Reply With QuoteIt was one of the several proposals that were released recently, not just added.Originally Posted by mkeit
Where did the tower come from? all of the previous designs had an entrance pavillion. Was the tower just added or was it hidden ?
It was one of the several proposals that were released recently, not just added.
That tower is a huge mistake. Noooo!
It makes the station look like a "facility" rather than a grand, "single-use" building. It looks like a compromise.... a "solution". The original Penn Station, Grand Central, the great stations of Europe are extravagant... a train station in the grand tradition is NO compromise.
I can understand grafting a tower onto a modern complex like the MOMA, but imagine Grand Central, the Public Library, The Metropolitain Museum with high-rises grafted on to their sides. They would no longer be great buildings.
This is heartbreaking.
Last edited by Fabrizio; June 27th, 2005 at 03:03 PM.
Fab, perhaps you forget that the MetLife Building is grafted onto the north facade of Grand Central, and the Graybar Building and former Commodore Hotel are connected to its east facade.
Grand Central's true success was in its revolutionary urban planning as opposed to its architecture: it catalyzed the development of the area surrounding it, and is more responsible for the emergence of Midtown over Downtown as a prime business center than Penn Station was. The "old" Penn's ultimate weakness was that McKim, Mead & White refused to allow a similar complex to develop around their terminal around that same time because they considered skyscrapers antiurban. The area around Penn was lowrise until the "modernization" in the '60s, when in addition to suffering the loss of McKim's masterpiece we got the insipidness of Penn Plaza compared to the refinement of Terminal City, sans MetLife.
If you ask me, this tower looks infinitely less intrusive than MetLife.
Last edited by TLOZ Link5; June 28th, 2005 at 12:51 PM. Reason: east facade, not west. oops
Was the Metlife building "grafted" on to GCentral destroying part of the building, or is it set along side of GCentral with a connecting entrance?
Even so...
Ask any NYer: " Whatīs your least favorite building in Manhattan?"
9 out of 10 will mention the MetLife and MANY site the buildingīs postion for their negative opinion.
So why pull a "MetLifer" on the new Penn Station?
The refinement of Terminal City complex (GC, Graybar and the hotels) was that the buildings stood "alone" or were at least visually "read" that way, even though connected ....and there was a similarity in materials and architectural styles.
This tower looks, from the rendering, like an alien eating a BIG chunk out of the post office.
And... and perhaps most importantly... these classic-style buildings were ALL about symmetry.
At least the despised Metlife allows GCentral to maintain this important element to itīs design.
This tower destroyīs the symmetric integrity of the roman inspired post office.
Last edited by Fabrizio; June 27th, 2005 at 03:56 PM.
Fabrizio - Grand Central has no north nor east facade - both have buildings abutting them, which is a shame, because the beaux-arts architecture is so beautiful. Functionally, TLOZ is correct that it's Grand Central's planning that made it such as success - buildings have touted their direct access to the terminal since it was built, and I think a tower would only add to the appeal of the facility. Met life is one of the most desirable addresses because of it's proximity to metro north and all those suburbanites, and density will only make the new terminal more alive. The function is great, the form is what people have a beef with (and its siting as TLOZ said in the ugliest building thread)
That said, I hope they don't destroy any of the farley building's facade in the final design... they should preserve it as with the new Hearst Building.
Ryan: letīs do it this way. Let me take TLOZīs quote from the "ugly building" thread about the MetLife:
"An excellent tower, but in the worst possible spot, walking up Park Avenue and severely diminishing the gracious urbanity of the Helmsley Building by overshadowing it".
Now for my sentiments about this new tower (judging from the rendering shown ) at the new Penn Station:
"An excellent tower, but in the worst possible spot, severely diminishing the gracious urbanity of the original post office building by overshadowing it and destroying itīs classic symmetry".
I disagree. If the West Side market starts to heat up (as it seems to be) then the new Penn will most likely be overshadowed by many towers. However, 800 by 400 feet of classicism will not be easily subdued - I think to the average pedestrian the Farley will hold its weight among the towers. Straining my eyes to see this in the rendering, it looks like the tower sticks out past the existing wall on the north side (if I remember correctly there's about a 30 foot setback around most of the building), so it looks like at least a couple hundred feet of facade will come down. Then again I was squinting and that's a vague picture.
Speaking of which, what will become of the loading docks and such that surround the post office?
Not a very useful comparison... MetLife's siting astride park ave is offensive because it blocks miles of open vista, which would be so much more beautiful with only Helmsley and GC. Farley is mid block, so there is nothing to block. Granted, I liked the originial sketches with no tower best myself, but I don't think a tower done well will ruin the design. Again, I point to Hearst.
It's still there, as it always has been. Regardless of the design of the tower, that's the one constant of the new Penn Station design.
It looks like they are maintaining the existing loading docks along 9th Ave. The plan is for Post Office business to remain on that side of the block, yes?
Fabrizo: I understand your view on why there shouldn't be a tower there. But here's the part NO ONE here gets:
1) less office space equals more expense
2) More expense means companies leave NYC
3) When companies leave, reisdents leave
4) We go from 8 to 7 to 6 million...
5) LA is the new financial capital of the world! w00t!
Pack some shades guys, cause NY's over. It's LA all the way baby! ::
Alex: "less office space equals more expense". Alex would you please answer this: not including the loss of the WTC, isnīt there more office space in NYC now than ever before... and certainly more planned? Yet if "MORE office space means LESS expense" why on earth is the cost of living and doing business in NYC higher than ever before?
And following your logic: operating in LA must cost LESS now than ever before because there is more office space... is this true? Can you back that up with some facts? Are you telling us that office rents and cost of living in LA have come DOWN in the last 5 or 10 years? Just curious.
--------------------------------
My objection to the glass tower as an appendage sprouting out of the right side of the roman inspired post office building is an aesthetic consideration. That the station will eventually be overshadowed by other towers, or that this tower makes economic sense is all well and good.... but guess what? Itīs still an ugly solution that ruins the symmetry of the building.
This solution canīt be compared to the Hearst building. The original Hearst Building was actually the base of a skyscraper to come.
You didn't clarify why.
In response, no, it doesn't seem to bright. I'm thinking a office buidling that reflects the station would be better.
My original response was crafted towards your recent views on building.
As for office space, evenutally, that will be the case.
Alex, let me ask you again:
If "less office space equals more expense".....
Would you please answer this: not including the loss of the WTC, isnīt there more office space in NYC now than ever before... and certainly more planned?
Yet if "MORE office space means LESS expense" why on earth is the cost of living and doing business in NYC HIGHER than ever before?
Would you answer that please?
And following your logic: operating in LA must cost LESS now than ever before because there is more office space... is this true? Can you back that up with some facts? Are you telling us that office rents and cost of living in LA have come DOWN in the last 5 or 10 years? Just curious.
Thanks in advance.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks