in many different areas were forged. And one of the reasons it succeeded, was because of its prime location in relation to transport of ALL kinds. Also remember all the buidings that were saved BECAUSE PS got bulldozed, and ignited the preservation movement. |
|
|
| (1332631) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 7 17:38:11 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 14:10:27 2015. There's one on the southbound Deegan just south of the City Line in the Bronx. |
|
|
| (1332632) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 7 17:41:16 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 7 14:32:40 2015. It's government property so it was easier to do it this way. They still make money leasing the air space.But an arena literally on top of subway, LIRR and NJ Transit is genius. MSG draws well from outside the city because LIRR and NJ Transit are convenient. Thanks for attacking for no reason. It's probably one of the best locations for an arena. |
|
|
| (1332634) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 7 17:42:56 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Wed Jan 7 17:37:12 2015. It was a matter of timing. Ten years later and it would've been saved like Grand Central was. |
|
|
| (1332638) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Wed Jan 7 17:45:58 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 7 15:53:47 2015. Midtown West and Hudson Yards bring development (for better or worse) way further West than previously considered commercially viable. As bad a the current station is, the non existence of a direct PS to GCT link (not realistic in the manner/era the stations came about), and the failure to put in the 10th Ave station on the 7 line extension are probably bigger crimes against our future economy. The modern era history of NYC has been to trade off our future for short term gains. There are a myriad of examples of things we did or failed to do that could have benefited us for the long term. It just has not been the NYC way. Not just us, you can bang your head against the wall in Boston if you have to go from South to North Station! |
|
|
| (1332648) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 18:38:59 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 7 17:36:17 2015. The Readers Digest version. |
|
|
| (1332653) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Jan 7 19:08:12 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Jan 7 16:45:58 2015. True, For awhile anyway. But basically, it was a band-aid on a hemmorage. |
|
|
| (1332677) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Jan 7 19:47:18 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Jan 7 19:08:12 2015. When the POD (renamed USPS later) axed the contracts, there was an immediate avalanche of train-off petitions. |
|
|
| (1332679) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 7 19:54:08 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 7 17:33:35 2015. So did Simon and Garfunkel! |
|
|
| (1332685) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 7 20:30:55 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Wed Jan 7 17:37:12 2015. A faceless mid-60s skyscraper would have been better. It would have been more fungible than the city's main sports arena, so it may well have been torn down by now. |
|
|
| (1332687) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 7 20:36:13 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 7 20:30:55 2015. You mean like 2 Penn Plaza? Still there. :) |
|
|
| (1332690) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jan 7 21:05:40 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Wed Jan 7 15:09:27 2015. You're welcome. |
|
|
| (1332710) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by ftgreeneg on Thu Jan 8 01:01:26 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Wed Jan 7 17:37:12 2015. I think I'm the only one to think this but to me Penn Station really isn't THAT bad. I look at it as Penn Station and Grand Central are two sides of the same coin. You got the modern station that gets the job done (Penn Station) and you got Grand Central Term the grandiose old school classic station. Of course they can spruce Penn Station up a bit but it's really not that bad. It was great idea for NJ Transit to build it's own wing. Now passengers have their own sections and it cuts down on the overcrowding. I would go a step further and take out the NJ Transit departures off the Amtrak board all together to give NJ Transit no reason to venture over to Amtrak's side. Amtrak can fix up their side a bit(out of the 3 Amtrak's section needs the most work), they could shrink their passenger lounge or move it to a more intimate area and open the old area up for open space do something aesthetically pleasing. Add some color to the place all of the grey is depressing looking. They can expand the West End corridor to access all tracks with a universal departure board. And do something aesthetically with those depressing outside entrances. |
|
|
| (1332732) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 08:49:28 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by ftgreeneg on Thu Jan 8 01:01:26 2015. The lack of natural light contributes to the generally depressing atmosphere. Also, I've seen the Amtrak waiting area pretty full on a regular basis, I don't really think you could shrink it, and I can't figure a good alternate location. It isn't as bad as many people represent, it will never be as grand as what was, but it can certainly be better than it is. |
|
|
| (1332733) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 09:31:06 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 7 17:41:16 2015. Penn Station was not government property. |
|
|
| (1332734) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jan 8 09:44:38 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 09:31:06 2015. PWN3D! |
|
|
| (1332736) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 09:49:51 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 09:31:06 2015. IIRC the deals to sell the air rights and allow the development were made in the 50's. Not only pre dating Amtrak, but the Penn-Central merger also. Much as we regret it now, at the time, it was a legal, private real estate transaction that a wide range of people supported.The railroad got a new free station, and an equity interest in MSG. It got rid of what it considered an obsolete maintenance nightmare. How we see things 50-60 years down the road is very different than how the majority saw things in that era. |
|
|
| (1332741) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Thu Jan 8 10:09:22 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Mark S. Feinman on Tue Jan 6 13:22:54 2015. Thet're already calling the new Tappan Zee Bridge the Honda Bridge, for obvious reasons: (from skyscrapercity.com via flickr) |
|
|
| (1332749) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Thu Jan 8 10:59:38 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 08:49:28 2015. Penn Station is a basement. Grand Central Terminal is a cathedral. |
|
|
| (1332753) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 11:15:13 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 08:49:28 2015. Precisely, but no one is likely to build anything as beautiful as Grand Central to replace that basement. We can still do quite a bit to make it a much better basement. |
|
|
| (1332763) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Jan 8 12:31:24 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Thu Jan 8 10:59:38 2015. succinct and spot on. it seems to me that years ago either here or on the fabled SubTalk someone coind "basementvania" . |
|
|
| (1332765) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 12:43:13 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 09:49:51 2015. You can't say the "majority" thought it was OK. In that era the majority didn't think there was a damn thing they could do about it and they were right. |
|
|
| (1332766) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 12:46:26 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 11:15:13 2015. Face it, they made Penn Station into Port Authority Bus Terminal with trains. The OLD PA. I've waited for my daughter's train late at night and Penn Station now is ugly, tawdry and claustrophobic. |
|
|
| (1332767) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 13:11:10 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 12:46:26 2015. Ugly and claustrophobic is pretty accurate. But I think that the population of NYC in the 50's and 60's was very pro development/redevelopment without regard to the future. Most of us think now they were wrong, and may have been hoodwinked into believing false promises (and hopes)but based on who was elected and what they stood for I think they were the majority |
|
|
| (1332771) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by FtGreeneG on Thu Jan 8 13:31:20 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 11:15:13 2015. I agree I think Penn Station as it is now can never be classified as beautiful or a landmark in any manner but I think they can make improvements on what they have to make it an very good up to date modern facility. It's smarter than throwing billions.of.dolllars to build station head house that have no practical use. It won't increase capacity. I do think they should expand.that Wesr End Concourse though. |
|
|
| (1332774) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 13:46:14 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 13:11:10 2015. But I think that the population of NYC in the 50's and 60's was very pro development/redevelopment without regard to the future.The population of NYC...? I think you're wrong. And I think you might consider changed your handle to "Dr. Pangloss." |
|
|
| (1332775) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 13:46:39 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by FtGreeneG on Thu Jan 8 13:31:20 2015. I might agree with good and up to date, very good would be a real stretch. Given the finite nature of funding though, I'd go for new Hudson river tunnels and some added train capacity and flow improvements before I'd do a grand station. If the money was there for both, why not. |
|
|
| (1332776) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 13:51:03 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 13:46:14 2015. Not really, just because I think they felt that way, I don't mean to imply they were right! |
|
|
| (1332777) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 13:59:14 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 13:51:03 2015. You miss my point. I think you're wrong that they felt that way. |
|
|
| (1332778) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 14:02:44 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 13:59:14 2015. So I guess we sort of agree that we have gotten to a bad spot, just not on how we got here! |
|
|
| (1332782) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 14:06:34 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 14:02:44 2015. I suppose. |
|
|
| (1332788) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by FtGreeneG on Thu Jan 8 14:26:23 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by pragmatist on Thu Jan 8 13:46:39 2015. I'm talking about very good functionally. It will never win awards for beauty but for an underground station it can be improved functionally, aesthetically and can be brought up to date without building a whole new station across the street or doing anything else outrageously expensive. I agree though priority #1 should be improving capacity. |
|
|
| (1332790) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Jan 8 14:30:34 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by FtGreeneG on Thu Jan 8 14:26:23 2015. Indeed, much as I would demolish all of the architectural garbage from the 60s, that isn't likely in what's left of my lifetime. That said, the place is a mess functionally, and that MUST get fixed. My only fear is that the TSA security theater bozos would try to make the place even LESS functional. |
|
|
| (1332795) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by FtGreeneG on Thu Jan 8 14:45:01 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Jan 8 14:30:34 2015. Agreed. It's a suprise to me TSA hasn't done that already. |
|
|
| (1332799) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 8 15:02:00 2015, in response to Penn Station, posted by Dave on Sun Jan 4 21:23:30 2015. Keeping MSG in Manhattan was more important than keeping the old NYP building.It would have been nice to keep both but since that was not an option, I agree with the decision that was made at the time. The station is still there and so is Madison Square Garden. Win. |
|
|
| (1332800) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 8 15:07:13 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 7 17:42:56 2015. GCT lived BECAUSE Penn died.The demolition of NYP is what stirred the historical preservation movement and saved GCT 10 years later. |
|
|
| (1332804) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 8 15:30:51 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by SLRT on Thu Jan 8 13:46:14 2015. No, he's right, there was definitely an out with the old, in with the new mentality from World War II on into the 70's. |
|
|
| (1332808) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by alm on Thu Jan 8 16:16:15 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 8 15:30:51 2015. Only until the creation of the Landmarks Commission. Not sure of that date. |
|
|
| (1332817) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Thu Jan 8 18:01:49 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by alm on Thu Jan 8 16:16:15 2015. The 60s some time after Penn Station. But it still took at least another decade for people to change |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 12 |
||
