Case to examine:
New York City's original Pennsylvania Station was demolished in 1964. Built by the firm of McKim, Meade, and White in 1911, it was designed to last 500 years. It was torn down after fifty-three. It was a source of pride for New Yorkers as the structure referenced the ancient Baths of Caracalla in Rome. In the 1960's it fell out of style and commercial real estate developers recognized the value in it's centralized location. They knocked down Penn Station, built a new one underground, and constructed Madison Square Garden atop it. By all accounts, the decision to replace a monumentally grand and open structure with a downscaled and buried one was a catastrophic mistake. Ultimately, it was considered one of the biggest cultural blunders of the 20th century in the United States.
Should architectural preservation be an inherent cultural value? In what ways has New York prospered as a result of these decisions?
12 comments:
I think architectural preservation should be a cultural value if the structure is built well and well designed. Although, New York prospered as a result of this blunder and Grand Central was added as a National Historic Landmark. And most people have learned from this mistake and are willing to preserve other buildings even if they require some of the taxes for maintenance.
-Lia M
I would like to add though that although they did demolish the old Penn Station, they did keep the humongous post office across the street that i think is comparably aesthetically pleasing. It is also a similar building in my opinion, which may have factored into their decision. here is a link to a photo in case anyone is interested:
http://www.arrakeen.ch/usacan/010%20%20post%20office.jpg
Nick K
Although this was not really exemplified in this example, New York has historically been very active in preserving architecture. For example, some of the city's most famous and beautiful buildings like the flatiron building
picture from then: http://blog.luxuryproperty.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/flatiron-building.jpg
picture from now: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Flatiron_crop_20040522_114306_1.jpg
It's been around more than 100 years, and all intentions are to keep it around for one hundred more. I think that destroying the old penn station was a huge architectural blunder, but not necessarily unjustified because of how profitable madison square garden has been. I also agree with what Nick said about how there is a very similar building across the street. Even though they tore it down, I think they could have at least put SOME effort into making the new one look nice (as anyone who's been in it knows it doesn't).
-Jordan F
Personally, I do think it is a shame that the old Penn Station was destroyed in favor of MSG. I love the look of older buildings and am in complete favor of keeping, restoring, and respecting them. However, I do think New York as a city did prosper a little from this "cultural blunder" because of the popularity of Madison Square Garden. I mean, it's not like they destroyed the old, aesthetically pleasing Penn Station in favor of a building that no one uses or cares about. The mistake would have only been magnified if that had happened. I do agree with Jordan though, that at least some more effort could have been put into making the new Penn Station at least somewhat pleasing to the eye. I guess that's a little harder with it underground since natural light is hard to come by.
--Samantha H.
I agree with the public criticism of the decision to demolish the original Pennsylvania Station in favor of Madison Square Garden.
Architecture is not only an outlet for the mind's creative energy, but a means of recording history in a very tangible way -- each building is a bookmark.
If you have ever been in the new Penn Station, you know it's a nightmare, but that's less important than the fact that New York City lost an architectural trademark building as well as a well-functioning train station.
Architectural preservation is an important part of culture and history. People express their feelings and the demands of the times through the buildings they design and build. Buildings are timeless (unless, of course, they are demolished). They can tell the story of a city and of a people.
Big mistake!
Steve
I think that culture is a big part of society and something important to hold on to in architecture. However, the building was made to last 50 years, and it was past its due, so building a new building seems like an ok thing to do, because of structure stability or contracts or who knows what other reasons. I think that building something to honor the culture of the old building in the new one would have been a good idea. We did get an extremely monumental building out of the demolish (whether beautiful or not. not in my mind): Madison Square Garden, the pride of New York because of the Knicks. the classic line "take me to the garden" was produced and I personally always marvel at going to the Garden for games and concerts and such. Nora K
Nora, just mentioning, it said the building was meant to last 500 years, not 50. Just thought you'd want to know. I'm not being bitchy or anything although it kinda sounds like that on the blog :P.
-Jordan
After reviewing the the first Penn station, I feel it was unnecessary to demolish and rebuild for a oversized-energy draining sports complex. I was never aware that Penn station was once an asthectic piece of architecture, but now it's a hole in the ground filled with people scurying to work. For that reason alone, I feel that we should still have the 1st version of the Penn station building because architecture is a "gift that keeps on giving". Unfortunately, i'm torn because I am an avid sports wachter and i have ventured to Madison square garden numerous times. Obviously, planners considered the economic benefits of the demolishing great architechture. Simply, why couldn't the architects just find another location?
Jo-Sar D.(above)
I am extremely conflicted on this issue. In this world that we live in, information and commerce are vital to keeping the world, a country or a city growing economically. For this reason, I can see why they tore it down, but I agree with Jo-Sar. Why was it so important that MSG was in that very place. In the long run, I feel that it was a good decision to demolish it because it bring necessary cash flow into the city, but if a situations such as this occurs again, and I am sure it will, I feel that we must take every precaution to make sure that all other possibilities have been exhausted before proceeding to destroy such an amazing piece of architecture.
DK
Here is my take on the on Penn Station’s case besides that it is a drastic change. Although many may find that the New Penn station as ugly, the new structure was not a renovation for the old structure to make it look prettier, but it was to make the building more practical. It took something that was used for only one function and made it multifunctional. Not only is it a train station now, but also a basketball arena, boxing ring, ice hockey rink, concert place, etc. Also you may find this as a reach, but in the 1800s (correct me on the date if I am wrong) the entire city of Paris was rebuilt to create boulevards. I am sure that many people objected to this construction project because they were knocking down their homes. Now a couple hundred years later many of us look at that architecture as beautiful which may not have been the case at the time. Like Paris, the new Penn station was built for the people’s long term benefit. Maybe in 100 years people will look back at the new Penn station/ Madison square garden and find it beautiful.
I do believe that architectural preservation is very important. It is important to preserve architecture because it is history. The type of architecture can tell you alot and personally I believe every individual architectural structure has its own story. But, I also believe sometimes we need to update and modernize structures. While I agree with most of my classmates that the first structure was more aesthetically pleasing, think of how it might fit in today's New York. Architecture can represent larger scale changes going on in the area around it. In the Penn Station case, I believe the renovation of the station was exactly this. The renovation of this station from the old classical architecture to a more modern structure and stadium, though it may be considerably worse on the eyes, is emblematic for the change New York City was going through -- becoming one of the most modern cities and becoming one of the major trade capitals of the world. So, though this architectural might be unsightly, maybe it was a necessary change and I believe it has benefitted New York greatly.
D.Gibbs (I know, finally!)
Post a Comment