Arrival: New York Pennsylvania Station by David Cole

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Arrival: New York Pennsylvania Station A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture in the School of Architecture and Interior Design of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning by David S. Cole BA, DePaul University Spring 2014 Committee Chair: Professor Udo Greinacher Research Chair: Professor John E. Hancock

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Abstract

As the consequences of automobile dependency have become increasingly apparent, national discourse has shifted toward rebuilding Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s once-famed passenger rail infrastructure and creating a national network of high-speed rail lines as well as improvements to existing commuter and regional rail services. In order for New York to retain its role as a leader in the global economy and harness the potential of high-speed rail, it must create a viable facility to serve as a gateway to the city and as a hub for multiple modes of transit. New York Penn Station, as it stands today, is woefully inadequate for that purpose. This thesis project examines the possibility of creating a new and expanded Penn Station as a gateway to New York, while improving its connections to other transit modes and the surrounding context. The project proposes expanding the station structure one block to the south, and replacing its labyrinthine network of confusing passageways with an open, light-filled structure with simplified circulation patterns that provide for an appropriate sense of arrival in New York. The outcomes of the research include historical research and an examination of the facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s present-day uses in the form of a written document, as well as precedent research on other facilities that have undergone similar transformations. The design proposal consists of diagrams, drawings, and renderings. Together, these demonstrate the viability and potential rewards of rebuilding Penn Station as a gateway to the city and a hub of activity in West Midtown. ii

iii

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Project Website dscole.net/newpenn

Contact David S. Cole coled3@mail.uc.edu dscole.net

Copyright Notice ÂŠ 2014 by David S. Cole. All rights reserved. This work contains material protected under international and federal copyright laws and treaties. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without express written permission from the author. iv

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Preface

Around the end of my pre-thesis year at the University of Cincinnati I got some advice from a classmate who was a year ahead of me, in the process of finishing his own M.Arch. thesis. He emphatically told me to do something small and rural, such as a retreat cabin somewhere in the mountains of Oregon. Never one to take advice, I decided to design a new Penn Station in New York City. New York has been my on-again, off-again place of residence since 2004. One year I took Amtrak down to North Carolina to visit my family for Christmas, and after several days of living out of a suitcase in their guest bedroom, I was anxious to be back in my own apartment again. After a long journey up the Eastern Seaboard, the train finally pulled into the dungeon-like bowels of Penn Station late at night, and as I stepped onto the platform with my luggage in tow, I distinctly remember thinking how good it felt to be back home. What made that moment memorable was the fact that, despite several years of living in New York, it was the first time that I had really come to think of New York as Home with a capital “H”, and not just the place where I happened to be receiving mail at the time. I also remember thinking that it’s a shame that moment took place on a grimy train platform underneath Madison Square Garden and not someplace more befitting of the occasion, such as the stunning main concourse of Grand Central Terminal a few blocks away. I have always had a strong interest in transportation design and means of conveyance, particularly rail transit. My professional experience includes work on transit-related projects in the New York City region, and I am a former volunteer vi

at the Illinois Railway Museum outside of Chicago, where I helped restore and operate vintage streetcars and rapid transit rolling stock. (My ability to identify nearly every class of New York City subway car always makes me the life of any party.) My strongest interests lie where transportation and architecture converge, and there is perhaps no other situation where the means of conveyance and its architecture are as tightly-integrated as with rail transit. A car or bus typically sits in an adjacent parking lot or garage, or passes by on the street. A plane may be temporarily tethered to an airport terminal via a jet bridge, but remains apart, out on the apron. But when a train arrives in a station -- with tolerances measured in fractions of an inch -- it literally enters the building and becomes just as much a part of its architecture as the elevators and escalators. For my undergraduate Advanced Project at DePaul University, I proposed the creation of a rapid transit system for the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky Region, and developed schematic designs for typical underground and above-ground transit stations. My original plan for this thesis was to design a new concourse at Cincinnati’s Union Terminal to replace the one demolished in the 1970’s, and propose other improvements that would tie into and incorporate elements of the master plan I had developed as an undergraduate. However, I worried that I was beginning to pigeonhole myself professionally as “the transit guy”, and the project was quickly becoming more about urban planning than architecture as the scope expanded to the surrounding neighborhood. My frustration mainly centered around the fact that Union Terminal’s problems are the opposite of Penn Station’s: New York has a massive amount of rail traffic that must be accommodated in a decrepit facility, while Cincinnati still has a

spectacular train station that sees only six passenger trains per week. Union Terminal still has most of its magnificent architecture intact; its problem is the lack of trains to serve it. Penn Station’s problem, by contrast, explicitly demands an architectural solution. About halfway through the quarter before leaving Cincinnati for an extended coop in Los Angeles, I made the decision to do a housing-related thesis instead, and did some minimal research in that direction. It was a more pragmatic choice for a number of reasons, but my heart still wasn’t really in it. However, taking an extra year before starting my thesis and an extra co-op term in New York over the summer of 2013 -- now my third time living in the city -- have rekindled my interest in transportation design, and current events in New York have inspired me to tackle the problem of Penn Station. It’s a problem that stirs up my passions in a way that my previous topics haven’t, and perhaps just as importantly, New York is home. Demolition of the original Pennsylvania Station began fifty years ago this October, despite outrage from preservationists and the design community. The monumental beaux arts edifice by McKim, Mead, and White was replaced with a confusing rat maze of dingy corridors, situated beneath a hulking Madison Square Garden and a drab office building. A piecemeal hodgepodge of improvements have been made over the years -- some new finishes here, a new entrance there -- but it remains a claustrophobic, confusing mess despite being by far the busiest rail hub in the United States. Upon the destruction of the original structure, Vincent Scully famously quipped, “One entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat.” In recent months, a number of developments have converged to advance the idea of a new Penn Station into the public consciousness. The operating permit for Madison Square Garden expired this year, and there is a serious movement led by New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman and the Municipal Art Society to renew it for only 10-15 more years, giving the city time to make decisions about the future of the Garden and the station. Construction is underway across Eighth Avenue at the historic Farley Post Office to convert a portion of it into a new ticketing hall and concourse for Amtrak. In the longer term, the Gateway Project promises to add two additional tunnels under the Hudson River and additional tracks at Penn Station by expanding the station one block to the south. What architectural form that expansion will take, and how it will be incorporated into the existing facility, have yet to be determined. The Municipal Art Society recently challenged four leading New York firms to submit their own ideas for the future of Penn Station and its environs. SOM, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, H3 Hardy Collaborative, and SHoP Architects each submitted schemes that approached the problem from a variety of angles.

away from Penn Station itself. Of the four, I found SHoP’s proposal the most compelling as well as the most realistic, and saw an opportunity to use it as a starting point for my own thesis project. I’ve been warned that the design of a new Penn Station might be overly-ambitious for an M.Arch. thesis, but I feel that by using the SHoP scheme as a master plan to build upon and develop the station building itself in further detail, I can avoid the temptation to redesign all of Midtown West. Additionally, this will fundamentally be a project about simplification; the current facility doesn’t work because what it lacks above all else is clarity and simplicity. Even so, it will be necessarily to narrow my focus. Given the scope of the project, one could easily make a substantial thesis from any of the following topics: 1. How to tie together diverse transportation modes (intercity rail, commuter rail, subway, bus, taxi, bike, pedestrian) and other functions (retail, dining, etc.) into a cohesive whole with intuitive, self-evident circulation pathways. 2. The sequence of spaces encountered by arriving and departing passengers, and their phenomenological aspects. 3. Creation of an iconic urban space that serves as an appropriate entry foyer for New York. What would it means to enter the city “like a god” once again? 4. How to appropriately pay homage to the original structure and memorialize what was lost, while resisting the knee-jerk impulse to replicate it. My own research will, by necessity, touch upon all these areas and more, as each topic cannot be looked upon in isolation from the others. That said, I hope to focus primarily on circulation and the experiential aspects of the space, as those are the most pressing priorities in the design of any transportation facility. Much of the design may remain in a very schematic state, but some key moments in the project will be developed in much greater detail. Above all else, though, my hope is that this project will constructively add to the ongoing discussion among New York’s design community, policy makers, and general public about the future of Penn Station, and help articulate the role that architecture must play in that future. June 2013

The MAS design brief encouraged a “big picture” view of the issue, and the four firms responded by proposing schemes that were as much about urban planning as architecture; the scope of the proposals included potential new locations for Madison Square Garden, integration with the nearby High Line and Hudson Yards, and the redevelopment of parcels located up to several blocks vii

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to the following people who made this effort possible: Professors Udo Greinacher, John Hancock, and Rebecca Williamson at the University of Cincinnati College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning Michael Ernst and Jessica Halem at the Municipal Art Society of New York Vishaan Chakrabarti and Omar Toro-Vaca at SHoP Architects Abigail Carlen at H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture My colleagues at the New York office of STUDIOS Architecture My friends and colleagues in New York, Cincinnati, and elsewhere My parents, Barbara and Spencer Cole viii

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

List of Illustrations 2.13

All illustrations by the author unless otherwise indicated. Illustration

Page

1.1 1.2

A typical train platform at Penn Station Retail concourse and train shed at London’s St. Pancras International Terminal Westminster Station on the London Underground’s Jubilee Line extension Norman Foster’s Canary Wharf Station on the Jubilee Line extension SHoP’s vision for Penn Station and its environs (SHoP Architects, Gotham Gateway Presentation to the Municipal Art Society, May 2013) The SOM scheme for a new Penn Station (Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, Presentation to the Municipal Art Society, May 2013) Program diagram by DS+R (Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Presentation to the Municipal Art Society, May 2013)

Temperature range (Climate Consultant 5.4) Sky cover range (Climate Consultant 5.4) Sun chart (Climate Consultant 5.4) Sun shading chart for summer and fall (Climate Consultant 5.4) Psychrometric chart based on California Energy Code (Climate Consultant 5.4) Manhattan infrastructure improvements related to the Gateway Project, including Penn South at right. (Amtrak, Gateway Project presentation, February 2011, p.10) Existing and near-future site conditions (background: Google Maps) Farley Post Office exterior (H3 Hardy Collaborative, presentation to the Municipal Art Society, May 2013) Proposed Amtrak concourse at Moynihan Station (HOK Architects) Proposed Amtrak concourse at Moynihan Station (HOK Architects) Section through Moynihan Station concourse (HOK Architects) Existing morning rush hour peak pedestrian volumes at Penn Station (Municipal Art Society, Penn Station Challenge design brief, p. 11) Section diagrams illustrating SHoP’s proposed transfer of commercial floor area from the Penn Station site to perimeter sites, creating an “urban bowl” to allow sunlight to reach the new Penn Station and Gateway Park. (SHoP Architects, Gotham Gateway presentation, May 2013, pp. 18-19)

11 11 11

3.1

11 12

3.4 3.5 3.6

3.7 3.8

1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12

3 4 5 7 8 8

14 14 15

2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18

2.19 2.20

3.2

3.9 3.10

3.11 3.12

3.13

3.14 3.15 3.16

3.17

Rendering of the proposed new Madison Square Garden on the current site of the Morgan Processing Facility, with plaza level connections to the High Line and Gateway Park (SHoP Architects, Gotham Gateway presentation, May 2013, p. 34) Site plan of SHoP’s Gotham Gateway proposal (SHoP Architects, Gotham Gateway presentaiton, May 2013, p. 17) Seventh Avenue in the vicinity of Penn Station Diagram showing arrival sequence at the current Penn Station from Herald Square (photos: Google Street View) The High Line Diagram showing arrival sequence at the current Penn Station from Hudson Yards and the proposed site of a new Madison Square Garden (rendering: SHoP Architects. photos: Google Street View) MTA subway train at 145th Street Diagram showing arrival sequence at the current Penn Station from the subway Howard Roark in The Fountainhead (Warner Brothers, 1949) Prefabricated warehouse structure in China (Qingdao Xinguangzheng Steel Structure Co., Ltd.) Wawona Tunnel entrance to Yosemite Valley (Ansel Adams) Santa Monica Pier John Murdock’s arrival at Shell Beach in Dark City (New Line Cinema, 1998) Yosemite Valley Diagram showing spatial conditions of the approach to Yosemite Valley via the Wawona Tunnel (photos: Google Street View) Santa Monica Pier outside of Los Angeles Diagram showing sequence of spatial conditions at the end of Route 66 in Santa Monica, California. (photos: Google Street View) Dark City. (New Line Cinema, 1998) Diagram showing arrival sequence at Shell Beach in the film Dark City (New Line Cinema, 1998) Exterior of Penn Station, facing southwest from near the present-day site of Macy’s (Wikimedia Commons) Exterior of Penn Station, facing northwest from the corner of Seventh Avenue and 31st Street (Wikimedia Commons) The main concourse of Grand Central Terminal The main concourse and waiting room of Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station The original Pennsylvania Station (Detroit Publishing Company, via Shorpy Historical Photo Archive)

17 19 20 20 22

22 24 24 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 32 32 34 34 45 45 46 46 48

3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22

4.1 4.2

4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30

Diagram showing the arrival sequence of the original Penn Station (photos: Detroit Publishing Company) Lyon Airport Station (photo: arcspace.com) Diagram showing the arrival sequence at the Lyon Airport station The Gotham Gateway (SHoP Architects) Diagram showing the arrival sequence as proposed by SHoP Architects in the Gotham Gateway scheme (renderings: SHoP Architects) Proposed regional rail connections Proposed Midtown transit connections, including extending the 7 and L subway lines to Penn Station via Hudson Yards and new Madison Square Garden (background: Google Maps) Improved departure signage showing all trains and stations in an integrated manner Departure and ticketing via smartphone applications Improved passenger information at platform entrance Program diagram showing various program elements, adjacencies, and circulation Materials palette Aerial axonometric facing north East elevation West elevation North-south section East-west section Enlarged section Cutaway axonometric Street level plan Mezzanine level plan Concourse level plan Platform level plan Eurostar platform at London’s St. Pancras Terminal View from tracks 14-15 to central concourse Sculpture of John Betjeman at St. Pancras Terminal by Martin Jennings (Troika) Central concourse facing north toward mezzanine ramps Nave of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, New York Mezzanine facing east toward Seventh Avenue exit Escalators of the original World Trade Center PATH station, as depicted in the Godfrey Reggio film Koyaanisqatsi (New Cinema, 1982) Escalators from mezzanine to Seventh Avenue exit 34th Street and Seventh Avenue at night Facing south from the intersection of Seventh Avenue and 34th Street Bryant Park, New York City Facing east from SHoP’s proposed Gateway Park

48 40

4.31 4.32 4.33

50 52

4.34 4.35

52 47

48 49 49 49

84 84

4.36

Westminster Station on the London Underground Escalators from Eighth Avenue entrance to mezzanine level Paddington Bear sculpture by Marcus Cornish at Paddington Station, London Waiting area and platform entrance at tracks 15-16 “The Meeting Place” by Paul Day at St. Pancras Terminal, London (AFP) View of west concourse from mezzanine ramp

5.1

Main concourse

7.1

Ground level plan of Penn Station (Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University) Interlocking diagram of Penn Station (Collection of John Cooper, via The Broad Way: A Pennsylvania Railroad Home Page, http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Maps/ Itlk/itlk_phl_nyc_main.html) The former waiting room at Penn Station, with unsympathetic ticket counters added at left (Detroit Publishing Company, via Shorpy Historical Photo Archive) The former waiting room at Penn Station, with unsympathetic ticket counters added at right (Detroit Publishing Company, via Shorpy Historical Photo Archive) The main concourse at Penn Station, showing stairs to the exit concourse at center. (Detroit Publishing Company, via Shorpy Historical Photo Archive) The main concourse at Penn Station, showing the glass block floor and entrance to the waiting room. (Detroit Publishing Company, via Shorpy Historical Photo Archive) Train platforms at Penn Station, showing the separate exit concourse and glass block floors. (Detroit Publishing Company, via Shorpy Historical Photo Archive) Train platforms at Penn Station, showing the separate exit concourse and glass block floors. (Detroit Publishing Company, via Shorpy Historical Photo Archive) The former train shed at Penn Station (Detroit Publishing Company, via Shorpy Historical Photo Archive) Street level plan (Jason Gibbs) Upper and lower level plans (Jason Gibbs) Platform plan and retail directory (Jason Gibbs) Seventh Avenue entrance Eighth Avenue entrance Main concourse Connecting concourse Amtrak waiting area New Jersey Transit waiting area Long Island Rail Road waiting area Train platforms

7.2

7.3

52 54 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 66 68 70 72 72

7.4

74 74 76 76

7.9

78 78 80 80 82 82

7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.20

86 86 88 88

99 100

100 101 102 103 104 105 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Contents

Abstract Preface Acknowledgements List of Illustrations

ii vi viii x

The Problem and Setting Introduction Problem Statement Literature Review Stakeholders MAS Design Challenge Summary

2 2 2 2 3 6 9

Site and Context Physical Features and Experiential Conditions Climatic and Natural Conditions Built Context Site Use / Response Strategies Summary

10 10 10 15 18 18

Theory and Precedents The Phenomenology of Arrival Precedent Analysis: Theme Precedent Analysis: Typology

26 26 28 44

Design Response Regional Connectivity Program and Circulation Materiality Space and Experience

46 46 50 54 56

Conclusions

Bibliography

Appendices Historic Penn Station Drawings and Photos Existing Penn Station Plans and Photos

96 98 106

xii

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

The Problem and Setting

Fig. 1.1: A typical train platform at Penn Station

Introduction Throughout my academic and professional career, I have been involved in a wide variety of project types in a wide variety of geographic settings. I have also cultivated a strong personal interest in transportation issues, particularly in regards to rail transit. I have volunteered at the Illinois Railway Museum outside of Chicago and assisted with the operation and restoration of historic streetcars and rapid transit railcars. Here in Cincinnati, I have lent my assistance toward the efforts to build a streetcar system linking downtown and Over-the-Rhine. As an aspiring architect, my favorite design typologies are those that involve structures that related in some way to rail transit; where the means of conveyance is integral to architecture and becomes part of the built environment and functions as a gateway to whatever locale is being served, be it a major urban passenger terminal or a small train station in the hinterland. The train station, rather than merely a place where one catches a train, serves as a civic gateway and commercial hub. Nowhere is that more true than the case of New York’s Pennsylvania Station.

Problem Statement To the lament of architects and preservationists in New York and throughout the world, McKim, Mead, and White’s grand Pennsylvania Station was demolished in 1963 and replaced with a rat maze of underground concourses and tunnels 2

buried under a new Madison Square Garden and a drab office tower. Today, the station is cramped and overcrowded, chopped into disparate dzones for each of the three railroads that serve it (Amtrak for regional and long-distance trains, and Long Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit for commuter trains). Perhaps just as importantly, any sense of “arrival” in the nation’s largest city that was evoked with the original structure has long since been replaced with the dread of navigating one’s way through cramped, stuffy passageways and a gauntlet of panhandlers. Momentum is building for the construction of a new and expanded facility, but a debate has emerged between many in the city’s architectural community in local transit advocates and planners. Some architects see an opportunity for an iconic structure that pushes the avant garde of design, while many planners and transit advocates favor a more utilitarian approach with a strong emphasis on expanded capacity. This debate represents a false choice between formalism and utilitarianism, and ignores the experiences of arrival and departure from the point of view travelers and others who use the station.

Literature Review Somewhat surprisingly, Jane Jacobs makes only passing references to passenger rail transit in her epic tome The Death and Life of Great American Cities. A

The Problem and Setting

disciple of Jacobs, William H. Whyte, goes into further detail in his book City: Rediscovering the Center, praising the virtues of newer light rail transit in cities like Sacramento and bemoaning the loss of the original Pennsylvania Station. Whyte, in comparing various urban design conditions, holds up Grand Central Terminal as the far superior passenger experience than the new Penn Station1, and one would be hard-pressed to find a soul who disagrees. Jacobs and Whyte, however, were writing about urban conditions in general, and not specifically about rail transit and railway stations. For that, it is necessary to turn to some lesser-known authors with more specialized expertise on this particular building type. Carroll Meeks provides a thorough architectural survey of Western railroad stations built since the Industrial Revolution in his 1956 book The Railroad Station: An Architectural History. Meeks notes that with the development of passenger rail travel in the 19th century, there was no historical or functional precedent for facilities to serve this new mode of transportation and thus, it had to be invented.2 Meeks then outlines the development of the railway station over the next century, grouping the maturation of this building type into distinct phases: 1

William H. Whyte, City: Rediscovering the Center (New York: Anchor, 1988), 194.

2 Carroll Meeks, The Railroad Station: An Architectural History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956), ix.

picturesque eclecticism, functional pioneering (1830-1845), standardization (1850’s), sophistication (1860-1890), megalomania (1890-1914), and twentieth century style (1914-1956). Ironically, Meeks’s book was published just as passenger rail travel in the United States had begun its long decline in favor of the private automobile. During the renaissance of British passenger rail travel in the 1990’s after a number of years of privatization and disinvestment during Margaret Thatcher’s administration, Brian Edwards published The Modern Station: New Approaches to Railway Architecture. In this book, Edwards describes the role of the modern railway station in broad terms, rather than merely as a place where passengers board and disembark trains. This role includes serving as a center for commerce and movement, a meeting place, an urban gateway, and as a civic icon. Edwards then goes on to describe the challenges and opportunities unique to several station typologies, including the international or mainline station, the airport station, the suburban station, the rural station, the underground station, and the light rail station. While Edwards takes a look at modern-day railway stations and uses them as examples for future projects, Peter Burman and Michael Stratton reflect on the older stations that are now in need of conservation and restoration in Conserving the Railway Heritage. This book, published at the same time as Edwards, is a collection of essays by various authors that highlight various approaches to conservation and preservation of historical pieces of railroad infrastructure. As with Edwards, the primary focus is on British railways, although Edwards does cite a number of European examples and a smaller number of Asian and American examples. For a more global focus, the Art Institute of Chicago has published Modern Trains and Splendid Stations: Architecture, Design, and Rail Travel for the Twenty-First Century, a companion to an Art Institute exhibit by the same name from December 2001 to July 2002. Edited by Martha Thorne, this book includes three essays by various authors about the future of passenger rail travel in the United States and in the world at large, followed by examples of new and proposed projects across the globe that point toward that future.

Stakeholders As with almost any large-scale public infrastructure project, the client (i.e., the entity paying to have it built) is distinct from the end users who utilize the facility on a daily basis. As such, I prefer the term stakeholders as a more inclusive term to describe not only the client(s) who would be formally responsible for building and operating the facility, but also the tenants and general public who encounter the building during their travels and/or who work in the building as employees.

Fig. 1.2: The retail concourse and train shed at London’s St. Pancras International Terminal

The institutional stakeholders, i.e., the client in a formal sense, would mostly likely be in the form of a joint venture between several of the following entities, in descending order of prominence: 3

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

• The City of New York does not currently have a major direct ownership stake at Penn Station, but exerts considerable influence in other ways on behalf of the public. On July 24, 2013, the city made the first major policy decision to begin the process of creating a new Penn Station, by approving an extension of Madison Square Garden’s operating permit to only the year 2023. The city, though its ability to condemn property via eminent domain and revise zoning ordinances, is in a powerful position to guide the fate of Penn Station by aquiring property and providing zoning incentives for adjacent development. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds from new development in the area of the station could then be used by the city toward the design and construction of the new station itself. • The State of New York, through the Empire State Development, is leading the redevelopment of the Farley Post Office building into the new Moynihan Station. • The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), operator of subway, bus, and commuter rail service in the New York metropolitan area. The MTA operates two commuter railroads: the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) with its primary hub at Penn Station, and Metro-North Commuter Railroad with its primary hub at Grand Central Terminal. The MTA leases and operates Grand Central Terminal, and there are long-term proposals to introduce some Metro-North services to Penn Station via the West Side Line and the Hell Gate Bridge. The MTA also operates six subway lines and several bus routes that directly serve Penn Station. The MTA is a state agency with

headquarters in New York City. (This is a result of the city’s fiscal crisis of the 1970’s, in which many public services that would normally fall under the purview of the City of New York were ceded to state control in Albany.) The MTA has undertaken several large-scale infrastructure projects in recent years, including the East Side Access project to bring LIRR service to Grand Central Terminal, the Second Avenue Subway project, and the extension of the #7 subway line to Hudson Yards. • The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, owner and operator of the region’s three major airports, the PATH subway system (which has its 33rd Street terminal a block away from Penn Station at Herald Square), the World Trade Center complex, the Port Authority Bus Terminal on 42nd Street, and all interstate river crossings between New York and New Jersey. Although the Port Authority currently has no major role at Penn Station, they have taken over the redevelopment of the Farley Post Office building into a new concourse and ticketing hall for Amtrak, immediately to the west of Penn Station. The Port Authority would also be the most likely operator of any new express rail service between Penn Station and the three airports. The Port Authority is a quasi-governmental agency created by the states of New York and New Jersey, with its new headquarters under construction at the World Trade Center. Like the MTA, the Port Authority has an extensive portfolio of major capital projects in the region, including the rebuilding of the World Trade Center. • New Jersey Transit, operator of commuter railroad, bus, and light rail service throughout the state of New Jersey, with Penn Station as its main commuter rail hub. Secondary commuter rail hubs exist at Newark Penn Station and Hoboken Terminal. NJ Transit also contracts with the MTA’s MetroNorth Commuter Railroad to operate two commuter rail lines in Rockland County and Orange County in New York State. NJ Transit is a state agency with headquarters in Newark, New Jersey. • Amtrak, the current owner of Penn Station and operator of the nation’s regional and long-distance rail system. Amtrak is a federal agency, with headquarters in Washington, DC. Penn Station is its busiest hub. Amtrak is in the process of relocating its ticketing, baggage claim, and administrative facilities from Penn Station to the Farley Post Office building across 8th Avenue. (Although branded as Moynihan Station, it remains part of the overall Penn Station complex.) Amtrak is also taking the lead with the proposed Gateway tunnel and expansion of Penn Station. • The United States Postal Service, as owner of both of the Farley Post Office building and the Morgan Sorting Facility, properties that are key to unlocking the potential of an expanded Penn Station and revived Midtown West neighborhood.

Fig 1.3: Westminster Station on the London Underground’s Jubilee Line extension

For the purposes of this project, it is presumed that Amtrak would cede ownership and control of Penn Station to either the City, the MTA or the Port Authority, or to a new joint entity that includes representatives of each. Amtrak and NJ Transit would then operate as tenants of the new facility. (A recent precedent for such action can be found in Los Angeles, where Amtrak ceded ownership

The Problem and Setting

of that city’s historic Union Station to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is now in the process of developing an ambitious master plan for the station and its surrounding precinct.) In their proposal to the Municipal Art Society, SHoP Architects proposes a Gateway Task Force headed by Vice President Joe Biden, the United States Transportation Secretary, the Governor of New York, and the Mayor of New York City. This could serve as a potential framework for the leadership structure for the redevelopment of Penn Station and the surrounding area. However, it is anticipated that the MTA would most likely be the operator of the new facility once construction is complete. Commercial stakeholders, private entities with a strong financial interest in the current facility, include: • The Dolan Family, owners of the Cablevision cable TV service and Madison Square Garden. The creation of a new Penn Station is dependent upon the relocation of Madison Square Garden to one of several nearby sites, and so far the Dolans have resisted efforts to move the Garden. Although the specific location and design of a new Madison Square Garden falls outside the scope of this thesis, it is anticipated that a new Penn Station and relocated Madison Square Garden will ultimately be beneficial to the Dolans. • Vornado Realty Trust, owner and manager of much of the commercial real estate that surrounds Penn Station, including Two Penn Plaza which currently sits atop Penn Station immediately to the east of Madison Square Garden. Although the redevelopment of Penn Station would require the demolition of Two Penn Plaza, several studies have indicated that the real estate value of Two Penn can easily be recaptured via the redevelopment of several underutilized parcels into high-rise office space. Vornado also owns One Penn Plaza, a 50-story office tower to the north of Penn Station. The lower levels of this building contain retail spaces and an elevator lobby that open directly into the existing Penn Station. • The Related Companies, which is part of a joint venture with Vornado to redevelop the Hudson Yards site and the commercial portion of the Farley Post Office building. In addition to the institutional and commercial stakeholders, there are major cultural stakeholders who may not have a direct financial stake in Penn Station, but who exert considerable influence on behalf of architects, planners, the arts community, and other advocates who champion a livable city with a strong artistic and cultural heritage. These stakeholders include: • The Municipal Art Society of New York (MAS), a nonprofit organization founded in 1893 to fight for “intelligent urban planning, design, and preservation through education, dialogue, and advocacy.”1 The MAS was instrumental in developing New York’s first zoning laws that pioneered restrictions in building heights and setbacks, as well as the creation of the New 1 Municipal Art Society of New York, “History of the Municipal Art Society of New York,” http://mas.org/aboutmas/history. Retrieved 18 August 2013

Fig. 1.4: Norman Foster’s Canary Wharf Station on the Jubilee Line extension.

York City Planning Commission, the Design Commission, and the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The MAS led the efforts to prevent demolition of Grand Central Terminal, Lever House, Radio City Hall, and other icons of New York’s architectural heritage.2 More recently, the MAS has been at the forefront in advocating for the relocation of Madison Square Garden and the construction of a new Penn Station. • The Regional Plan Association (RPA), founded in 1922, is an independent nonprofit planning association focused on improving the quality of life and economic competitiveness of the New York City metropolitan region. According to its mission statement, the RPA “aims to improve the New York metropolitan region’s economic health, environmental stainability and quality of life through research, planning and advocacy.”3 The RPA has had a considerable influence over some of the region’s largest infrastructure projects, and has formed an alliance with the Municipal Art Society in advocating for a new Penn Station. Not least importantly, there are the end users of Penn Station, the people who pass through the station from Point A to Point B, or who work there. A hypothetical sampliing of Penn Station’s end users would include:

ibid.

3 Regional Plan Association, “Who We Are,” http://www.rpa.org/about. Retrieved 18 August 2013

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

• Eddie, an office worker from Nassau County, who takes the Long Island Rail Raod to his job in Lower Manhattan. At Penn Station, Eddie typically grabs a coffee and bagel while making the transfer from the LIRR to the downtown subway. • Michelle, an undergraduate sociology student at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, who enjoys spending a day in New York once in a while. She also has family in White Plains, New York. To save money, she takes SEPTA from Philadelphia to Trenton, where she transfers to NJ Transit for the ride to Penn Station. To make the side trip up to White Plains, she must take a subway from Penn Station to Times Square, transfer to another subway to Grand Central Terminal, and then take Metro-North. • Jeremy, a programmer from London who has recently been tapped to work for a tech startup in Brooklyn. From his shared flat in South London, Jeremy will take the Underground to Paddington Station, where he will board a comfortable express train to Heathrow airport. Upon landing at JFK, Jeremy must then board the slow-moving AirTrain to Jamaica, and then wait for a crowded LIRR train to Penn Station. From Penn Station, Jeremy will then take two subway lines to his friend’s loft in Bushwick, Brooklyn. Complicating matters is the fact that Jeremy uses a wheelchair due to a car accident during his first year in college, and so much search for a barrier-free way to transfer from one mode of transit to another. • Simona, a barista at the Starbucks located on the lower concourse level of Penn Station. Jessica works at Starbucks while taking night classes at the Borough of Manhattan Community College downtown, and while she enjoys her job and doesn’t mind putting in long hours to accomplish her goals, resents spending nearly her entire work week in a place with no natural light or views to the outside. • Paul is a retired widower who lives on a fixed income in a subsidized apartment a couple blocks south of Penn Station. Paul has always enjoyed watching trains, and since his wife passed away five years ago, Paul enjoys spending time at Penn Station, watching the hustle and bustle of the crowds, and taking note of the trains that come and go. • Jessica is a newlywed who lives with her husband in Washington Heights and who works as a human resources manager for Macy’s on 34th Street. Although she lives in the city and commutes entirely via subway, Jessica uses Penn Station daily because it’s the closest subway stop to her place of employment. She’ll exist the subway at 8th Avenue when the weather is nice, and walk the two blocks to Macy’s outdoors along 34h Street. But during inclement weather, she’ll walk through Penn Station itself, which saves a block of walking in the rain. These various stakeholders all have differing objectives, ranging from managing the nation’s largest transit agency to simply being able to easily get from one part of town to another. The ones who give any thought about architecture at all 6

are likely to have widely divergent opinions about what good architecture means. It would be safe to assume that, when it comes to a new Penn Station, they are skeptical of having another iconic structure by a “starchitect” that puts the ego of the designer ahead of the needs of the stakeholders and general public. At the same time, they have a strong desire for a new station that is intuitive, lightfilled, monumental, and reflecting of hopes and ambitions of the era in which it is built. In addition to meeting the pragmatic needs of effectively getting people from Point A to Point B, the stakeholders want the new Penn Station to be a place that appropriately marks the occasion of arrival in New York City, a place where people want to gather for a drink or meal the way people do at Grand Central Terminal rather than being a place that people want to escape.

MAS Design Challenge The current incarnation of Penn Station was built at a time when passenger rail travel was in serious decline; the automobile and the airplane were the transport modes of the future. Fortunately, passenger rail transit has undergone a renaissance in recent years, most notably in Western Europe, the United Kingdom, and Japan since the end of the Second World War, but also (to a lesser extent) here in the United States over the past couple decades. With Amtrak setting new records for ridership1 and President Obama’s recent calls for a national high-speed rail network, attention is shifting back toward the possibilities of passenger rail transit. A number of major American cities have put forth their own plans for new and upgraded railway stations, and decades of modern rail-related construction in Europe and Asia provide ample examples for best practices in the case of New York’s Penn Station. In recent months, the Municipal Art Society of New York, the Regional Plan Association, and New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman have taken up the cause of a new Penn Station. With Madison Square Garden’s operating permit expiring this year, Kimmelman and the MAS have urged the City of New York to approve an extension of the permit for only ten years (as opposed to the indefinite extension sought by the owners of Madison Square Garden), giving the city time to decide on the future of the site. In the spring of 2013, the Municipal Art Society invited four prominent New York firms to re-envision Penn Station and the surrounding district. SOM, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, SHoP Architects, and H3 Hardy Collaboration each took a holistic, “big picture” look at Penn Station, Madison Square Garden, and the surrounding neighborhood and proposed schemes in response that ranged from the fanciful to the more pragmatic. Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill Of the four schemes, SOM’s arguably took the most formalistic approach, with a “grand gesture” in the form of a large, circular orb-like structure suspended 1 Jenny Wilson, “Amtrak Sets Ridership Record in Fiscal Year 2011”, SmartPlanet. org, http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/amtrak-sets-ridership-record-in-fiscalyear-2011/8956 [accessed November 27, 2011].

The Problem and Setting

above the site by four skyscrapers acting as table legs. The ground plane was occupied by a large park above the station proper, with a central oculus providing some daylight to the concourses and platforms. Madison Square Garden is shown to be occupying the two city blocks immediately to the south of the Farley Post Office. While a portion of one of those blocks is likely to be demolished as part of the new Gateway project, the remainder is mostly low-rise residential. The idea of displacing hundreds of residents for a new sports arena, especially while much more suitable sites are located nearby, is dubious at best. At the regional level, SOM proposed direct rail service between Penn Station and to the region’s three major airports, which is an idea worth implementing regardless of the fate of Penn Station itself. At the human scale, though, the SOM scheme begins to break down. While it’s hard to argue against the idea of more public parks, the idea of a large city park under a giant orb supported by four skyscrapers would seem to be one of those ideas that looks much better as a computer-generated rendering than as actual built architecture. In reality, the park (which occupies five entire city blocks -- two more than Penn Station and the Gateway project’s Penn South expansion combined) would likely be under a permanent shadow, and bring to mind the worst of 1960’s-era urban renewal schemes that involved large-scale demolition of entire urban neighborhoods. Worse still, SOM glosses over the capacity, circulation issues, and the passen-

ger experience of the station itself. While their renderings show sleek Japanesestyle bullet trains instead of boxy-looking American commuter trains, the platforms and concourses remain mostly cut off from natural daylight, and would likely be only modestly improved over the current conditions. In essence, SOM replaces Madison Square Garden and Two Penn Plaza with a park and some additional high-rises, but apparently does little to improve the station itself. Diller Scofidio + Renfro DS+R, in contrast, has a much greater focus on the passenger experience, exploring the activities in which people are engaged while waiting for a train, and proposing additional program elements to respond to those needs. They also delve into contemporary notions of monumentality and the issue of an integrated facility rather than the current balkanized layout of Penn Station, and propose relocating Madison Square Garden to within the shell of the western half of the Farley building, an idea that came close to actual implementation within the past few years. Also addressed is the confusing way in which train information is conveyed to passengers. These are all valid ideas that need to be part of any conversation about the future of Penn Station. However, the proposed scheme by DS+R, a birds-nest of intersecting ramps and corridors that contain various program elements, doesn’t seem to address these questions as effectively as it could. Capacity issues are not addressed, and the two-block footprint of their scheme doesn’t take into account the planned

Fig. 1.5: SHoP’s vision for Penn Station and its environs

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Fig. 1.6 (above): the SOM scheme for a new Penn Station fig. 1.7 (above right): Program diagram by DS+R

expansion of Penn Station a block south as part of the Gateway project. Also not addressed are the need for clear, self-evident circulation and passenger facilities. While visually compelling, the proposed scheme would seem to be at least as confusing and counterintuitive as the current facility. H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture In contrast to SOM and DS+R, H3 Hardy approached the design brief with more of a focus on transportation connections and urban design, rather than purely as an architectural project. Their scheme proposes extending the 7 subway from Hudson Yards to Penn Station, bringing some Metro-North trains into the station via the West Side Line through Hudson Yards, relocating Madison Square Garden to the Hudson River waterfront adjacent to the Jacob Javits Center, and using the western half of the Farley building for educational purposes. While moving Madison Square Garden to the riverfront may place it out of easy reach to transit riders (a proposed LIRR station at Hudson Yards notwithstanding), the other ideas are worth exploring as part of any rebuilding of Penn Station. Moving the Borough of Manhattan Community College to the Farley building would also free up the BMCC’s current site in Lower Manhattan for large-scale commercial development, which could be factored into the financial equation for a new Penn Station. With this in mind, H3 Hardy’s scheme for the station itself and the immediate precinct seems to be more of an afterthought. Like the other schemes, there seems to be relatively little focus on the passenger experience, and like the SOM and DS+R scheme, the H3 Hardy scheme for a new Penn Station comes with 8

the obligatory rooftop park. SHoP Architects The Gotham Gateway scheme by SHoP Architects was a refreshing change of pace from the other three schemes for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the passenger experience was given heavy consideration, and theirs was the only scheme to show clear, logical circulation pathways from the platforms to the street level. SHoP’s proposed station includes a variety of retail and amenity spaces that one would expect at a major train station, and the main waiting hall itself is shown to have a light, airy feel that would be a most welcome improvement over the current underground labyrinth; the scheme was the only one to show the potential of a grand space in which arrival takes place. At the urban-scale level, SHoP proposes relocating Madison Square Garden to the site currently occupied by the Postal Service’s Morgan Sorting Facility, and using the block to the south of the Farley building for a new park that would provide an effective transition from street level at Eighth Avenue to an elevated plaza around the new Madison Square Garden that would tie in with the High Line. SHoP’s Gotham Gateway scheme was also unique in that it was the only scheme to go into detail about some of the more logistical and pragmatic issues that will need to be resolved if Penn Station is renewed: security concerns, energy efficiency, natural daylight, service access, and probably most importantly, the funding and policy mechanisms that would need to be implemented in order to

The Problem and Setting

see the scheme to fruition. Critiques that could be raised in response to the Gotham Gateway scheme include the fact that the Gateway Park would involve the demolition of a city block that includes a high percentage of residential units; the northern half of the block is mainly commercial and will likely need to be demolished as part of Amtrak’s Gateway project, but it’s hard to think of a compelling reason to demolish the southern residential half. SHoP’s proposal to ban trucks from the immediate vicinity of the station for security purposes probably isn’t realistic, and the required security checkpoints to enforce such a ban, along with the excessive sidewalk setbacks, risks turning the site into another demilitarized zone similar to the new World Trade Center site a couple miles to the south. Regarding the station building itself, SHoP proposes dividing the passenger facilities into three zones (one for each of the tenant railroads) that would lessen but not entirely mitigate current facility’s balkanized organization. How long until New Jersey Transit, for example, decides to renovate their third of the station into something that’s visually and functionally incompatible with the other two-thirds? That said, these are relatively minor critiques, and it was decided to use SHoP’s Gotham Gateway scheme as the starting point for further development. Response The MAS Design Challenge, of course, generated considerable coverage within the architectural press as well as local news outlets. Coverage was generally favorable, but a handful of prominent transit advocates -- particularly those of a more libertarian bent -- saw the exercise as another “vanity project” that serves as a means for politicians to spend vast sums of taxpayer money to build a monument to themselves at the expense of more basic improvements to transit service. Benjamin Kabak of the Second Avenue Sagas blog wrote the following: The latest vanity project that’s come to view is this plan to replace Madison Square Garden with a grand new Penn Station. Few New Yorkers would dispute the charge that Penn is a dump. It is clearly in need of some work, and MSG’s place atop the station will forever interfere with improvements. Relocating the arena and rebuilding the train station makes sense if the money makes sense. How much should we spend on a majestic building when rail needs — such as a new trans-Hudson train tunnel — are so glaringly obviously more important?1 This response and the ones like it ignore a number of important realities. The passenger experience within the space of the station, while easily dismissed as mere “aesthetics” or window dressing, is at least as important as more concrete factors like the number of trains per hour when it comes to transit planning and design. The success of the Washington Metro is due in large part to 1 Benjamin Kabak, “Link: The easier way to fix Penn Station ops,” Second Avenue Sagas, 23 August 2013. http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/08/23/link-the-easier-way-to-fixpenn-station-ops [accessed 15 March 2014].

the functional yet elegant design by Harry Weese Associates, to the point where the Metro has become a tourist attraction and icon of the city in its own right (while costing less to build than the more traditional subway stations the transit agency had originally envisioned, it should be noted). Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, the design of our physical environment has a profound impact on our well-being as individuals and collectively as a society. Yes, we should be responsible with taxpayer money, but there comes a point when frugality becomes counterproductive. It’s not enough to accept a substandard design for such an important part of the city and then tell our grandchildren, “Sorry, that was the best we could do. It’s your problem now.” That was the approach taken with the second Penn Station in 1963, and repeating that mistake is simply not an option. On a more fundamental level, the need for a new Penn Station and the need for increased rail transit capacity into Manhattan are not mutually-exclusive. In fact, one cannot happen without the other. Expanding capacity at Penn Station without a major rebuild of the entire facility is physically impossible, and improving the passenger experience at Penn Station without addressing crucial capacity issues would be akin to putting perfume on a pig. These problems are joined at the hip, and cannot be solved in isolation from one another. On July 24, 2013, New York’s City Council followed the urging of Kimmelman and the MAS and approved the 10-year extension, effectively beginning the countdown for the relocation of Madison Square Garden. As of 2014, newlyelected Mayor Bill de Blasio and a majority of City Council are on record as having expressed support for relocating Madison Square Garden and building a new Penn Station. With that hurdle cleared, the stakeholders can now focus on implementing a longer-term strategy regarding the future of Penn Station.

Summary The available literature and precedents point to a multitude of examples where a historic railway station has been modernized to serve as an urban gateway and meet the needs of modern-day travelers, and other examples where railway stations have been created from scratch in locations that previously had no access to rail transit at all. Despite a wide variety of locations and specific program requirements, what the most notable examples have in common is the ability of the modern railway station not only to serve the purely pragmatic function of providing a place where the traveler can board a train (Penn Station already provides that, barely), but also to serve as a portal to the city in a way that no other transportation facility can match. Unlike airports, train stations are located in the heart of the urban core. Unlike a freeway exit or parking lot, train stations bring people together and serve as civic icons and nodes for commercial activity. Transforming New York’s Penn Station into a similar urban gateway and multi-modal transit hub isn’t without significant challenges, but prior examples and the MAS Design Challenge have demonstrated that these challenges can be overcome in an effective manner.

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Site and Context

Physical Features and Experiential Conditions

Climatic and Natural Conditions

Penn Station currently sits on a two-block site in Midtown Manhattan bounded by 33rd Street on the north, 31st Street on the south, Seventh Avenue on the east, and Eighth Avenue on the west. For the purposes of this project, the site also includes the block immediately to the south of Penn Station, which has been slated to be demolished as part of the Gateway project that will add two new passenger rail tunnels under the Hudson River and eight additional tracks at Penn Station.1 The site is rectangular, and measures roughly 800 feet in the east-west direction by 700 feet in the north-south direction, with almost no change in elevation from one side to another. West of the site, the topography begins to gently slope downward toward the Hudson River, located approximately 1/2 mile to the west. Although the site fits within the Manhattan street grid, West 32nd Street terminates across from the main entrance to Penn Station, and Penn Station’s southward expansion will require a block-long portion of West 31st Street to be de-mapped as well. The site, like the rest of the Manhattan street grid, doesn’t follow a true north-south orientation, but is shifted approximately 29 degrees to follow the geography of the island. As such, the northern side of the side actually faces roughly north-northeast, and the southern side of the site faces roughly south-southwest.

New York City is at the northern edge of a humid subtropical climate zone, near the transition to a humid continental climate zone.2 Temperatures range from daytime highs in the mid-30’s Fahrenheit during winter months to mid-80’s during the summer months, to nighttime lows of the upper 20’s in winter to low 70’s in summer. However, extreme temperatures can range from below 0°F in winter to over 100°F in summer with high humidity at all times of the year (fig. 6.3). Wind velocity is relatively consistent throughout the year at roughly 5-20 MPH,3 although wind speeds in excess of 75 MPH have been experienced in connection to severe weather events such as during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.4 Precipitation totals remain relatively consistent throughout the year, with annual rainfall totals of 49.7 inches,5 again with higher amounts during extreme weather events. Despite its location on the Eastern Seaboard, tropical storms and hurricanes 2 M.C. Peel, B. L. Finlayson, T. A. McMahon, “World Map of Köppen-Geiger climate classification” http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at, The University of Melbourne. Retrieved 17 August 2013 3

Climate Consultant 5.4

4 CBS News, “Hurricane Sandy Poised To Create ‘Extraordinary’ Storm in New York” [http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/28/forecast-hurricane-sandy-barrels-toward-newyork-at-unheard-of-wind-speeds]. Retrieved 17 August 2013 1

Amtrak, Gateway Project presentation, February 2011, p.10

Climate Consultant 5.4

Site and Context

Fig. 2.1: Temperature range

Fig. 2.3: Sun chart

Fig. 2.2: Sky cover range

Fig. 2.4: Sun shading chart for summer and fall

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

Fig. 2.5: Psychrometric chart based on California Energy Code

S T A T I O N

Site and Context

are rare in the New York City region. However, in October 2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall a short distance from New York and caused extensive flooding and wind damage throughout the region. Although Penn Station is at a high enough elevation to escape hurricane-generated storm surges, the rail tunnels that feed the station from New Jersey and Long Island are subject to periodic flooding by storm surges or heavy rains. It is anticipated that such extreme weather events will increase in number over the coming years as a result of global climate change.1 The maximum solar altitude angle ranges from 25.8° at winter solstice to 72.68° at summer solstice,2 although direct sunlight in Manhattan is often blocked by taller structures nearby. Cloud cover is relatively consistent throughout the year, ranging from 20% to 90%.3 A common complaint about the current Penn Station is the lack of natural daylight and outside views. However, daylight will need to be carefully managed in order to prevent glare and overheating due to solar gain. Of particular concern for Penn Station is the internal heat gain generated by 1 City of New York, “PlaNYC: Climate Change” http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/ html/theplan/climate-change.shtml. Retrieved 17 August 2013 2 Sustainable by Design: Sun Angle Calculator [http://www.susdesign.com/sunangle/]. Accessed 16 August 2013 3

Climate Consultant 5.4

trains in the station. Although the trains serving Penn Station are all-electric and generate no diesel exhaust fumes, tremendous amounts of heat are generated by the trains’ electrical and HVAC components such as resistor grids and air conditioning units. Normally this heat is dissipated to the outside environment while the trains are outdoors, but can quickly build up within an enclosed space. For example, some New York subway platforms routinely reach temperatures exceeding 100°F during summer months even when the outside temperature is relatively mild,4 and the passenger areas of the existing Penn Station are often uncomfortably warm and stuffy at all times of the year. This excess heat could potentially be harnessed during cold weather to help heat the station, but will need to be effectively removed from the station during warmer weather in order to maintain a comfortable indoor environment. The site, due to its urban location, has little to no existing natural vegetation; the dominant historical feature -- aside from a few random scattered remains of the original McKim, Mead, and White structure -- is the Farley Post Office building to the immediate west, which is discussed below. Although there is no historical marker on the site to denote the event, the current Penn Station is where famed architect Louis Kahn died of a heart attack in 1974 during a return trip

4 Emily Badger, “The Worst Place to Be on a Hot Summer Day? A New York Subway Platform” [http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/08/worst-place-be-hot-summerday-new-york-subway-platform/6489/], The Atlantic Cities. Retrieved 9 August 2013

Fig. 2.6: Manhattan infrastructure improvements related to the Gateway Project, including Penn South at right

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Site Legend

Fig. 2.7 (above): Existing and near-future site conditions (background: Google Maps)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 2.8 (opposite top): Farley Post Office exterior

Jacob Javits Convention Center LIRR West Side Yard / Hudson Yards High Line USPS Morgan Facility / New Madison Square Garden Site Gateway Park Site Farley Post Office / Moynihan Station One Penn Plaza Gotham Tower Site Herald Square Empire State Building

Fig. 2.9 (opposite center): Proposed Amtrak concourse at Moynihan Station Fig. 2.10 (opposite bottom): Section through Moynihan Station concourse

Site and Context

from India.1

Built Context The site is located within a high-density urban area, surrounded by high-rise development on all sides, and is currently occupied by Madison Square Garden, a bland 30-story office building built at the same time as the Garden, and the existing Penn Station below street level. Some notable current and proposed features that will impact the design of the new Penn Station, in roughly descending order of impact: The Gateway Project and Penn South Penn Station and the two rail tunnels under the Hudson River have long been a choke point on the busy Northeast Corridor. Most of the Northeast Corridor between Washington, DC and New Haven, Connecticut is at least four tracks wide, allowing faster regional and high-speed trains on the inner tracks to bypass local station stops and slower commuter trains on the outer tracks. Between Newark, New Jersey and Manhattan, however, the corridor is reduced to two tracks as it crosses the Meadowlands and the Hudson River. The Gateway Project proposes to eliminate this bottleneck by building two additional tracks from Newark to Penn Station, including two additional tunnels under the Hudson River, and expanding Penn Station one block south to accommodate seven additional tracks and four additional platforms. This will require the condemnation of the entire city block south of Penn Station.2 Preliminary engineering and environmental impact studies for the Gateway Project have begun, but no designs have been finalized for the new expansion of Penn Station. While the Gateway Project calls for the new tracks at Penn Station to be terminal stubs, there also exists the long-term potential to connect these tracks to the new East Side Access station under Grand Central Terminal, which is currently under construction and scheduled to open in 2019. This would provide 1 Paul Goldberger, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Louis I. Kahn Dies; Architect was 73,â&#x20AC;? 20 March 1974, The New York Times, p 1. 2

Amtrak, Gateway Project presentation, February 2011, p.10

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

a convenient link between the two stations, allow for additional flexibility in commuter rail operations, and could be used for dedicated express trains between Midtown Manhattan and the region’s three major airports. (Currently, one must take two subway rides with a transfer at Times Square to travel between Penn Station and Grand Central via rail transit. Taking the subway or commuter rail to either JFK or Newark Airport requires an additional transfer to the Port Authority’s AirTrain service at either airport, and LaGuardia Airport currently has no rail connection at all.) The Farley Post Office / Moynihan Station Immediately to the west of the site is the neoclassical Farley Post Office, designed by McKim, Mead & White to be a companion to the original Penn Station. Sitting above the tracks and platforms that feed into Penn Station from New Jersey and largely vacated by the US Postal Service, the Farley Post Office is in the process of being converted into a new Amtrak concourse that will include Amtrak’s ticketing and baggage facilities, an Acela Lounge, and waiting areas for long-distance and regional travelers. This will free up space within Penn Station itself and allow Penn Station to be used exclusively by commuters. Although named Moynihan Station after the late senator who championed the project, it isn’t so much a separate station as it is an additional concourse within the Penn Station complex. SHoP Architects, in their Gotham Gateway proposal to the Municipal Art Society, proposed that Moynihan Station be used for advance check-in and security screening for passengers destined for airports via express trains.1 While technically feasible, this would limit the airport rail service to ticketed airline travelers only, and not airport employees or others who have reason to travel to the airport. It also poses logistical problems at the airports: How do express train passengers who have checked their luggage and gone through security screening at Moynihan Station get from the rail terminal at the airport to their gate (which can be located at any one of JFK Airport’s six terminals, Newark Airport’s three terminals, or LaGuardia’s two terminals -- each with its own security checkpoints) without leaving the secured zone and having to re-enter through airport security? And what of their checked baggage? In light of these issues, it seems that the best use of the Moynihan Station is for Amtrak ticketing and services, as currently planned. Any potential express rail service to the airports would use the same facilities at Penn Station as the other commuter rail services, and with check-in and security screening taking place at the airport terminals. This would be similar to the airport express services offered in London, such as the Heathrow Express rail service from Paddington Station and the Gatwick Express service from Victoria Station.

Fig. 2.11: Existing morning rush hour peak pedestrian volumes at Penn Station. With the development of Hudson Yards and a new Madison Square Garden to the west, pedestrian volumes entering the station from the southwest are certain to greatly increase.

The proposed Moynihan Station will only occupy roughly the eastern half of the Farley Post Office building, with entrances at the northeast and southeastern corners along Eighth Avenue, on either side of the grand staircase leading to the post office lobby (which will remain in use by the Postal Service). The fate of the western half of the building remains undetermined as of this writing; one proposal would have built a new Madison Square Garden within the shell of the 1 SHoP Architects, Gotham Gateway presentation to the Municipal Art Society, May 2013, p. 21

Fig. 2.12: Section diagrams illustrating SHoP’s proposed transfer of commercial floor area from the Penn Station site to perimeter sites, creating an “urban bowl” to allow sunlight to reach the new Penn Station and Gateway Park.

Site and Context

structure.2 Another scheme has proposed relocating the Borough of Manhattan Community College to the building, which would free up BMCC’s current campus in lower Manhattan for high-rise development.3 The current proposal by HOK Architects shows this area occupied by retail space (fig. 6.12). 34th Street, the Fashion District, and Herald Square One block to the north of Penn Station is West 34th Street, a busy crosstown 2 Lisa Calgaro, Daniel Fox, et al, “Penn Station Redux: Preservation of the Farley Post Office,” Columbia University Historic Preservation Studio II, Spring 2007, p. 14 3 Charles V. Bagli, “New Proposal for Penn Station Entails Relocating a College” [http:// www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/nyregion/new-proposal-for-transforming-penn-station.html], The New York Times, 4 February 2013. Retrieved 17 August 2013

street and major artery that is often packed with commuters and tourists. One block east of Penn Station, at the intersection of 34th Street, Broadway, and Sixth Avenue, is Herald Square, home to the Macy’s flagship store and a major transit hub serving the B, D, F, M, N, Q, and R subway lines and the PATH subway to New Jersey. An underground passage known as the Gimbels Passageway formerly provided a protected pathway between Penn Station and Herald Square, but was closed in the early 1980’s due to crime concerns.4 As such, large amounts of pedestrian traffic approach the site from the northeast via 34th Street and Seventh Avenue (fig. 6.13). 4 Steve Cuozzo, “Remembering the Gimbels Tunnel” [http://www.nypost.com/p/news/ opinion/opedcolumnists/remembering_the_gimbels_tunnel_3SN7c8HSVMMdICpXMVJFiN], The New York Post, 28 November 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2013

Fig. 2.13: SHoP’s rendering of the proposed new Madison Square Garden on the current site of the Morgan Processing Facility, with plaza level connections to the High Line and Gateway Park

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Hudson Yards and the High Line The Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project is the result of the re-zoning of 60 city blocks on Manhattan’s far west side for high-density development, including the air rights above the Long Island Rail Road yard three blocks west of Penn Station. Components of Hudson Yards include 25.8 million square feet of new office space, 20,000 new housing units, as well as shopping, hotels, and public amenities.1 The 7 subway line is being extended south and west from Times Square to serve this new development, but it is anticipated that Hudson Yards will also bring a large influx of new commuters to Penn Station from the west. Hudson Yards sits at the north end of the High Line, a mile-long linear park located on the elevated right-of-way of a former spur of the New York Central Railroad. Designed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro, the High Line has been met with critical acclaim and has attracted a significant amount of development to the area. The High Line will ultimately connect to Hudson Yards, and there is the potential for connections to the new Madison Square Garden and Penn Station. New Madison Square Garden and Gateway Park In addition to the Farley Post Office, the US Postal Service owns and operates the Morgan Processing and Distribution Center, which occupies a two-block site west of Penn Station and south of 31st Street. The Postal Service has expressed interest in vacating the facility and selling the property, which would open the site up for large-scale development. SHoP Architects, in their proposal to the Municipal Art Society, has proposed this site as the location for a new Madison Square Garden and high-rise development, with a raised pedestrian plaza that connects to the High Line (fig. 6.15). Immediately to the east of the site and south of the Farley Post Office, SHoP proposes a new Gateway Park on a block that will be condemned as part of the Gateway project. The park would occupy the air rights above new tracks and platforms serving the southern extension of Penn Station, and provide a transition from street level to the new Madison Square Garden plaza level and the High Line.

Site Use / Response Strategies In the Municipal Art Society presentation, SHoP Architects proposes that the new Penn Station and its neighboring buildings form an implied “bowl”, with Penn Station being a relatively low building, and building heights increasing as they are located further away from the station. (A notable exception is the proposed Gotham Tower at the corner of Seventh Avenue and 30th Street, directly across from Penn Station, which would be the tallest building in the city.) This strategy would maximize the amount of daylight reaching Penn Station and Gateway Park, while allowing high-rise development in peripheral areas to maximize development potential and help fund construction of the new station. In addition to following the above massing strategy proposed by SHoP, a new Penn Station should compliment the Farley Post Office in terms of massing, ma1 Charles V. Bagli, “Rezoning Will Allow Railyard Project to Advance,” http://www. nytimes.com/2009/12/22/nyregion/22hudson.html, The New York Times, 21 December 2009. Retrieved 17 August 2013

terials, and views from within the station. The grand steps in front of the Farley Post Office building serve as a popular place for brown bag lunches and peoplewatching, and the possibility of some form of terraced seating inside the station, as an implied continuation of the Farley steps, should be explored. Views of the Farley Post Office from within the station can also serve as an important point of reference for wayfinding purposes. Given that the bulk of pedestrian circulation will be approaching Penn Station from Herald Square to the northeast and from Hudson Yards and a new Madison Square Garden to the southwest, the primary entrances to the station and circulation paths within the station should be oriented toward these directions, while still allowing for secondary entrances and pathways throughout the station. The street frontages along 33rd Street and 30th Street should, to the maximum extent feasible, be activated with street-level retail. The underground portion of the station should include an enclosed passageway to the subway and PATH station at Herald Square to replace the closed Gimbels Pasage. The current facility is divided into different three distinct zones, one each for Amtrak, NJ Transit, and Long Island Rail Road. Each zone has its own design, branding, signage, and identity; in effect, Penn Station currently functions as three interconnected but badly-integrated train stations that happen to utilize the same tracks and platforms. The new Moynihan Station will add a fourth. The new station must effectively incorporate current and proposed expansion schemes such as the Moynihan Station and Gateway Project in a manner that eliminates these “fiefdoms” in favor of a cohesive, integrated whole.

Summary A new Penn Station will have to effectively respond to a wide variety of site conditions, both natural and built, and some of which may be seemingly contradictory. Simply providing a hole in the sidewalk with a few escalators (more or less the strategy of the current facility) will not be sufficient. Natural sunlight and views to the outside must be maximized, but in a manner that doesn’t result in excessive glare or solar heat gain. Effective climate control is critical, especially in the removal of heat generated by trains within the station. The site’s history and context -- particularly the original Penn Station and the Farley Post Office -- should be acknowledged and respected in the design of the new station, while resisting the knee-jerk temptation to simply replicate what has been lost. Circulation -- within the station and between the station and the city outside -- is of paramount concern. As a transportation facility, its fundamental purpose is to provide an effective means of circulation. Circulation patterns must be intuitive and responsive to site conditions. Above all else, the new station must be a good neighbor, one that is both monumental and deferential. The act of arriving in Manhattan deserves a monumental entrance; the site demands a facility that adds to the vitality of the neighbor-

Site and Context

hood rather than detracting from it. Toward these ends, this thesis proposes to adopt, with some modifications, the site strategy outlined by SHoP Architects in their proposal to the Municipal Art Society and use it as a master plan for further development of the design for a new Penn Station.

Fig. 2.14 (above): Site plan of SHoPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gotham Gateway proposal Hudson Yards and the High Line extension are shown at far left. A new Madison Square Garden, Moynihan Station, Gateway Park, and the new Penn Station are in center. Gotham Tower and additional development are shown at right.

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Approach from Herald Square

Fig. 2.15 (above): Approaching Penn Station via surface streets from Herald Square along 34th Street, one makes use of busy sidewalks that are often mobbed with tourists, shoppers, panhandlers, street vendors, and cross traffic. There is little or no distinction between approach and threshold, and “arrival” at Penn Station simply means finding your way to one of the station’s entrances. Fig. 2.16 (right): Diagram showing arrival sequence at the current Penn Station from Herald Square

Approach

Site and Context

Threshold

Arrival

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Approach from New Madison Square Garden

Fig. 2.17 (above): The approach and arrival sequence to Penn Station from the west, including from the High Line, Hudson Yards, and the current site of the Morgan Sorting Facility, is still in the process of being defined. Like much of Midtown West, it is poised to undergo dramatic transformation from an under-utilized light industrial area to a busy neighborhood containing high-rise residential and commercial development, and upscale retail. According to the Gotham Gateway scheme by SHoP Architects, people approaching Penn Station from the west will pass by or through an extended High Line, a new Madison Square Garden, a new Gateway Park, and a redeveloped Farley Post Office building. Fig. 2.18 (right): Diagram showing arrival sequence at the current Penn Station from Hudson Yards and the proposed site of a new Madison Square Garden

Approach

Site and Context

Threshold

Arrival

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Approach via Subway

Fig. 2.19 (above): Approaching Penn Station via the subway involves entering the system -- usually, but not always, underground -- at any one of hundreds of stations throughout the city, waiting for a train, possibly making one or more transfers to other lines, and disembarking at one of the two subway stations directly adjacent to Penn Station. The connection is also underground, so â&#x20AC;&#x153;arrivalâ&#x20AC;? at the current Penn Station via subway involves little more than moving from one underground concourse to another. Fig. 2.20 (right): Diagram showing arrival sequence at the current Penn Station from the subway

Approach

Site and Context

Threshold

Arrival

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Theory and Precedents

The Phenomenology of Arrival In following the debate over the future of New York’s Penn Station, two broad camps seem to have emerged on the issue. To broadly stereotype these opposing factions (the realities are in fact much more nuanced), one could label it as a fight between formalism and utilitarianism. On one side are the elites of the architectural community, who see the project as an opportunity for a bold new architectural statement on a grand scale, not unlike the response to designing a new World Trade Center further downtown. SOM, for example, responded to the design challenge posed by the Municipal Art Society by proposing a massive orb-like structure floating in the air, suspended by a giant skyscraper on each corner of the site. Diller Scofio + Renfro made valid observations about the activities people engage in while waiting for trains and saw the potential for a new station to encapsulate many of those activities, but ultimately proposed a confusing warren of passageways that makes the current facility look like an exercise in clarity by comparison. Given the size of the site and the high-profile nature of the project, it’s hard to resist the temptation to respond with a formalistic grand gesture that asserts the superiority of the celebrity architect above all else. To the formalist architect, the station site is a blank canvas upon which to create a bold architectural statement that will be admired and studied by peers and those in the academy. The graphics used to visualize the design start with abstract diagrams that are often incomprehensible to all but the author, and 26

slick renderings that are almost always from a birds-eye view, a vantage point that most people will never experience. And for those who do experience that vantage point, the station is so far removed from reality that issues related to its everyday experience are rendered irrelevant. To use a fashion design analogy, the MAS schemes, to varying extents, were the architectural equivalents of models strutting down the runway at a fashion show filled with photographers and other industry people. This is all well and good for the purposes of beginning the conversation about the future of Penn Station, and in that regard the MAS Design Challenge was a success. But when it comes time to develop a serious proposal for the site, the design response must be grounded in the realities of the human experience. At the other end of the spectrum are public transportation advocates and some advocates of New Urbanism – a vocal force in New York City – who want capacity improvements above all else, and whose distrust of architects is rarely left unexpressed. The example they often cite is Santiago Calatrava’s transportation hub at the World Trade Center, with a price tag of $4 billion (and counting). Calatrava’s space also falls into the “grand gesture” school of formalistic architecture, but does little or nothing to actually improve the capacity of the facility; the number of tracks and platforms for the PATH station there has remained unchanged since it was built around the turn of the 20th Century. To many who follow public transit, the end-all-and-be-all seems to be about the number of trains per hour the station can accommodate. All else is secondary.

Theory and Precedents

Architecture as object vs. architecture as utility. Missing from both is the human element. Fig. 3.1 (right): Howard Roark in The Fountainhead Fig. 3.2 (far right): Prefabricated warehouse structure in China

To the transit advocate or New Urbanist, the architecture is irrelevant, a mere backdrop to urban life; what matters is moving trains in and out of the city. The default design response for transportation architecture in New York is the typical subway station: low, flat ceilings supported by a forest of structural columns, and machine-like efficiency of construction. The only nod to aesthetics, if the budget allows, is maybe a band of decorative tile or an art installation mounted somewhere out of the way. Perhaps burned by the skyrocketing costs and endless delays encountered on other large-scale infrastructure projects in New York, they advocate an incremental, utilitarian approach. If a new station is to be built at all (‘Why not just add some skylights and a few additional escalators to the existing facility, or tinker with the train schedules a bit?”), it should be done as quickly and cheaply as possible so that the city can get on with its business. Ancillary functions, such as retail or other uses, or the idea of re-envisioning the station as a destination in its own right rather than merely a portal to the city, are seen as superfluous window dressing conjured up by architectural elites in black turtleneck sweaters at ivory tower cocktail parties. To return to the fashion analogy, the favored approach would be sweat pants and a t-shirt: simple, functional, inexpensive, and low-maintenance. Both arguments have valid points: given the size and scope of the project, architectural mediocrity in the form of a utilitarian shed is simply not an option. New York has been given a unique opportunity to reshape the public realm in this part of the city, and what gets built will reflect the city’s present-day aspirations for

generations to come. Likewise, there are serious capacity and functional issues with the current facilities, and a failure to effectively address these issues will only confirm the worst stereotypes about architects and continue to marginalize the profession. The worst fear of the architects is that future generations will look at Penn Station and say, “Is that the best you could do?” The worst fear of the utilitarian camp is that future generations will look at Penn Station and say, “What the hell was that architect thinking?” Neither side can be blamed for having such concerns. However, both sides make the mistake of ignoring the larger and more fundamental context in which the station exists. In both cases, the station is objectified and abstracted, removed from its network of uses and meanings that exist in the real world, and attention is focused solely on one metric at the expense of all others. The experience of the actual people who engage with the station on a daily basis is ignored: the commuter from Long Island, the occasional visitor, the retail worker, or the subway rider. Each of these people enters Penn Station and experiences it in a unique way; and each of those experiences takes place within a network of meanings that cannot be viewed in isolation from one another. These intertwined networks, and the associated character of the spatial experience, have largely been missing from the conversation so far. What does it really mean to arrive in New York City? How is the station used and experienced by the typical person on the street and on a train? How can a new station address its capacity issues while effectively enhancing the user experience? This is at the heart of phenomenology, the way of thinking and designing that acknowledges and enhances the web of meanings that form the human experience. 27

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

In the debate over the future of Penn Station, the issue of formalism vs. utilitarianism sets up a false choice between glossy, ego-driven structures designed by celebrity architects for maximum formal shock and novelty, and banal utilitarian structures designed by engineers for maximum efficiency for the lowest cost. What is needed is an approach to design that recognizes that good architecture is something that is experienced within the full context of the world we live in, and not a sculptural object or machine that exists in isolation. To revisit the fashion analogy once again, the false choice between runway model outrageousness and sweat pants misses the point; what is needed is something akin to a well-tailored suit that looks good, wears comfortably, enhances the occasion and gets noticed, and never goes out of style.

Precedent: Theme What does it mean to arrive someplace? In the figurative sense, we use “arrive” as a word that implies having achieved a certain status; the business executive might say something like, “I’ll know I’ve arrived when I can afford a new Range Rover.” For architecture students, we know we’ve arrived when our thesis is approved and we graduate. The occasion, and other occasions like it, are marked with pomp and ceremony. Later on, we know we’ve arrived as architects when we pass the registration exams and receive a certificate and a drawing stamp, physical markers of arrival, and can legally call ourselves architects without a qualifier like “intern”. The professional title and the letters “AIA” after our names on business cards are further symbols of having arrived at a particular milestone in our careers. 28

In the physical world, either by accident of geography or by design, certain places have spatial characteristics that let us know we’ve arrived someplace. Driving northbound on Interstate 75 through Northern Kentucky, we know we’ve arrived in Cincinnati when we pass over a rise on the highway and the downtown skyline opens up before us in the river valley below. From the south entrance of Yosemite National Park, the Wawona Tunnel on Highway 44 was deliberately sited by the Civilian Conservation Corps to provide a jaw-dropping panorama of Yosemite Valley and Bridalveil Fall upon emerging from the tunnel’s eastern portal after miles of driving through redwood forests. On the multi-day road trip on historic Route 66 from Chicago to Santa Monica, we know we’ve arrived at the end of our journey when the vista opens up from the crowded streetscape of downtown Santa Monica to the enormous expanse of the Pacific Ocean punctuated by the Santa Monica Pier. While notions of mood and character as the foundation of human experience have largely been banished from the architectural academy in favor of dense theoretical treatises and dry parametric code, filmmakers have never lost sight of such notions. In the 1998 movie Dark City, Alex Proyas provides an example of how one might approach the idea of “arrival” in architecture. Throughout the movie, the protagonist – suffering from amnesia and trapped in a strange city – is attempting to find the way to his presumed hometown of Shell Beach. The film’s dramatic climax takes place between two visits to what we think of as Shell Beach; and before the first visit, the anticipation builds as we are led through increasingly dark and claustrophobic spaces. In the movie’s closing scenes, we are finally treated to a dramatic burst of sunlight as the protagonist opens a

Theory and Precedents

door at the end of a dark corridor and finds himself in the wide-open space of the ocean. There is no question that the protagonist has “arrived” at his destination.

Fig. 3.4 (opposite left): Wawona Tunnel entrance to Yosemite Valley

Each of these precedents involves a series of spatial conditions that can be best described as approach, threshold, and arrival. The threshold typically involves some sort of spatial compression in which our field of vision is narrowed, followed by a release in which the vista opens back up in dramatic fashion. More often than not, the arrival moment is marked by some icon or landmark to drive the point home, such as Bridalveil Fall in Yosemite or the “End of the Trail” sign on the Santa Monica Pier.

Fig. 3.6 (below): John Murdock’s arrival at Shell Beach in Dark City

Fig. 3.5 (opposite right): Santa Monica Pier

A phenomenology of arrival, then, probes the fundamental shifts of mood and character that accompany these sequences, and how spatial features in the environment, both natural and constructed, are able to “presence” them (make them more vivid and conspicuous),1 with meanings that enhance the human experience. This will be the goal of the new Penn Station.

1 Karsten Harries, The Ethical Function of Architecture, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1997, pp. 118-121.

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Wawona Tunnel Entrance, Yosemite National Park

Fig. 3.7 (above): Yosemite Valley. Completed in 1933 by the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Wawona Tunnel entrance to Yosemite Valley was carefully sited to provide a dramatic vista of the valley upon emerging from the eastern portal of the tunnel. Upon entering Yosemite National Park via State Route 41, motorists drive about 20 miles through evergreen forests on their way to Yosemite Valley, the iconic centerpiece of the park. The narrow confines of the 4233-foot tunnel constrict the driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s field of vision; the tunnel exit is little more than a bright spot in the distance. The bright spot grows larger until the valley explodes into view, with Bridalveil Fall serving as a marker to indicate arrival in Yosemite Valley. Fig. 3.8 (right): Diagram showing spatial conditions of the approach to Yosemite Valley via the Wawona Tunnel

Approach

Theory and Precedents

Threshold

Arrival

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Route 66 to the Santa Monica Pier

Fig. 3.9 (above): Santa Monica Pier outside of Los Angeles marks the traditional end of historic Route 66, located 2451 miles away from its start in Chicago. Although most of the original Route 66 has been supplanted by the Interstate Highway System during the postwar era, the Santa Monica Pier still serves as a fitting place to arrive after a crosscountry road trip. Having traveled through forests, plains, mountain ranges, canyons, and deserts, motorists spend the last few miles traveling through the built-up sprawl of Los Angeles. Leaving the freeway, the motoristâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s field of vision is compressed while passing through the dense local streetscape of downtown Santa Monica. After passing through an intersection and under a large sign marking oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arrival at Santa Monica Pier, the view opens up dramatically toward the pier and the Pacific Ocean. The motorist has arrived at the edge of the continent, the end of the trail. Fig. 3.10 (right): Diagram showing sequence of spatial conditions at the end of Route 66 in Santa Monica, California

Approach

Theory and Precedents

Threshold

Arrival

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Dark City (1998)

Fig. 3.11 (above): In the 1998 film by Alex Proyas, the protagonist John Murdoch finds himself in a strange city with no memories save for a few vague mental images of his hometown of Shell Beach. The film follows Murdoch as he tries to piece together the clues of his past and the city around him, and his search for Shell Beach. Toward the film’s climax, Murdoch finds his way through a desolate, forgotten quarter of the city to what he thinks is Shell Beach, traveling via a dark, narrow passageway. Murdoch returns to this location in the film’s final moments, and a dramatic explosion of light marks Murdoch’s arrival at Shell Beach. Fig. 3.12 (right): Diagram showing arrival sequence at Shell Beach in the film Dark City

Approach

Theory and Precedents

Threshold

Arrival

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Precedent: Typology There are a number of precedents to reference when confronted with the challenge of adapting a existing train station to the modern-day needs of high-speed rail travel and intermodal connections. Most of these involve existing, historic train stations that have been creatively adapted and expanded to meet the needs of modern-day travelers and enhance connections with other transit service. Although it involves the renovation of an existing structure rather than the construction of an entirely new facility, a comparable precedent in scale and scope would be the renovation and expansion of London’s historic St. Pancras Station (fig. 4.1) into a terminal for the high-speed Eurostar train to Europe, in addition to improving connections to the London Underground rapid transit network and to the adjacent King’s Cross railway station, which recently completed its own dramatic transformation. The renovations to St. Pancras involved the relocation of several platforms from the historic train shed to a newer shed to the north. The space within the main shed formerly occupied by the platforms was then opened up to the level below, which became a shopping concourse that provided covered, indoor access to the Underground and to King’s Cross. Modern immigration and customs facilities were added on this lower level for the Eurostar service, and the historic hotel that formed the station’s headhouse was meticulously restored. Renovations to nearby King’s Cross station, including the addition of a new ticketing hall, have further enhanced the connections between the two stations, effectively creating one major transit hub. The example of St. Pancras can be applied to Penn Station on a number of levels. First and foremost is that of a creative reconfiguration of the space to create new circulation pathways, opportunities for retail development, and connections to other modes of transit in a manner that respects and enhances the station’s existing historic fabric. While Penn Station obviously has no need for international customs facilities as were required at St. Pancras, the renovation to St. Pancras has illustrated the potential of turning a historic train station into a modern gateway to the city that is at once cutting-edge and timeless. A few miles south of St. Pancras International Terminal lies another precedent with valuable lessons for Penn Station. In the late 1990’s, the Jubilee Line of the London Underground was extended east from central London to Stratford. The project included the construction of eleven new stations, most of which were in areas with little prior access to the Underground system, some of which provided new transfer points between the Underground and mainline railway stations (particularly at Waterloo, London Bridge, and Stratford), and all of which were fresh expressions of the potential of railway architecture. The new station at Westminster (fig. 4.2) provided a novel solution to the problem of providing new connections to existing Underground service within the tight confines of a site surrounded by historic structures, while also serving as a monumental gateway to one of London’s most heavily-visited tourist areas. Norman Foster’s Canary Wharf (fig. 4.3) station provided transit access and a civic icon for London’s rapidly-developing new financial district in an area once dominated by shipyards 36

and docks. While the Jubilee Line’s extension serves a different mode of rail transit compared to Penn Station and St. Pancras, it offers lessons regarding how innovative, forward-looking architecture can transform urban areas that were once left for dead and make rail transit attractive to the general public. Pennsylvania Station, 1910-1963 When searching for an archetypical precedent for the design of a new Penn Station, one needs to look no further than the original building that occupied the site. The neoclassical structure designed by McKim, Mead, and White effectively defined the genre of the great urban railway station in the United States at a time when the invention of rail travel was still within living memory. Its 1963 demolition and banal replacement remain an open wound in the collective consciousness of New York’s design community, the national historical preservation movement, and for hundreds of thousands of people who use the station each day. Background Pennsylvania Station was only one part of the Pennsylvania Railroad’s (PRR) herculean efforts to overcome geography and provide direct rail service to Manhattan. Prior to its construction, passengers from New Jersey, Philadelphia, and points south and east were forced to disembark their trains on the Hudson River waterfront near the site of today’s Exchange Place PATH station (hence its name) and transfer to ferries in order to cross the river and reach Manhattan. The Long Island Rail Road, then a subsidiary of the PRR, faced the same problem from the east; passengers were forced to transfer to ferries in Queens and cross the East River into Manhattan. Meanwhile, the PRR’s arch rival, the New York Central, was able to provide direct rail service into Manhattan via its lines that traveled through the Bronx and Harlem, and under Park Avenue to a passenger terminal at 42nd Street. (Three years after the opening of Pennsylvania Station, this passenger terminal would be replaced with the Grand Central Terminal that serves Metro-North Railroad commuters today.) To gain a competitive advantage against the New York Central, the PRR embarked on a massive capital project that would involve the construction of Newark Penn Station in New Jersey, tracks across the tidal marshes of the Meadowlands, the two 2.8-mile-long North River Tunnels under the New Jersey Palisades and the Hudson River, a monumental passenger station in Midtown Manhattan, four additional tunnels under Manhattan and the East River, the Hell Gate Bridge and its approaches, track connections to the New York Central northeast of the city, and massive rail yards on Manhattan’s west side and in Sunnyside, Queens.1 The use of tunnels instead of bridges into Manhattan necessitated that the trains be electric -- still nascent technology at the time -rather than steam-powered, and cemented the PRR’s reputation as one of the most innovative railroads of the age.

1 1908.

The New York Times, “Nearly Twenty Miles Through Tubes and Tunnels,” 9 November

Theory and Precedents

Fig. 3.13: Exterior of Penn Station, facing southwest from near the present-day site of Macy’s

Fig. 3.14: Exterior of Penn Station, facing northwest from the corner of Seventh Avenue and 31st Street

Although the original Penn Station built at this time has since been demolished, the other components of this project remain in place, and still serve as critical parts of the region’s transportation network. Following the Pennsylvania Railroad’s ill-fated merger with the New York Central in 1968, and subsequent bankruptcy of the combined Penn Central railroad two years later, this infrastructure ultimately came under the ownership and operation of Amtrak in 1976, when Amtrak was created by the federal government to shift passenger operations away from the private railroads. These facilities form a critical part of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston, and are now shared by Amtrak, NJ Transit, and the Long Island Rail Road.

which they were most well-known, and took inspiration from the ancient Roman baths of Caracalla 2 for the design of the station’s imposing waiting room, located at the center of the structure and reached from Seventh Avenue via an arcade lined with shops and services. Flanked by massive Corinthian columns and over 150 feet tall, the waiting room formed New York’s largest indoor public space.3 The lower portions of the waiting room were clad in travertine marble; the upper portions in plaster painted to match the travertine. The barrel-vaulted ceiling featured coffers that evoked St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

Exterior At the time of its construction, Penn Station dominated the surrounding structures in the neighborhood, which consisted mainly of 4 to 5-story tenement buildings; Manhattan’s famous skyscrapers were, at that time, located in Lower Manhattan or further east along Broadway. The station’s exterior was made of Milford Pink granite, and featured dramatic colonnades along the east and west facades, facing Seventh and Eighth Avenues, respectively. The primary entrance to the station was via the center of the east facade on Seventh Avenue. Secondary entrances were located on Eighth Avenue, 31st Street, and 33rd Street. Enclosed carriageways along 31st and 33rd Streets provided direct access from the station to carriages and then taxis. Waiting Room Penn Station’s architects operated firmly within the Beaux-Arts tradition for

Concourse Moving westward from the waiting room, passengers entered the dramatic, daylit concourse that provided access to the platforms below. Whereas the waiting room took its inspiration from antiquity, the concourse evoked the Crystal Palace and the great train sheds of the Industrial Revolution such as London’s St. Pancras Station. A novel design feature was the use of glass block for the floors, allowing daylight to reach the platforms located approximately fifty feet below street level. Another novel feature was a separate exit concourse located directly below the main concourse, allowing arriving passengers to leave the station without mixing with departing passengers. The main circulation patterns were simple and intuitive, based on a symmetrical plan with a central axis in line with 32nd Street, which met Seventh Avenue at the station’s main entrance. 2 Frederick N. Rasmussen, “From the Gilded Age, a monument to transit”. The Baltimore Sun, 21 April 2007. 3

ibid.

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Demolition “Until the first blow fell, no one was convinced that Penn Station really would be demolished, or that New York would permit this monumental act of vandalism against one of the largest and finest landmarks of its age of Roman elegance,”1 wrote the New York Times editorial board on October 30, 1963, as crews began hammering away at the structure. Although Penn Station saw its highest passenger volumes during World War II, the postwar years saw the decline of rail travel in favor of the automobile and airplane. The cash-strapped Pennsylvania Railroad, faced with declining revenues and exorbitant costs to maintain the station, made the decision to sell the air rights above the platforms to developers building a new Madison Square Garden and commercial office towers. The city’s design community rallied to save the structure, but to no avail. The demolition of Penn Station galvanized a thennascent historic preservation movement that, in a few years, would successfully save Grand Central Terminal from Penn Station’s fate. Despite a patchwork of minor improvements -- namely the construction of two new entrances and a new concourse for NJ Transit -- and some minor cosmetic upgrades, today’s Penn Station has remained largely the same underground dungeon that has greeted travelers since 1963. The New York Times editorial of that year continued, “Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves. Even when we had Penn Station, we couldn’t afford to keep it clean. We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tin-horn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.”2 Other Precedents Grand Central Terminal Built by the Vanderbilt family three years after the opening of Penn Station, Grand Central is the last of Manhattan’s two opulent railway stations of the Gilded Era. The design of Grand Central was inspired by the same Beaux-Arts 1

The New York Times, “Farewell to Penn Staton,” editorial, 30 October 1963.

ibid.

Fig. 3.15 (top right): The main concourse of Grand Central Terminal Fig. 3.16 (bottom right): The main concourse and waiting room of Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station

Theory and Precedents

sensibilities as Penn Station, and like Penn Station, Grand Central features a central circulation spine that leads from a central entrance through an opulent waiting room (now an event space known as Vanderbuilt Hall) to a vast central concourse that collects and distributes travelers and serves as a primary focal point of the station.

where the waiting room and main concourse were two distinct spaces, the concourse at 30th Street Station combined the two functions into one space. As with Grand Central Station and the former Penn Station, sunlight is allowed into the space in generous quantities, but in a filtered manner. Large vertical light pendants provide additional lighting and help define the space.

As with Penn Station, Grand Central was threatened with demolition in the 1960’s. Spurred by the demolition of Penn Station earlier in the decade, preservationists were ultimately successful in saving Grand Central. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis took up the preservationist cause and became its figurehead, saying:

Oglivie Transportation Center The postwar years were not kind to America’s passenger railroads and train stations. In addition to the demolition of Penn Station, architecturally-significant parts of Chicago’s Union Station and Cincinnati’s Union Terminal were demolished. Detroit’s Michigan Central Station and Buffalo’s New York Central Terminal were simply abandoned and left to crumble. In the early 1980’s, joining the long list of historic railroad terminals being demolished to make way for high-rise office development was the stately head house of the Chicago & North Western Railroad in downtown Chicago.

Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? If they are not inspired by the past of our city, where will they find the strength to fight for her future? Americans care about their past, but for short term gain they ignore it and tear down everything that matters. Maybe… this is the time to take a stand, to reverse the tide, so that we won’t all end up in a uniform world of steel and glass boxes.3 A bronze plaque in tribute to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis now occupies the north wall of Vanderbilt Hall. Grand Central Terminal underwent a comprehensive restoration in the late 1990’s, and celebrated its centennial anniversary in 2013. Although the station serves only a quarter of the passengers as Penn Station today, it is by far the more gracious and monumental of the two facilities, and without question the more beloved. 30th Street Station Continuing the Pennsylvania Railroad’s long tradition of innovation, 30th Street Station, built a generation after Penn Station during the peak of the PRR’s heyday, solved a longstanding challenge imposed by Philadelphia’s geography and provided a monumental gateway to the city for long-distance travelers. Long-distance trains had formerly used Broad Street Station in downtown Philadelphia, located on spur tracks west of the railroad’s main line on the western bank of the Schuylkill River. As a result, trains were forced to reverse direction to serve the station. The PRR solved this issue by building 30th Street Station directly on the main line, allowing long-distance trains to bypass the spur and Broad Street Station altogether. At the same time, Broad Street Station was replaced with Suburban Station, which would be dedicated solely to commuter use. Designed by the Chicago firm of Graham, Anderson, Probst, and White (the successor firm to the venerable D. H. Burnham and Company), the exterior of the station featured a neoclassical exterior and a vast waiting room that combined neoclassical and Art Deco elements. Unlike at Penn Station and Grand Central,

In this case, however, the developers broke from the script -- which would have normally called for passenger facilities to be relegated to a dank, low-ceilinged space similar to what Penn Station had become -- and commissioned Helmut Jahn to design a bright, airy passenger concourse that would also serve as a grand lobby for the 42-story office building above. To do this, lowest floor of the tower’s elevator banks were lifted to a sky lobby above the concourse, accessed by escalators. This freed up ground-level space for generous passenger facilities, with exposed steel structural members, large skylights and clerestory windows, and strategically-placed illuminated billboards evoking the great urban train stations of Europe. As with the previous examples, circulation patters are simple and intuitive, and natural light (in this case through north-facing windows) is brought in generously but in a controlled manner. Despite the wide variety of settings and circumstances surrounding these precedents, some commonalities can be distilled: • • • •

Materials that convey a sense of permanence and monumentality: granite, travertine, limestone, bronze. Clear, intuitive circulation that is self-evident and easy to navigate. In all cases, the sequence of spaces is as follows: 1) entry passage with retail, 2) waiting room / concourse, 3) train platforms. A large central concourse to serve as a collector / distributor for circulation and as a focal point for the facility. Ample sunlight that is brought into the space in a controlled manner, with appropriate filtering and/or north-facing glazing to reduce glare and heat gain.

3 Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, letter to New York Mayor Abraham Beame, quoted in “The Surprising Role Jackie Kennedy Onassis Played in Saving Grand Central” by Tina Cassidy, The Atlantic Cities, 5 February 2013, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/02/ surprising-role-jackie-kennedy-playing-saving-grand-central-station/4596/,. Retrieved 18 August 2013.

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Original Penn Station, 1910 - 1963

Fig. 3.17 (above): The original Pennsylvania Station and its associated infrastructure featured a dramatic sequence of spatial conditions when arriving from New Jersey or Long Island. From either location, trains passed through the low-density outskirts of the city before descending into long tunnels to pass under waterways. The trains would slow down and change tracks as they went through various interlockings as they approached the station. The darkness outside the train windows would be dramatically replaced with natural light as the train pulled into a platform at Penn Station. Upon disembarking from the train, passengers walked up stairs to an airy, glass-enclosed concourse which then led to a massively-scaled neoclassical waiting room. Fig. 3.18 (right): Diagram showing the arrival sequence of the original Penn Station.

Approach

Theory and Precedents

Threshold

Arrival

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Lyon Airport Station

Fig. 3.19 (above): Located on the outskirts of Lyon, France, this station by Santiago Calatrava connects that cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s airport to the French TGV system and local rail transit, allowing the airport to serve passengers from as far away as Paris. Upon arrival at the station, passengers ascend to a wide concourse that leads them to the main ticketing hall. This dramatic, light-filled space serves as a node connecting the train station to the airport as well as an iconic landmark of the airport itself. Fig. 3.20 (right): Diagram showing the arrival sequence at the Lyon Airport station.

Approach

Theory and Precedents

Threshold

Arrival

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Gotham Gateway (SHoP Architects)

Fig. 3.21 (above): The Gotham Gateway is the proposal for a new Penn Station by SHoP Architects, as presented to the Municipal Art Society in May 2013. Although the station itself is new, the infrastructure used by trains on their approach to the station is largely the same as what served the original Penn Station. As such, the approach sequence is similar: trains pass through low-rise suburban areas, followed by a tunnel crossing under either the Hudson River or the East River, followed by arrival at the station. As with the original Penn Station by McKim, Mead, and White, passengers disembark onto platforms bathed in diffused sunlight from above, and then ascend to a large open concourse before continuing to their final destination. Fig. 3.22 (right): Diagram showing the arrival sequence as proposed by SHoP Architects in the Gotham Gateway scheme

Approach

Theory and Precedents

Threshold

Arrival

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Design Response

Regional Connectivity

nectivity throughout the region, provides direct rail access to more of Manhattan, and provides a direct link between Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal.

Regional rail in metropolitan New York is divided between Amtrak and three commuter railroads with relatively little connectivity between them. Additionally, the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s three major airports have only minimal connections to the commuter rail system. This balkanized system leads to confusion and travel delays, and because of Penn Stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role as a terminal for two commuter rail systems, excessive dwell time by trains in the station leads to inefficient use of tracks and platforms.

Departure information inside Penn Station is divided between the three railroads that occupy the facility, each with its own signage and display systems. In essence, Penn Station functions as three distinct train stations that happen to occupy the same building. While daily commuters eventually learn where to find the information they need, visitors and infrequent travelers find it very confusing.

By through-routing some commuter trains to opposite ends of the city, trains can improve efficiency at Penn Station in addition to proving for greater connectivity throughout the region. Additionally, the creation of a new connection between Penn Station and the LIRR portion of Grand Central Terminal (now under construction as part of the East Side Access project), express trains from the airports can directly serve both stations. Although Manhattan enjoys the most extensive transit system in North America, some areas of the island remain relatively out of reach, and transfers between Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal require taking two subway trains with an additional transfer at Times Square. This proposal, combined with other proposed projects, greatly increases con46

While nothing will ever completely replace the traditional departures board and ticket windows within the station, their roles can be reduced via technology that allows customized service advisories and fare payment options across a wide variety of mobile platforms.

Design Response

Fig. 4.1: Proposed regional rail connections, including through-running LIRR and NJ Transit between Secaucus and Jamaica, Metro-North connections to Penn Station, and express airport service from Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal.

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Fig 4.2 (below): Proposed Midtown transit connections, including extending the 7 and L subway lines to Penn Station via Hudson Yards and new Madison Square Garden

Fig. 4.3 (opposite top): Improved departure signage showing all trains and stations in an integrated manner. Fig. 4.4 (opposite bottom right): Departure and ticketing via smartphone applications. Fig. 4.5 (opposite bottom left): Improved passenger information at platform entrance.

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Program and Circulation Approach and Entrances • On street, via sidewalk • On street, via bus • On street, via taxi • Underground, via Amtrak or commuter rail • Underground, via subway • Descent from street level, views of interior Bus stops and taxi drop-off and loading zones should be convenient to the station entrances, but located in areas that do not obstruct traffic. Primary entrances to the station should occur at locations that experience peak pedestrian traffic. Secondary entrances should be located to minimize long walks outdoors. Monitors showing departure information should be prominently located at the entrances so that departing passengers can quickly learn which track to head toward. To maintain climate control while still allowing for unimpeded access for large crowds, an air curtain system may be considered in lieu of doors. All entrances should be prominently visible as such, and distinct from entrances to street level retail spaces or other functions. However, they don’t necessarily need to be monumentally-scaled; the drama of entering a monumental station concourse could be enhanced by first passing through an entry zone with a relatively low ceiling. A somewhat “compressed” entry zone would also enhance the flow of traffic by discouraging mingling near the doors.

(as intended at the original Penn Station and at most major airports today) is admirable, the reality is that most passengers will simply use the first stairway or escalator they find, rather than walking further down the platform for the designated exit concourse. However, unnecessary conflicts between arriving and departing passengers can be avoided by dispatching trains effectively, so that an arriving train doesn’t discharge all its passengers on the same platform as a departing train whose track number was just announced in the station. Amenities • Ticketing and customer service for LIRR, Metro-North, NJ Transit, AirTrain Service, and MTA transit • Restrooms • Staff support • Dispatching / station master’s office Ticketing, information, restrooms, and other amenities should be easily accessible from circulation routes, but remote enough such that travelers waiting in line for services or entering/leaving restrooms do not obstruct major pathways. It is anticipated that most ticketing will be done via ticket vending machines; space for these and for the people waiting in line to use them must be provided. However, a certain number of staffed customer service windows will remain necessary for each transit provider serving the station. Restrooms must be adequately-sized to handle peak traffic. Restricted areas such as support spaces and the train dispatching center must be inaccessible to the general public.

Circulation • Horizontal • Vertical: stairs, elevators, escalators • Access to adjacent, connected properties: Moynihan Station, One Penn Plaza, Gotham Tower • Train boarding

Shopping, Food and Drink • Casual: fast food, coffee, bagels, sandwiches • Upscale: table service, cocktails, entertainment • Food to go: snacks, soda, fresh produce • Shopping: drug store, newsstand, books, gifts • Services: barber, stylist, shoe shine, banking.

Upon entering, the general layout of the station should be clearly evident, with minimal need for wayfinding signage. Circulation pathways in to and out of the station should be simple, intuitive, and wide enough to handle peak flows. Vertical transitions between floors should be kept to a minimum; large contiguous floor plates are preferable over a mish-mash of differing floor heights. All trains and subways should be easily accessed from a single, continuous level. Where vertical transitions occur, they must be accessible to those with limited mobility. Options of stairs, escalators, and elevators should be provided wherever feasible. On major circulation paths, banks of multiple escalators should be provided in the same direction to handle peak crowds and to provide redundancy in the event one or more escalators are out of service. Where feasible, ADA-compliant ramps may be used in lieu of stairs or escalators, but should be designed to minimize or eliminate switchbacks or changes in direction.

Casual, quick-service eateries (e.g., Dunkin’ Donuts, Chipotle), should be clearly visible and directly accessible from the main circulation pathways and waiting areas; grabbing a coffee and bagel on the way to work shouldn’t require a major detour. Likewise, retail outlets such as drug stores and newsstands should be similarly convenient. For casual dining, tables and chairs should be provided adjacent to, but out of, main circulation paths.

Train platforms should be free of structural columns (locate columns between adjacent tracks instead), and offer clear views of the station for arriving passengers. While the idea of separating arriving and departing passenger flows 50

More upscale “destination” dining and retail establishments (e.g., Morton’s, Apple Store) may be located remotely from major circulation pathways, but should be visible from, and offers views of, the main station concourse. At Grand Central Terminal, such establishments overlook the main concourse from upper balconies; where patrons can observe the life of the station without getting in the way of commuters. Grand Central also features an attractive marketplace with vendors selling fresh foods. Similar strategies could be effectively employed at Penn Station, making it a dining, shopping, an entertainment destination rather than merely a transportation facility.

Design Response

Waiting • Short wait: standing, within view of departures board • Long wait: seated • Meeting arriving passengers As opposed to the Moynihan Station facility that serves long-distance Amtrak passengers with checked baggage, the new Penn Station will primarily serve commuters who require minimal waiting facilities. (Grand Central Terminal, which serves only commuter traffic, has converted its main waiting room into Vanderbilt Hall, an event space.) However, large numbers of commuters will stand near the departures boards awaiting their train’s track assignment. Areas for this should be provided within the main concourse, adjacent to the platform entrances. The main concourse should have a central focal element -- such as the main departures board or the famous Tiffany clock at Grand Central -- that can serve as an easily identifiable meeting spot for arrivals. Some seating should be provided; it should be located in close proximity to the main concourse, with ample visibility to the rest of the station. Seating may be in the form of tables and chairs for casual dining, and/or a series of stepped terraces as part of a vertical transition between levels. Although there may be secondary concourses that also provide access to and from the train platforms, the main concourse should be the central focal point of the station in the same manner as the main concourse at Grand Central Terminal and at 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. The scale should be monumental, comparable in nature to a nave of a great cathedral. From this location, all other areas of the station should be plainly visible. More than just a train station concourse, this space will serve as New York City’s entry foyer. This will be the space in which hundreds of joyful reunions and tearful goodbyes take place throughout each day; the space where tens of thousands of people enter New York for the first time or leave the city for the last time. Even for those who have spent years passing through Penn Station on their daily commutes, the few moments they spend passing through this space each morning and each evening will remind them that they work in the cultural capital of the nation and the economic capital of the world. With this, the new Penn Station will “presence” the moods and emotions that are the foundational layer beneath all these human lived-world moments.

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Fig. 4.6: Program diagram showing various program elements, adjacencies, and circulation

Approach / Dispersal (City)

Threshold

Design Response

Arrival / Departure

Threshold

Approach / Dispersal (Trains)

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Materiality

Masonry cladding: Structural elements Milford Pink Granite

Masonry cladding: Nonstructural walls Indiana Limestone

Roof shell and canopies Weathered Copper

From the same quarry as the original McKim Mead and White structure. Provides a tactile connection to the history of the site.

Evokes sense of warmth, solidity. Provides tactile connection to Grand Central Terminal, Empire State Building, and other architectural icons of New York.

Evokes the passing of time. Same material as Statue of Liberty, New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s iconic symbol of arrival. Patina harkens to pale green ceiling of main concourse at Grand Central Terminal.

Design Response

Fig. 4.7: Materials palette

Interior flooring Slate

Finish metalwork Dark Bronze

Conveyance systems, trusses and bracing Brushed Stainless

Layered composition reflects the layers of underground construction in New York City.

Used for railings, storefronts, door hardware, other places where people come into physical contact with the building. Over time, metal will weather to show the years of human touch.

Same material as modern railcars; used for means of conveyance such as elevators and escalators. Evokes modern technology, sense of movement.

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Space and Experience The massing of the office towers above the station is situated to utilize valuable air rights development opportunities while enhancing the spatial qualities of the station below and the context of the surrounding city. Taller, vertically-oriented portions are sited toward the skyscrapers of Midtown, and the western portion has a lower, more horizontal character to relate to the low-rise context of the Farley Post Office.

Fig. 4.8: Aerial axonometric facing north. The high-rise office towers above the station are divided into three segments each in order to break up their apparent mass, with higher portions oriented toward the east in order to relate to the Empire State Building, SHoPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed Gotham Tower, and other skyscrapers of Midtown Manhattan. Toward the west, the high-rise masses are lower and more horizontally-oriented, in order to relate to the Farley Post Office and other low-rise buildings adjacent to that end of the site.

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Fig. 4.9 (below): East elevation Fig. 4.10 (opposite) West elevation

East: Vertical Orientation

Design Response

West: Horizontal Orientation

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

Fig. 4.11 (below): North-south section Fig. 4.12 (opposite) East-west section

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

Fig. 4.13 (below): Enlarged section Fig. 4.14 (opposite) Cutaway axonometric

S T A T I O N

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

7th Avenue

8th Avenue

Fig. 4.15: Street level plan

Design Response

Taxi Stands 30th Street: Taxis to Downtown and Brooklyn 33rd Street: Taxis to Uptown, East Side, Queens 33rd Street

Bus Stops 7th Avenue: Routes BxM2, M7, M2 8th Avenue: Route M20

Escalators to Mezzanine Level

Impulse Dining and Retail 32nd Street

Destination Dining and Retail

Seating Terraces

31st Street

30th Street

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

Fig. 4.16: Mezzanine level plan

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Design Response

Impulse Dining and Retail

Destination Dining and Retail

Open Dining / Seating

Public Restrooms

Subway Platforms (7th Avenue IRT)

Subway Platforms (8th Avenue IND)

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Fig. 4.17: Concourse level plan

Madison Square Garden

Gotham Tower

Design Response

Impulse Dining and Retail

Commuter Rail Ticketing

Waiting Area Seating

Information Kiosk

Public Restrooms

Regional Rail Platform Entrances

Subway Entrance and Fare Control

Passageway to Herald Square Subway Station and 33rd Street PATH Terminal

Passageway to Amtrak Ticketing, Baggage Claim, and Acela Lounge at Moynihan Center

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Fig. 4.18: Platform level plan

Westbound

Eastbound

Design Response

Regional Rail Platforms (26 Tracks / 13 Platforms) Tracks 25 - 26

Tracks 23 - 24

Tracks 21 - 22

Tracks 19 - 20

Tracks 17 - 18

Tracks 15 - 16

Tracks 13 - 14

Tracks 11 - 12

Tracks 9 - 10

Tracks 7 - 8

Tracks 5 - 6

Tracks 3 - 4

Tracks 1 - 2

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Experience: Disembarking Finnish architect and theorist Juhani Pallasmaa understood and formulated program elements by associating them with “-ing” action verbs (eating, walking, sleeping, healing, etc.) in order to more closely tie the spaces with the lived experiences of those who engage with them.1 What follows are the typical sequence of spaces encountered by arriving and departing passengers at the new Penn Station, identified with an appropriate “-ing” action verb. For passengers arriving at the station on Amtrak or via commuter rail, the moment of stepping off the train and onto the platform will be the first experience with Penn Station. The platforms are open to the station above, allowing natural sunlight to reach the lowest portions of the station and providing an intuitive, self-evident means of wayfinding. Fin walls at the tops of the stairs and escalators, in addition to hosting signage and mechanical systems, restrict the field of vision as passengers approach the top of the escalators, leading to a sense of anticipation as they prepare to emerge into the main concourse.

1 Juhani Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses, New York: John Wiley, 2005, p. 25

Fig. 4.19 (above): Eurostar platform at St. Pancras International Terminal, London Fig. 4.20 (right): View from tracks 14-15 to the central concourse

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Experience: Arriving The moment of arrival for incoming rail passengers, this is the space where the view opens up to the entire station and the city beyond. The information kiosk is rotated to align with the cardinal points of the compass in order to provide a means of orientation, and the 15â&#x20AC;? x 60â&#x20AC;? floor tiles align with and reflect the 1:4 aspect ratio of the Manhattan street grid. From this point, arriving passengers meet loved ones and begin to depart the station from any number of possible pathways. The light, airy space provides views to all areas of the station and the city beyond, allowing for intuitive orientation and wayfinding, as well as a sense of having arrived in New York City.

Fig. 4.21 (above): John Betjeman sculpture at Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s St. Pancras Terminal Fig. 4.22 (right): Central concourse facing north toward mezzanine ramps

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Experience: Processing Ramps from the central concourse lead to the mezzanine level, where the visual orientation changes from the layered, horizontal orientation of the underground rail tunnels to the vertical, canyon-like orientation of Midtown Manhattan at street level. This space forms the â&#x20AC;&#x153;slotâ&#x20AC;? that contains the high-rise elevators and forms a cathedral-like space where incoming and outgoing passengers proceed to their destinations. Lining the corridor are market stalls where passengers can grab a quick bite before heading to the office or catching a train. As English cathedrals are designed to enhance elaborate processions in the Anglican liturgical tradition, the mezzanine space enhances the sense of movement between the station entrances and the central concourse.

Fig. 4.23 (right): The nave of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, New York City Fig. 4.24 (far right): Mezzanine facing east toward Seventh Avenue exit

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Experience: Ascending At the four corners of the station, passengers ascend to street level via a large, bank of escalators that open up to the city beyond. The walls at each entrance frame a dramatic view of the city beyond, which enhances the sense of wonder as passengers emerge from the station into the city streets.

Fig. 4.25 (above): Escalators at the original World Trade Center PATH Station, as depicted in the Godfrey Reggio film Koyaanisqatsi Fig. 4.26 (right): Escalators from mezzanine to Seventh Avenue exit

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Experience: Hustling Out on the streets of Midtown Manhattan, the four entrances to the station respond to their specific context. The northeast corner (fig. 4.28) opens up to the busy intersection of Seventh Avenue and 34th Street, and the southeast corner is orientated to provide a dramatic view of the super-tall skyscraper across the street as proposed in the Gotham Gateway proposal by SHoP Architects. The massing of the high-rise portion of the station has a strong vertical orientation to reflect the skyscraper canyons of Midtown, and the station serves as a landmark amidst the hustle and bustle of the surrounding streets.

Fig. 4.27 (above): Intersection of 34th Street at Seventh Avenue at night Fig. 4.28 (right): Facing south from the intersection of Seventh Avenue and 34th Street

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Experience: Gathering The western end of the station, facing Eighth Avenue, has a more horizontal orientation to reflect the low-rise character of this part of the city, particularly the Farley Post Office. A large colonnade along Eighth Avenue further reinforces the connection to the Farley building, and the southwest entrance opens up to the proposed Gateway Park by SHoP Architects and provides the primary means of access to the relocated Madison Square Garden on the site of the Morgan Sorting Facility a block to the west and Hudson Yards beyond. The sense of play and relaxation found in Gateway Park and Madison Square Garden is carried into the station itself with plants, trees, and informal places for gathering and waiting.

Fig. 4.29 (above): Bryant Park, New York City Fig. 4.30 (right): Facing east from SHoPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed Gateway Park

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Experience: Descending Returning to the station proper, passengers descend one of four dramatic escalator banks to the mezzanine level below. Elevators are also provided nearby for those with strollers, heavy luggage, or mobility limitations. As passengers descend into the station, the visual orientation changes from the vertical, canyon-like orientation of the city streets to the horizontal, layered orientation of the train tunnels and platforms.

Fig. 4.31 (above): Westminster Station on the London Underground Fig. 4.32 (right): Escalators from Eighth Avenue entrance to mezzanine level

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Experience: Waiting Returning to the central concourse, passengers â&#x20AC;&#x153;arriveâ&#x20AC;? in the main space of the station as they prepare to depart Manhattan. Waiting areas are decentralized, and scattered throughout the station to provide a wide variety of convenient places to wait, enjoy a slice of pizza, and pass the time while enjoying a full view of the station concourse and its activities.

Fig. 4.33 (above): Paddington Bear sculpture at Paddington Station, London Fig. 4.34 (right): View of west concourse from mezzanine ramp

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Experience: Departing The platform entrance from the main concourse, the place where one says goodbye to Manhattan for the day, or for months or years. From here is the final parting shot of the station interior, leaving a positive memory of the city until the next visit.

Fig. 4.35 (above): â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Meeting Placeâ&#x20AC;? by Paul Day at St. Pancras Terminal, London Fig. 4.36 (right): Waiting area and platform entrance at tracks 15-16

Design Response

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Conclusions

The Municipal Art Societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Penn Station Design Challenge in 2013, combined with the advocacy of architecture critics such as Michael Kimmelman of the New York Times and others, has been crucial in beginning the conversation about the future of Penn Station and starting the countdown clock on the relocation of Madison Square Garden. With the initial battle over the operating permit for Madison Square Garden won, this thesis continues that conversation by taking a closer look at the station itself and highlighting the issues that need to be addressed as planning for a new Penn Station moves beyond fanciful renderings and toward a more pragmatic look at the future of the facility. Looking ahead, it is anticipated that the design proposal outlined in this thesis could be planned and built in the following phases: 1. Identify a location for a new Madison Square Garden, and develop a comprehensive master plan for the redevelopment of Penn Station and the surrounding precinct. 2. Complete the East Side Access project, new Madison Square Garden, and the new Gateway tunnels under the Hudson River. The issue of Madison Square Garden is the linchpin for the remainder of the project, and the capacity improvements elsewhere in the region will alleviate crowding at Penn Station during its reconstruction.

3. Demolish the existing Madison Square Garden and Two Penn Plaza; Penn Station can remain in service below while demolition of the above-ground structures takes place. Demolish Block 780, the block immediately to the south of Penn Station that is slated for the Gateway project. 4. Begin construction of the underground portions of the southern third of the new station on Block 780, and connect it to the new Gateway tunnels under the Hudson River. 5. Temporarily shift some trains to other terminals such as Jamaica, Hoboken, Atlantic Terminal, and Grand Central as needed to alleviate crowding at Penn Station while construction is in progress. 6. As the newly-built southern third of the new facility is completed and placed into passenger service; begin a phased demolition of the below-ground portions of the existing Penn Station, beginning with Tracks 1-2 and working northward. Temporary passageways can connect the old and new facilities through the construction zone. 7. Progress northward with construction of new tracks and platforms and demolition of the existing facility, gradually shifting service from the old tracks platforms on the northern portion of the site to the new tracks and platforms on the southern portion. 8. When all new tracks and platforms have been completed, full train service

Conclusions

Fig. 5.1 (following pages): Main concourse

can be restored to Penn Station while construction progresses on the station roof and office towers above. 9. Additional transit improvements, such as extensions of the 7 and L subway lines to Penn Station and the creation of a rail connection between Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal (see Fig. 4.2) can take place after the new station is complete, as additional funding becomes available. Other American cities are actively developing ways to integrate themselves with and participate in the benefits promised by high-speed rail travel and the steady increase in the use of public transit. San Francisco has begun construction a multistory hub for rail transportation in the heart of the city, and Washington, Los Angeles, and Chicago are all at various stages in the process of implementing bold visions for the futures of their primary rail stations. In New York City, large-scale infrastructure projects are often met with a chorus of naysayers who insist that “it can’t be done” or that “it will never work here.” Faced with decades-long delays on the Second Avenue Subway project and massive cost overruns at Santiago Calatrava’s PATH terminal at the World Trade Center, the response is all too often to give up entirely, or strip away any sense of design and simply let the engineers create something as cheap and pragmatic as possible. While cost overruns and years-long construction delays are serious problems that need to be addressed, they do not negate the need for public spaces that reflect the best ideals of their age.

of the air rights above the station; architects and planners cannot ignore the fact that in the world of Manhattan real estate, the thin air above a property is worth nearly as much as the land itself. These forces doomed the original Penn Station to an early demise in 1963, and nearly resulted in the destruction of Grand Central Terminal a few short years later. By anticipating air rights development and designing it in a deliberate manner, this thesis demonstrates that such development can be shaped to enhance the passenger experience below, contribute meaningfully to the street life of the city above, and provide a funding mechanism to at least partially offset the cost of the station itself. Most importantly, however, this project demonstrates the viability and necessity of designing with the idea in mind that a new Penn Station must serve people and their experiences above all else; it is not simply a utilitarian machine that forms part of the railroad infrastructure, nor is it primarily a blank canvass for architects to demonstrate their prowess at avant-garde form-making. If the station is designed with the passenger experience foremost in mind, all else will follow. As the conversation about the future of Penn Station moves from big-picture concepts to hard-nosed realities over the coming years, it is hoped that this thesis will contribute to that conversation in a way that current and future New Yorkers find meaningful.

This project acknowledges the costs of construction and the monetary value David S. Cole, M.Arch. 2014 91

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Bibliography

Ballon, Hillary. New York’s Pennsylvania Stations. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2002).

Koolhaas, Rem and Bruce Mau. S, M, L, XL. (New York: Monacelli Press, 1995).

Brown, Denise Scott and Robert Venturi. Learning from Las Vegas. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1972).

Ma, Shuai. M.S.Arch. thesis: Impact of the high-speed rail station on the urban form of surrounding areas. http://uclid.uc.edu.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/ record=b5315722~S25

Edwards, Brian. The Modern Station : New Approaches to Railway Architecture. (London: E. & F. N. Spon, 1997). Frampton, Kenneth. Studies in Tectonic Culture. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1995). Harries, Karsten. The Ethical Function of Architecture. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1997). Heidegger, Martin. Basic Writings, “On the Origin of the Work of Art.” 1st Harper Perennial Modern Thought Edition. David Farrell Krell, ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2008).

Meeks, Carroll. The Railroad Station: An Architectural History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956). Municipal Art Society of New York, Penn Station Challenge design brief, May 2013. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. (New York: Rizzoli, 1991). Pallasmaa, Juhani. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. (New York: John Wiley, 2005).

Holl, Steven; Juhani Pallasmaa; and Alberto Perez-Gomez. Questions of Perception: Phenomenology in Architecture. (New York: William Stout, 2006).

Parissien, Steve. Pennsylvania Station, McKim, Mead, and White. (London, UK: Phaidon Press, 2006).

Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. (New York: Monacelli Press, 1994).

Powell, Kenneth. The Jubilee Line Extension. (London: Calmann & King Ltd., 2000).

Bibliography

Powell, Kenneth. â&#x20AC;&#x153;New directions in railway architecture.â&#x20AC;? Architectural Design, v. 64 issue 5, 1994. SHoP Architects, Gotham Gateway presentation to the Municipal Art Society of New York, May 2013. Tzonis, Alexander and Lianne Lefaivre. Classical Architecture: The Poetics of Order. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1986). Whyte, William H. City: Rediscovering the Center (New York: Anchor, 1988).

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

7 Appendices

S T A T I O N

Appendices

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Appendix 1: Historic Penn Station Drawings and Photos

Fig. 7.1 (oppsite top): Ground level plan of Penn Station Fig. 7.2 (opposite bottom): Interlocking diagram of Penn Station

Appendices

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Fig. 7.3: The former waiting room at Penn Station, with unsympathetic ticket counters added at left

100

Fig. 7.4: The former waiting room at Penn Station, with unsympathetic ticket counters added at right

Appendices

Fig. 7.5: The main concourse at Penn Station, showing stairs to the exit concourse at center

101

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Fig. 7.6: The main concourse at Penn Station, showing the glass block floor and entrance to the waiting room

102

Appendices

Fig. 7.7: Train platforms at Penn Station, showing the separate exit concourse and glass block floors

103

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Fig. 7.8: Train platforms at Penn Station, showing the separate exit concourse and glass block floors

104

Appendices

Fig. 7.9: The former train shed at Penn Station

105

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

Appendix 2: Existing Penn Station Plans and Photos

106

S T A T I O N

Appendices

New York Penn Station

An unofficial guide for passengers

34th Street Subway B/D/F/M/ N/R/Q 34th St and 6th Ave

One Penn Plaza

33rd Street PATH 33rd St and 6th Ave

No. 2 Penn Plaza

Madison Square Garden

7th Avenue

Fig. 7.10: Street level plan

8th Avenue

31st Street

Street Level Main Entrances: 34th Street near 7th Avenue (LIRR) 7th Avenue at 32nd Street (LIRR and NJ Transit) 7th Avenue at 31st Street (NJ Transit) 8th Avenue at 31st and 33rd Streets (Amtrak) Service Drive (former taxiway; closed to vehicles)

Location New York Penn Station is located underground, below Madison Square Garden and Penn Plaza.

Accessibility Elevators between the street and the station are located at the main entrances on 7th Avenue, on 34th Street, and on the Service Drive (closed to vehicles). Elevators to tracks 1-12 are located at the Exit Concourse and the NJ Transit Concourse. Elevators to tracks 13-21 are located at the Central Concourse.

Taxis Taxi stands are located at 7th Avenue & 32nd Street, and 8th Avenue & 33rd Street.

Red Cap Service For Amtrak passengers who require assistance with luggage, Red Caps are available at the

main Amtrak entrances on 8th Avenue and on the Service Drive, and at the Amtrak waiting area inside the station. Red Caps are generally not available at the 7th Avenue entrances. Red Cap service is free but tipping is customary.

Luggage Storage Amtrak offers luggage storage for ticketed passengers, at a cost of $4.50 per 24-hours (may be subject to change, contact Amtrak to confirm availability).

Bicycle Storage Bicycle storage is not available in the station.

Key Elevator Escalator Information Restrooms

Taxi Stand Waiting Area Water Fountain Rev. 2012-09-14

107

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Upper Level Train Service: • Amtrak amtrak.com • New Jersey Transit njtransit.org

33rd Street (above) Down to Subway & LIRR

271

Amtrak Waiting Area

270

Exit to Street

210 211

212 213 214 215

216 217

14 & 15

8th Avenue (above)

Amtrak Tickets

218

Down to LIRR

13 & 14

United Airlines Tickets

11 & 12

220 221 222 223

MAIN CONCOURSE

Amtrak

224

202 251

7&8

Club Acela 1-4

Exit to Street

5/6

265 264 263 262 261

236 235

241

9 & 10

252 253

231

240

250 9 & 10

NJ Transit Tickets

230

201

NJ Transit

Tracks 7 & 8

260 Tracks 5 & 6

7th Avenue (above)

Fig. 7.11: Upper level and lower level plans

Exit to Street

NJ Transit Tickets

NJ Transit Waiting Area 3 & 4 Amtrak Baggage

Amtrak Lost & Found

Exit to Street

Tracks 1 & 2

31st Street (above)

Lower Level Train Service: • Long Island Rail Road mta.info/lirr/ • NYC Subway mta.info/nyct/subway/ Subway C/E

34th Street (above) Exit to Street

Subway A/C/E

To One Penn Plaza 310

370

311

312

313

314

315

316

320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329

330 331 332 335

Subway 1/2/3

338

CONNECTING CONCOURSE

18 & 19

363

362

Up to Amtrak 17

361 15 & 16

15 & 16

350

360 13 & 14

347

18 & 19

346

20 / 21

345

18 & 19

351 17

352 15 & 16

15 & 16

353 13 & 14 354

13 & 14

337

341

344 343 342

CENTRAL CONCOURSE

Subway C/E

18 & 19

LIRR Tickets

18 & 19

LIRR 17

15 & 16

LIRR Waiting Area

15 & 16 340

13 & 14

Up to NJ Transit Lost & Found

HILTON CORRIDOR

8th Avenue (above)

11 & 12

355

Tracks 7 & 8

Tracks 5 & 6

11 & 12

9 & 10

336

11 & 12

Up to Main Concourse

7th Avenue (above)

20 / 21

20 & 21

EXIT CONCOURSE

WEST END CONCOURSE

339

To One Penn Plaza

11 & 12

Subway 1/2/3

Up to NJ Transit

7&8

356

5&6

Tracks 3 & 4

3&4

Tracks 1 & 2

1&2

31st Street (above)

108

Rev. 2012-09-14

Appendices

Tracks & Platforms Fig. 7.12: Platform level plan and retail directory

West End Concourse (above)

Central Concourse (above)

Connecting Concourse (above)

LIRR Concourse (above) Tracks 20 & 21

Tracks 18 & 19 Track 17

Tracks 15 & 16

Tracks 13 & 14

Tracks 11 & 12

Tracks 9 & 10

Tracks 7 & 8

Tracks 5 & 6

Tracks 3 & 4

Tracks 1 & 2

Exit Concourse (above)

NJ Transit Concourse (above)

Directory Food & Drink 344. 202. 270. 351. 331. 315. 326. 320. 263. 363. 315. 235. 241. 329. 261. 356. 217. 214. 230. 265. 316. 211. 332. 343. 346. 216.

Au Bon Pain Auntie Anne’s Pretzels Auntie Anne’s Pretzels Auntie Anne’s Pretzels Caruso’s Pizza Carvel Central Market Charley’s Grilled Subs Chickpea Chickpea Cinnabon Chop ‘N Toss Coco Moka Cafe Colombo Yogurt Delicatessen Don Pepi Express Don Pepi Pizza Dunkin Donuts Dunkin Donuts Dunkin Donuts Europan Café Haagen-Dazs Haagen-Dazs Hot & Crusty Jamba Juice Kabooz

211. 332. 335. 218. 322. 337. 213. 312. 211. 329. 260. 211. 329. 213. 328. 224. 262. 321. 332. 213. 313. 327. 311. 354. 211. 329. 288.

KFC KFC Knot Just Pretzels Krispy Kreme Le Bon Café McDonalds Moe’s Southwest Grill Moe’s Southwest Grill Nathan’s Nathan’s Penn Sushi Pizza Hut Pizza Hut Planet Smoothie Planet Smoothie Primo Cappuccino Primo Cappuccino Rose Pizza Rose Pizza Soup Stop Starbucks Starbucks Subway Superior Wrap Co. Taco Bell Taco Bell Tasti D-Lite

210. 330. 211. 329. 336. 213. 236.

TGI Friday’s TGI Friday’s Tim Hortons Tim Hortons Tracks Raw Bar & Grill Zaro’s Bread Basket Zaro’s Bread Basket

Shopping & Services 345. 223. 231. 339. 250. 253. 314. 212. 215. 230. 264. 271. 338. 340. 341. 342. 352.

Carlton Cards Drago Shoe Shine Duane Reade Duane Reade Elegance GNC GNC Hudson Booksellers Hudson News Hudson News Hudson News Hudson News Hudson News Hudson News Hudson News Hudson News Hudson News

355. 362. 370. 323. 251. 350. 325. 360. 361. 240. 353. 324. 221. 252.

Hudson News Hudson News Hudson News Kmart New York New York Petal Pusher Penn Books Penn Books Penn Wine & Spirits Perfumania Shoe Repair Soleman Tiecoon Tourist Information (34th Street Partnership) 222. Verizon Wireless Banking / ATM 347. 220. 310. 201.

Bank of America Chase Bank HSBC Well’s Fargo

Rev. 2012-09-14

109

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

Fig. 7.13: Seventh Avenue entrance

110

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Appendices

Fig. 7.14: Eighth Avenue entrance

111

ARRIVAL

N E W

Fig. 7.15: Main concourse

112

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Appendices

Fig. 7.16: Connecting concourse under 33rd Street

113

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

Fig. 7.17: Amtrak waiting area

114

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

S T A T I O N

Appendices

Fig. 7.18: New Jersey Transit waiting area

115

ARRIVAL

N E W

Y O R K

P E N N S Y L V A N I A

Fig. 7.19: Long Island Rail Road waiting area

116

S T A T I O N

Appendices

Fig. 7.20: Train platforms

117