PENN STATION REIMAGINED MIA LANDSBERGIS
“One entered the city like a god. One scuttles in now like a rat.� Vincent Scully
With the growing necessity of high-speed rails and the lease of Madison Square Garden at Penn Station coming to an end, New York City is intently looking into new possibilities for the site. The Municipal Art Society of New York held a design competition with four prominent New York based firms: SHoP, H3, diller scofidio + renfro and SOM. The design challenge established a vision of a world-class transit hub, a relocated and new Madison Square Garden, a completed Moynihan Station and a revived surrounding neighborhood. I propose to keep Madison Square Garden in the current location atop Penn Station. My project aims to provide a counter argument to the recent proposals by providing a conceivable plan that preserves Madison Square Garden while addressing the many concerns and problems of the current station. Penn Station has the potential to become a world-class transit hub with a modernized Madison Square Garden and renovated office tower in place. The new proposals are highly motivated; yet many of the obstacles, mainly financial, that impeded projects in the past are bound to be present in any future efforts as well. New York wants a new Penn Station, but New York needs an affordable, sustainable and viable plan for the development of the new Penn Station. While allowing Madison Square Garden to remain in its current location, my project proposes a more economically feasible, environmentally and socially sustainable alternative though adaptive reuse. The project will allow the station to have the grandeur of the old Penn Station, sunlight in the underground concourses, and interaction between the transit commuters, the Madison Square Garden occupants and the community. A new Penn Station is imperative to the modernization and quality of life in the city. Millions of people use Penn Station and Madison Square Garden on a yearly basis and any improvement to the site will better user’s experiences. However, being conscientious of waste, material use and public engagement in a project as extensive as Penn Station sets a precedent for urban renewal in New York and all over the world.
ABSTRACT
Penn Station has been a controversial icon and a prominent New York City landmark since the firm McKim, Mead & White built the original Beaux-Arts structure in 1910. In 1963, a new, modernist structure replaced the original, pushing the train station underground and welcoming the new Madison Square Garden and a commercial office building. During the demolition of the old station and the construction of the new one, many New York City residents lamented over the loss of the Beaux-Arts landmark, and the controversy surrounding the new Penn Station began. The station, built in 1963, still stands today; however, it is clear that the city must create a new station that pays homage to the aesthetic and experiential qualities of the old structure while embracing the demands of the present and future.
PENN STATION REIMAGINED
Department of Art and Art History Mount Holyoke College Architectural Studies Honors Thesis 2014
PENN STATION REIMAGINED
Emilija K. Landsbergis
I would like to thank professor Thom Long and Tatiana Ginsberg for their help and guidance over the years. I would also like to thank Brian Holland and Laura Foxman at the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, without their help this project would never have been conceived. I would like to thank Ruby and Diana for their support. I would also like to thank Ruby’s mother, Susanna for the editing. I would also like to thank Laura, Paul, Dasha, Aylin and Matt for their constant love, support, and belief in me. I would also like to thank my grandparents for their generous support, love and knowledge. Most of all, I would like to thank my parents for their love, guidance and inexhaustible belief in me; they are the inspiration for everything I have accomplished.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my advisors, professor Naomi Darling and professor Michael Davis, for their continuous help throughout my years at Mount Holyoke College. I would like to thank professor Robert Schwartz for his all support.
HISTORY OF PENN STATION
PART ONE: OLD PENN STATION
PART TWO: PRESENT PENN STATION
HISTORY OF MADISON SQUARE GARDEN SITE ANALYSIS THE NEW MOYNIHAN STATION RESEARCH
CASE STUDY: BRYANT PARK - BEST TO WORST
LIVING ROOM ANALYSIS MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY DESIGN COMPETITION
SHoP
H3
DILLER SCOFIDIO + REFERNO
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL
THE ARGUMENT OF THE REPORT
MY PROPOSAL THE DESIGN SCHEME ADAPTIVE REUSE
THE TRANSPORTATION FACTOR
THE FINANCIAL BURDEN AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILTIY
THE TRANSFORMATION SECTIONS PLANS STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CREATING A CITY LIVING ROOM CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
10 12 12 14 18 20 32 33 39 40 86 87 88 88 89 90 93 94 96 97 98 100 134 124 129 134 136 140 144
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
10
Penn Station Reimagined analyzes
Penn Station’s pragmatic drawbacks was the
the past and describes a possible future for
high cost of maintenance. Torn down in 1963,
one of New York’s former iconic landmarks - a
it was replaced by a new modernist structure
landmark whose ongoing half-century con-
that pushed the train station underground and
troversy inexorably reaches its climax as the
revealed the new Madison Square Garden
city prepares for the challenge of redesigning
(which has since undergone four revisions)
Pennsylvania Stations (Penn Station). It is
and a commercial office building.
now imperative to understand Penn Station’s previous grandeur and nostalgic past, pres-
During the demolition of the old site
ent needs and defects, and historic criticisms,
and the construction of the new station, New
along with the technological advances and
York City residents, politicians and journalists,
concerns of a post-9/11 and post- Hurricane
as well as historians lamented the loss of the
Sandy world. The original Penn Station,
Beaux-Arts landmark. In a New York Times
named for the Pennsylvania Railroad was
editorial, architectural critic, Ada Louise Hux-
completed in 1910 by the firm of McKim, Mead
table wrote: “Any city gets what it admires, will
& White. The Beaux-Arts structure was mod-
pay for, and ultimately deserves. Even when
eled after Roman Baths with 150-foot-high
we had Penn Station we could not afford to
vaulted ceilings, a steel and glass interior and
keep it clean. We want and deserve tin-can
pink granite. It was, and still is, considered
architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will
a New York City icon and a masterpiece.1
probably be judged not by the monuments we
Though it was visually opulent, one of the old
build but by those we have destroyed.” 2
Vincent Scully, architectural critic and
Scofidio + Renfro, Skidmore Owings & Merrill
Yale University historian, summarized the sen-
(SOM), H3 and SHoP to re-envision the site.
timents of many New Yorkers: “One entered
The redesign of Penn Station is a current and
the city like a god. One scuttles in now like a
relevant issue in architecture and urban de-
rat.”
sign.
The Penn Station of 1968 still stands
today and it is clear, now more than ever, that the city needs to create a new station that embraces the aesthetic and experiential qual-
INTRODUCTION
The Rise and Fall of Penn Station. DVD. Directed by Randall MacLowry. : WGBH Educational Foundation, produced for American Experience, PBS, 2014. 1
2
Ada Louise Huxtable. “Farewell to Penn Station.” The New York Times, October 30, 1963.
ities of the old structure, while simultaneously embracing the demands of the present and the future.
New York City is now intent on imaging
new possibilities for the site. Commuters have long hoped for high-speed rail service and the lease on Madison Square Garden is about to expire. The Municipal Art Society of New York held a design competition in 2013 and asked four prominent New York based firms: Diller
11
TEXT
12
Figure 1: Old Penn Station
landmarks such as the main New York Public Library, the second Madison Square Garden,
Penn Station opened in 1910 and
The Pierpont Morgan Library and Museum,
housed the New York City station of the Penn-
and the James Farley Post Office -- the last
sylvania Railroad. It was a massive engineer-
of which sits opposite Penn Station along 8th
ing accomplishment, including tunnels under
Avenue.
the Hudson and East Rivers connecting New York to entire eastern half of the United States.
Distinguished and majestic in both scale and
The old Penn Station’s main operations be-
aesthetics, the building encompassed two city
longed to Pennsylvania Railroad; yet it also
blocks. It extended from 31st Street and 33rd
housed other regional lines, including the Long
Street and from 7th Avenue to 8th Avenue,
Island Railroad.
making it one of the largest public spaces in
HISTORY OF PENN STATION
Part One: Old Penn Station
the world. It was visually inspired by the Gare
The renowned firm McKim, Mead &
d’Orsay, a Paris railway station and hotel built
White designed the original Beaux-Arts build-
between 1898 and 1900, which has since
ing. McKim Mead & White flourished in the
become an art museum. The old Penn Sta-
late 19th the beginning of the 20th century and
tion was also inspired by the Roman Baths of
strove to bring the classical architecture of the
Caracalla, built in 212-217 AD, which remain a
Parisian École des Beaux-Arts to New York
tourist attraction.
City. The firm was in charge of many other city
13
14
Constructed using 84 classical Doric columns,
the new Madison Square Garden and create a
a ceiling 150 feet high, pink granite, solid
new underground station.5
steel, and glass, the massive waiting room acted as a grand portal into New York City.
In 1962, Penn Station announced the
The station also contained an arcade of office
plan for the new Madison Square Garden
and retail spaces along the street.3
and the office tower. Many New Yorkers protested the demolition. They chanted, “Don’t
HISTORY OF PENN STATION
One reason for the decline of Penn
amputate—renovate” and picketed outside
Station was the high expense of maintenance,
the station.6 Mayor Robert F. Wagner created
for instance, the pink granite developed a
the New York City Landmarks Preservation
grimy sheen. On October 29, 1963, the day
Commission in hopes of preserving the city’s
the demolition began, The New York Times
architectural history and preventing losses like
published a front page article titled: “Penn-
Penn Station. Fortunately, the commission
sylvania Station, a grimy monument to an
was later successful in saving another Beaux-
age of expansive elegance, suffered the fate
Arts transportation landmark, Grand Central
of an anachronism yesterday.”4 The second
Station.
major reason for its decline was the increase in automobile traffic. In the 1950s, the vol-
Part Two: Present Penn Station
ume of commuters significantly decreased. In response the company decided to trade the
The site, which now also houses Mad-
space above ground level for a 25% stake in
ison Square Garden, the Two Penn Plaza
station, was design by the unlucky architect
the only remnants of the old Penn Station.
Charles Luckman. The redesign of Penn Sta-
Despite a proposal that the Doric columns be
tion and the selling of its air rights to Madison
preserved and moved either to Flushing Mead-
Square Garden served two purposes; it both
ow Park or Battery Park, this never occurred.8
greatly reduced overhead of the station and
The two lower concourses were heavily re-
fostered a modern image. The downsizing was
modeled and expanded in addition to a third
necessary to cut costs. Train travel had de-
being built. The different railroad companies
clined due to the increasing popularity of travel
that operated within Penn Station remodeled
by car and plane. The reconstruction and dem-
the site again in the 1990s. However, the
olition decision came primarily from the owner
renovations did not quell New Yorkers’ dissat-
of Pennsylvania Railroad, A.J. Greenough,
isfaction over the current “catacomb” state of
who stated: “The present station, handsome
the present Penn Station. In the 1990s, New
though it is, cannot cope with modern day de-
York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan devised
mands. What is required is a newly designed,
a plan to rebuild Penn Station. He proposed
efficient terminal that recognizes both the
relocating the station in the James Farley Post
convenience and the requirements of the day.”
Office, also designed by McKim, Mead
7
The attitudes of many architectural journals
The tracks and the platforms became
HISTORY OF PENN STATION
office tower and a renovated underground
and White.
of the time were divided, with many receptive to a new underground station.
15
16
Since then, several other firms have also crafted their own proposals, but most have been scrapped. Skidmore Owings & Merrill, however, was approved to undertake the project. Consequently an extension of Amtrak will be built within the Post Office in the coming years. Lorraine B Diehl. The Late, Great Pennsylvania Station. New York: American Heritage Press, 1985. 3
HISTORY OF PENN STATION
4
Martin Tolchin. “Demolition Starts At Penn Station; Architects Picket; Penn Station Demolition Begun; 6 Architects Call Act a ‘Shame’.” The New York Times, January 1, 1963. 5
Willam Low. Old Penn Station. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2007. 6 7
Ibid, 4.
“New $10,000,000 Penn Station To Be Cooled and Landscaped.” The New York Times, September 28, 1962.
Figure 2: Old Penn Station Plan
17
18
Madison Square Garden (MSG), or
MSG was a complex project, costing approx-
colloquially “The Garden”, is currently located
imately $123 million in 1968, making it one of
atop Penn Station. The current structure is the
the most expensive sports arenas in
fourth stadium named Madison Square Gar-
the world.9
HISTORY OF MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
den. The first MSG was located in Madison Square, which is currently Madison Square
Madison Square Garden is one of the
Park and named after President James Mad-
oldest and most active stadiums in the New
ison. The first structure was built in 1879 but
York metropolitan area. The Garden houses
was torn down in 1890 for a new stadium to be
the New York Rangers hockey team, New York
built in the same location by McKim, Mead &
Knicks basketball team, and the New York Lib-
White. In turn, this building was demolished in
erty women’s basketball team. In addition, the
1925 and MSG relocated to 8th Avenue be-
Garden also hosts many other tournaments
tween 49th and 50th street.
and events. For instance, MSG is the third busiest music arena in terms of ticket sales in
In 1968, Madison Square Garden finally
moved to its present location. The structure of
the world.10 In 2004, MSG hosted the Republican Presidential convention.
the current MSG was considered an engineering triumph, placing a large stadium on top of
In 2011, the Madison Square Garden
an active train station. However, in the ensuing
Corporation put more than $1 billion into ren-
years, the engineering accomplishment was
ovating the stadium. Yet in January 2013, the
overshadowed by the loss of the old station.
Garden’s permit expired and that July the New
decided to extend the permit of site by only 10 more years. In 2023 the Garden will either have to move or apply again for permission to use the site.11 The decision by the City Council Committee on Land Use was mainly motivated by the desire to rebuild Penn Station. 9
“The History of Madison Square Garden.” Central New York; New York City. http://www.central-nyc.com/places/226/ (accessed April 7, 2014). 10
“Madison Square Garden Tickets.” Excite Tickets. http://www.excite.com/events/venues/Madison-Square-Garden/index.php (accessed April 27, 2014). 11
Charles V. Bagli. “Madison Square Garden Is Told to Move.” The New York Times, July 24, 2013.
HISTORY OF MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
York City Council Committee on Land Use
19
20
SITE ANALYSIS
Figure 3: Current Pictures
21
22
SURROUNDING AREA Elevation 651”
TWO PENN PLAZA Elevation 412”
MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
Elevation 151”
GROUND PLANE
CONCOURSE ONE Elevation -20”
CONCOURSE TWO Elevation -32”
PLATFORM LEVEL
Elevation -50”
Figure 4: Axonometric View of Current Site
THE SITE
Figure 5: X-Ray Current Site
23 23
THE SITE
Figure 6: Plan of the Platform Level
25
THE SITE
Figure 7: Plan of the Concourse 2
27
THE SITE
Figure 8: Plan of the Concourse 1
29
THE SITE
Figure 9: Plan of the Street Level
31
32
Since the 1990s there have been several plans to repurpose the James A. Farley Post Office as the new Penn Station. None of these plans materialized; yet an extension and redesign of the west-end concourse under the Post Office are currently underway. The architecture firm, Skidmore Owings & Merrill, is currently responsible for this project. The new Moynihan Station will be an extension of
THE NEW MOYNIHAN STATION
the Amtrak concourse and the subway connections. Currently, two new entry points along Eighth Avenue are being built.12 12
“Moynihan Station Redevelopment.� SOM Architects. http://www.som.com/projects/moynihan_station_redevelopment (accessed April 10, 2014).
I began my initial research on Penn
The city living room observably offers
Station by exploring the old Penn Station. The
an effective scale for a public space. Pub-
old McKim, Mead and White Penn Station was
lic spaces in midtown Manhattan that exist
composed mainly of a large waiting room, a
on this scale are Penn Station, Bryant Park,
dining hall, an arcade and a perimeter struc-
Madison Square Park, Union Square Park and
ture containing office and retail space that
Grand Central Station. Although public spaces
inhabited the area bounded by 7th to 8th Ave
in Manhattan vary vastly in scale from a sin-
and 31st and 33rd Street.
gle bench on a city sidewalk to Central Park,
RESEARCH
the five city living rooms all share the specific
The dimension of the site, a full block,
feature of being contained by a city block, and,
creates a space that is both accessible on a
thus can provide insightful comparison and
human scale and sizeable enough to be an
contrast to one another.
urban center. A city block is one of the most central elements in urban planning. The city
block was, perhaps, intended to create social
the circulation of the five spaces. All five of
interaction among people and provide a base
the city living rooms are within approximately
unit and reference point for understanding the
200,000 ft2 of each other. However, Penn Sta-
proportion and scale of a city. I define the term
tion and Bryant Park are oriented east-to-west
city living room as any publicly used space
and Madison Square Park, Union Square Park
that takes up a city block.
and Grand Central Station are all oriented
I began cataloging the dimensions and
north-to-south.
33
34
The north-to-south oriented living rooms
I divide the categories into the basics:
allow for more street access into and through
cultural programing, recreation and amenities.
them. Bryant Park and Penn Station are
The basics were made up of transportation,
blocked off from many streets and can mainly
food, restrooms and seating. Transportation
be accessed from the streets directly perpen-
is the main programmatic function of Grand
dicular and parallel to their edges. There are
Central Station and Penn Station. Penn Sta-
only three main entry points into Penn Station
tion services Amtrak, New Jersey Transit, the
from the street level. The other living rooms
Long Island Rail Road and the subway sys-
are much more penetrable from the outside
tem; Grand Central services Metro North and
and allow for ease of ingress and egress.
the subway. Yet Union Square Park, Madison Square Park and Bryant Park all have subway
RESEARCH
The functions of the sites vary, yet all
stations and bus stations on site or across the
are designed for public use. Penn Station
street. Ease of access and proximity to the
and Grand Central Station are both primarily
subway, trains or buses are a predominant
train stations, whereas Madison Square Park,
characteristic in all of the living rooms and is,
Union Square Park and Bryant Park are main-
perhaps, a fundamental trait that city living
ly leisure-oriented urban parks. Regardless,
rooms should have to be successful as the
they all provide supplementary and additional
public can easily get to and from the site or
programming of varying quality and diversity
use the living room as a passing stop on their
that enhance their success as city
commute.
living rooms.
The next sub-division is food. All of the
living rooms have a place to eat, yet some
dining is often limited by seasonal weather changes.
provide more variety in both the types of food available and the experiential quality and
dining time spent on a meal. “Food” is broken
including the upscale indoor/outdoor Bryant
up into kiosks, restaurants, cafés, delis and
Park Grill, and the less formal counterpart
markets.
Bryant Park Café on the east side. Both are
RESEARCH
Bryant Park has varied dining options,
popular dining locations year round. Bryant
Madison Square Park has the least va-
Park also contains several kiosks on the west
riety in dining as the park only has one kiosk,
side for drinks, coffee, and sandwiches. In
Shake Shack. There is usually a long line and
addition, the streets surrounding it also have
the only seating is outdoors which limits use
a variety of restaurants (including bakeries
significantly by season and weather. Union
and delis). Inside the New York Public Library
Square Park, on the other hand, only official-
in Bryant Park, there is also a café and deli.
ly has a Farmer’s Market. Recently, Union
Hence, Bryant Park has the most varied dining
Square Park has become a central location for
options of all the urban park/city living rooms.
the gourmet food truck phenomenon. Union
People seek out the park just to have lunch or
Square Park has become a popular destina-
dinner.
tion for picking up inexpensive quality food and eating in a central green location. Similar to Madison Square Park, Union Square Park’s
35
36
Grand Central Station also has a vari-
Square Park and Union Square Park all have
ety of indoor dining options. The station has a
open lawns, where people can lie in the grass
food market corridor, a cafeteria with options
and have picnics; these spaces are often
ranging from Junior’s to a juice bar, and up-
packed on a sunny day.
scale dining options, for example its oldest restaurant, Oyster Bar.
The next category is cultural program-
ming. I divided cultural programming into
RESEARCH
Other divisions of the basics are re-
music, art, films and learning. Madison Square
strooms and seating. The quality, quantity
Garden has live popular concerts whereas,
and accessibility of restrooms is a factor in
Bryant Park possibly has the greatest amount
the success of long-term and short term use.
of cultural programming because the main
Seating is also an important feature of a city
New York Public Library is on the site. In terms
living room. A variety of seating options offer
of music, almost all of the sites have street
people a place to rest depending on the length
performers who set up impromptu performanc-
of their stay. Tables and chairs are important to
es. Some argue that this is a positive aspect
encourage long-term use of the space. People
of the urban public space; others find it incon-
can eat lunch, read a book or work on a lap-
venient and disorderly. However, scheduled
top. Options such as benches and stairs offer
concerts, especially concerts that are free and
more short-term perches for people to have
open to the public, are an attractive feature of
a phone conversation or catch their breath.
a city living room. Madison Square Park offers
In the summertime, Bryant Park, Madison
many concerts in the summer for both children
Bryant Park is the only one of the city
attended. Moreover, whenever there is a free
living rooms to offer film as a cultural pro-
event in the park, the Shake Shack on site
gram. In the summer a large screen is set up
receives a lot of business.
and classic movies are screened weekly in
RESEARCH
and adults and the concerts are usually well
the park. Many people picnic on the grass, or Art is another significant feature of
have drinks and snacks with friends from the
cultural programming in a city living room.
various kiosks. The films draw huge crowds in
Almost all of the living rooms have permanent
the summertime. Moreover, Bryant Park has
pieces. Penn Station has various reliefs along
a library on site. Bryant Park and the library
the concourses, most of them visual odes to
often create public projects together, such as
the old station. Grand Central has the iconic
adult’s and children’s Reading Rooms in the
astronomical ceiling. Madison Square Park,
park. Sections of chairs and tables are parti-
Union Square Park and Bryant Park all have
tioned off with mobile bookshelves and news-
sculptures and monuments. Every year, Mad-
paper stands that are free and accessible as
ison Square Park curates a variety of large-
you remain in the park. Bryant Park is able to
scale installations. Grand Central Station has
fully and effectively use its connection with the
curated exhibitions and often draws the public
library to offer the living room distinctive cul-
solely to see the art. Union Square Park is
tural programs. In the winter, the green lawn
unique in the category, as the park accommo-
becomes a free ice skating rink.
dates street vendors selling photos, painting, drawings and even sculptures.
37
38
Madison Square Park, Union Square
The final category I assess is the ame-
Park and Bryant Park are all mainly open lei-
nities. All of the sites offer free public Wi-Fi,
sure spaces and thus offer a variety of “play”
except for Penn Station. The variety of shelter
options. Union Square Park has a playground,
and retail was a feature of the living rooms
a dog run and an active chess scene. Madison
and an important factor for any urban
Square Park also has a playground and dog
public space.
run. Bryant Park offers a carousel as well as
RESEARCH
various “stations” for chess, mini golf, bocce
The cataloging of the living rooms was
and even ping-pong. For sport, Penn Station
the main step in the research phase of my
currently is in the same location as Madison
project. The redesign of Penn Station could
Square Garden; yet the events in the stadium
borrow from the others’ successes. Because
are very isolated from the public and the com-
of its connection to the library, Bryant Park is
muters in the station. Madison Square Park
perhaps one of the city’s most successful and
offers some organized amateur sports such
widely used living rooms. Bryant Park ex-
as baseball and biking. Grand Central Sta-
ploits the benefits of having a public library on
tion lacks any recreational program, perhaps
site and offers many activities that the others
because its main function is as station and the
cannot. The redesign of Penn Station can use
secondary programing is mainly food, retail
Bryant Park as a model and use its relation-
and art.
ship with Madison Square Garden as a feature to create a successful and unique city living room.
ming of the hedges made it visible from the
Bryant Park- from Worst to Best
street. William H. Whyte, an American sociologist decided the park should have movable
Prior to becoming a “model” city park,
chairs, allowing people to sit where they want
Bryant Park was known as a dangerous drug
and move about. The moveable chairs and
den - an ever present symbol of New York
tables in addition to the well-lit open space are
City’s decline over the decades leading up to
the main attractions of the site.14 The Park was
the 1970s. Times Square also held the dis-
reopened in 1992 and is owned by the Parks
tinction during the 70s of being a dangerous
Department, managed by the Bryant Park
red light district for prostitution and drugs. The
Corporation and is in partnership with the New
proximity of the two to each other only exac-
York Public Library.The Bryant Park Corpora-
erbated the problem. In the 1980s, the park
tion is funded by events held and kiosks rent-
was closed to the public for renovation. During
ed in the park. In addition, Bryant Park is still
the restoration, the library archives were built
part of the New York City Department of Parks
underground where they remain below the
and Recreation and has become a model of
park.13 The park was elevated from the ground
public - private partnerships.
since 1934, when Robert Moses designed the park to be on a podium. It was then lowered to almost street level and the hedges around it were trimmed. The park was now safer because it was now at ground level and the trim-
RESEARCH
Case Study:
13
Susan Anderson. “Library Starts Road to 84-Mile Shelves Under Park .” The New York Times, October 27, 1987. 14
Paul Goldberger. “Architecture View; Bryant Park, An Out-of-Town Experience.” The New York Times, May 3, 1992.
39
40
LIVING ROOM ANALYSIS
GRAND CENTRAL STATION BRYANT PARK PENN STATION MADISON SQUARE PARK UNION SQAURE PARK
Figure 10: City Living Room Map
41
Figure 10A: Living Rooms
43
Figure 11: Dimensions
45
Figure 12: Street Access
47
Figure 13: Google Maps
49
Figure 14: Circulation
51
Figure 15: The Basics
53
Figure 16: Transportation
55
Figure 17: Food
57
Figure 18: Restrooms
59
Figure 19: Seating
61
Figure 20: Cultural Program
63
Figure 21: Music
65
Figure 22: Art
67
Figure 23: Films
69
Figure 24: Learning
71
Figure 25: Recreation
73
Figure 26: Play
75
Figure 27: Sport
77
Figure 28: Amentities
79
Figure 29: WiFi
81
Figure 30: Shelter
83
Figure 31: Retail
85
86
In 2013, in light of Madison Square
Garden’s expired permit, the Municipal Art
and reviving the surrounding neighborhood into a world-class district.” 15
MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY DESIGN COMPETITION
Society along with the Regional Plan Association hosted a competition among four
The outline for the site specified: “[1]
prominent New York based architecture firms:
Construct an exemplary 21st century Penn
Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Skidmore Owings &
Station with dramatically improved public cir-
Merrill, H3 and SHoP. These varying propos-
culation and safety features. Create a station
als were released in June 2013, to help New
that promotes economic vitality through multi-
York imagine a new Penn Station and Madison
ple, layered uses. Use creative applications of
Square Garden. The proposals were featured
technology to improve the transit experience.
in numerous media, from the The New York
[2] Prioritize the transportation functions of the
Times to amNew York. These proposals may
station in its planning and design. Emphasize
have influenced the decision for New York City
improvements that expand capacity and transit
Council Committee on Land Use to extend the
connectivity. Maximize the project’s intermobil-
Garden’s permit for 10 more years as a new
ity by promoting connections to multiple transit
Penn Station becomes a stronger possibility.
services — airport access, taxis, walking and biking. [3] Ensure a healthy and vibrant public
The vision of the the design challenge
realm by creating high quality public spaces.
was described as “creating an outstanding
[4] Improve the pedestrian experience in and
transit hub; building a new, modern Madison
around Penn Station. Maximize permeability
Square Garden; completing Moynihan Station;
by providing multiple exits and entrances.” 16
The outline for the new Madison Square
much of the track and platform level exposed.
Garden is: “ [1] Build a new world-class, state-
The plan is meant to allow for more ease of
of-the-art arena. [2] Locate the arena on a
circulation and openness. The main entrance
site that is accessible by transit, walking and
will face the Farley Post Office/ new Moynihan
cycling. [3]Ensure that the arena relates ap-
Station with a park alongside the new Moyni-
propriately to the surrounding urban context,
han Station. SHoP proposed a mixed-use tow-
wherever it is located, with activated facades,
er ─ Gotham Tower ─ in addition to a park
suitably scaled facilities, and appropriate sig-
across 7th Avenue from Penn Station. The
nage. [4]Encourage sustainable building best
new Madison Square Garden would be placed
practices to minimize the carbon footprint of
across from the new Moynihan Station along
construction.” 17
9th Avenue on the Hudson Yards along with various mixed-use towers and public spaces
SHoP
to re-invigorate the area. SHoP offers to transform Penn Station
SHoP provides many renderings of
into “Gotham Gateway.” The proposal that
large, open sunlit spaces, yet the firm does not
SHoP architects presented focuses on rein-
address applications of technology and pro-
venting the grand high-ceiling waiting room
grammatic function besides transportation and
with an organically shaped roof which sunlight
circulation.
MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY DESIGN COMPETITION
sunlight to flow down to the tracks by having
passes through. The proposal also allows the
87
MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY DESIGN COMPETITION
88
The surrounding urban context of Madison
Office would turn into the Moynihan Education
Square Garden is not addressed except in
Center. The concourses of Penn Station would
the general scheme for the mixed-use towers
also be redeveloped in order to allow for ease
along the Hudson Yards. The issue of trans-
of circulation. To fund the proposal, H3 pro-
portation connecting to Madison Square Gar-
poses large footprint developments at the four
den is also not addressed in the proposed new
corners of the current Penn Plaza.
site. H3
H3’s scheme undertakes very ex-
pansive renovations; the Hudson Yards and midtown transportation would be completely
H3 presents heavily detailed
reconstructed. The plans are detailed; yet
plans for the Hudson Yards. H3 proposes
funding is only minimally addressed with in-
moving Madison Square Garden next to the
vestment from the proposed large office tow-
Javits Center on the water. They propose
ers.
extending the 7 subway line and the Long Island Rail Road to the renovated Javits Cen-
Diller Scofidio + Renfro
ter/ new Madison Square Garden. A bike path, named the “Water Line” is also proposed as
This proposal puts forward an exceed-
alternative transportation though the area that
ingly radical idea for the site of Penn Station
connects Hudson River Park, 42nd Street, the
while also placing Madison Square Garden in
West Side and Penn Station. The Farley Post
the Farley Post Office. Diller Scofidio + Renfro
waiting room by creating stages of waiting
Skidmore Owings & Merrill
physically and conceptually. Spas and museums would be on the upper floors while delis
and ATMs would be relegated to the lowest
Penn Station down to 30th Street. The new
levels. People would also be able to use a
Madison Square Garden would be across from
smartphone app to see the train schedules
the Post Office along 31st Street and across
and plan their wait based on its suggestions.
from Penn Station along 8th Avenue. The firm
In addition the building would have carved-out
proposes to create a train line connecting
atriums that let light filter throughout the vary-
Newark Airport, JFK and LaGuardia through
ing levels of the structure.
Penn Station. SOM’s design centers around
SOM proposes to expand the site of
two facing domes, one atop the platforms of
The firm Diller Scofidio + Renfro pro-
Penn Station and the other supported by four
poses to place Madison Square Garden inside
towers on each corner of the new footprint.
the James F. Farley Post Office. Losing the
The ground plane would house a public park
old Penn Station was a tragic loss to New York
four times the size of Bryant Park. The towers
City, as would be the loss of another McKim
would house a residential neighborhood the
Mead & White building. The design would
size of Tudor City, a commercial development
need to be exceedingly cautious about dis-
the size of Rockefeller Center and a cultural
mantling a significant part of the building.
destination the size of Lincoln Center.
MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY DESIGN COMPETITION
proposed to modernize the traditional grand
89
MUNICIPAL ART SOCIETY DESIGN COMPETITION
90
SOM does not address the issue of Madison
port, Penn 2023, published by The Alliance for
Square Garden outside the issue of its gen-
a New Penn Station, states that “Moving the
eral location. The proposal is ambitious and
arena would allow for a far more comprehen-
attempts to create a huge public park, along
sive and rapid reconstruction of Penn Station.
with a large-scale housing, commercial and
The tracks, platforms and concourses cannot
retail complex. SOM, however, should provide
be rebuilt to modern standards while the arena
more detailed analysis of how all the func-
remains in place.” 18
tions would work together. Moreover, would there be defined uses for the public park? The
The report argues that the stadium is
rendering depicts a large-scale lawn. A huge
out of date and will not be able to stay com-
lawn, like in Central Park, perhaps would not
petitive much longer. The report comes to
be a success on the site.
the conclusion that the relocation of Madison Square Garden would “generate enormous
The Argument of the Report
economic value.”19 The report also implicitly suggests that the aesthetic quality of the sta-
The competition that the Municipal Art
Society held has sparked much dialogue over
tion would be improved if the stadium were to move.
the redesign of the Station and the Hudson Yards. Most of the discussion also embraces and necessitates the destruction and redevelopment of Madison Square Garden. The re-
15-19
The Municipal Art Society. “Penn 2023.”. http:// www.scribd.com/doc/176397390/Penn-2023 (accessed January 27, 2014).
Figure 32: New Proposals
91
92
Figure 33: View from Farley Post Office Steps
In my design scheme, I propose the
I adapt the tower and Madison Square
conservation of Madison Square Garden
Garden to create a modernized station that
and the office tower in the current location
has the grandeur of the old Penn station and
atop Penn Station. My thesis aims to provide
is conscious of material use and waste. Tear-
a counter-argument to the recent report by
ing down the entire site and building it back up
providing a conceivable plan that preserves
again, along with a stadium and a transporta-
Madison Square Garden and the tower while
tion network at a new location, would produce
addressing the many concerns and problems
massive waste and exhaust many resources.
of the current station shared by the report and
New Yorkers alike.
MY PROPOSAL
93
94
Deriving from the initial research, I
began my redesign of the station almost
a city living room with various green spaces,
exclusively in section while keeping Madison
kiosks and seating. Light wells also punch
Square Garden and the office tower in the
through the ground plane to allow light to the
current location. The stadium is re-skinned
underground concourses.
and becomes a “media screen� atop the new Penn Station. The auxiliary programing of MSG is moved from underneath the stadium to a ring surrounding MSG. The ground plane then forms four bridges leading up to MSG, and the ground between the bridges leads into a hall that connects to the two parallel vestibules that lie along the platforms and to
THE DESIGN SCHEME
The outdoor plaza is then adapted to become
an indoor corridor that connects to the daylight waiting room adapted from the lower floors of the office tower.
THE SITE THE AUXILIARY RING MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
TWO PENN PLAZA
THE MEDIA SCREEN
THE MAIN WAITING ROOM THE TRANSFIGURED GROUND PLANE
THE LIGHTWELLS
THE CONCOURSE
THE GLASS CURTAIN
THE PLATFORMS
Figure 34: Axonometric View
95
96
Adaptive Reuse
If Madison Square Garden were to
remain in the current location the city would Adaptive reuse in architecture denotes the
be able to devote its resources to funding a
process of building conversion so as to ac-
grander Penn Station as opposed to dividing
commodate new functional requirements.20
the resources between the stadium and the station. Financially, the city might not be able
The design scheme I propose utilizes
to supply the funds to build an entirely new
the technique of adaptive reuse. Madison
Penn Station and Madison Square Garden in
Square Garden and the office tower are mod-
a new location. Moreover, construction on two
ified to accommodate a new, modern and
projects as extensive as the stadium and the
enhanced Penn Station. Adaptive Reuse is a
station would demand significant amounts of
concept and design technique that is lauded
non-reusable resources such as raw materials
for being sustainable environmentally, socially
like concrete, steel and glass.
ADAPTIVE REUSE
and economically. A key principle of adaptive reuse is to extend the lifespan of a building or
In addition to consumption of new
structure by keeping intact as much as pos-
resources, the demolition of the current site
sible. Buildings other than those that have
would create a lot of material waste. Although
historical significance can be salvaged and
some of the material from the demolition could
revived.21
be recycled, the most effective way to manage the creation of waste would be to preserve
functional and beneficial elements. Design
dreds of concerts are also held in the stadium
raw materials can be conserved and recycled;
throughout the year. If the site were to be rec-
however, in reality only a fraction of those
reated as a public living room, it would allow
materials could be reused. In my proposal,
for a relationship between the public space
although the site would be greatly transformed
and the Madison Square Garden Corpora-
and much of the existing site would be demol-
tion. For example, the media screens could
ished, I am acutely conscientious about mate-
be used to stream events from a live game for
rial waste as functional spaces are being pre-
people to watch from the outdoor plazas and
served. The Madison Square Garden stadium
purchase food or drink from kiosks owned by
and the office tower can be saved, as they can
the Madison Square Garden Corporation.
ADAPTIVE REUSE
proposals can claim that through demolition,
be adapted to become beneficial components of the new site.
The Transportation Factor
Adaptive reuse is a fundamental tool
A stadium as large and active as Madi-
for environmentally and economically consci-
son Square Garden would require a significant
entious design, but is also important for so-
ease of access to transportation. The current
cial sustainability. Madison Square Garden is
site is located on top of one of the world’s
perhaps the most iconic sports stadium in New
largest transportation hubs. There are two
York. The basketball team, the Knicks and the
possibilities for a new site for Madison Square
hockey team, the Rangers have their home
Garden.
games at Madison Square Garden. Hun-
97
98
Either the stadium will have to be moved to
the new proposals and report; yet many of
a location where there already is an exten-
the obstacles, mainly financial, that impeded
sive transportation network, or new networks
projects in the past are bound to be present
would have to be created to accommodate the
in any future efforts as well. New York wants
stadium. If the area already has an extensive
a new Penn Station, but New York needs an
transportation network, the area would proba-
affordable and viable plan for its development.
bly already be very dense and might be over-
The relocation and reconstruction of Madison
whelmed by the addition of a new stadium. If
Square Garden would be extremely costly,
an extension and/or creation of new transpor-
along with any extension of transportation to
tation lines were needed, that would become
the new location. The Madison Square Gar-
costly and expend a lot of non-renewable
den Corporation has expressed aversion to
resources, as argued above in the discussion.
funding a new stadium. Although the Madison
ADAPTIVE REUSE
Square Garden Corporation would be willing The Financial Burden and the
to move if the city were to fund the develop-
Economic Feasibility
ment of a new station, it has no desire to pay for it.
Many obstacles and limitations have
impeded the development of the new Moyni-
The economic infeasibility of moving
han Station and the general redevelopment
Madison Square Garden would hinder the
of Penn Station and the Hudson Yards since
development of many of the grand new pro-
the 1990s. Much enthusiasm accompanies
posals. The Madison Square Garden Corpo-
renovations to the current stadium. The im-
were to remain in the current location, the city
plication is twofold: first, the Madison Square
would be able to pour its resources into fund-
Garden Corporation would be less willing and
ing a more majestic Penn Station as opposed
likely to fund a new stadium as they just made
to dividing the resources between the stadi-
a large investment in the state of the current
um and the station. Moreover, the Madison
stadium; second, the MSG Corporation would
Square Garden Corporation would be more
not be able to fund a new stadium and a large
willing to fund adaptations to the stadium and
portion of their resources were just used on
the site if a revived station and site were to
the current stadium. If the corporation is un-
draw attention to the existing site and the new-
willing or unable to fund a new stadium, the
ly renovated stadium.
Conversely, if Madison Square Garden
ADAPTIVE REUSE
ration recently spent more than $1 billion on
burden would be on the city to find the funding for both the stadium and the station. Since the city is still running into difficulty funding the adaptation of the Farley Post Office into the addition of the new Moynihan Station, it would also stand to be problematic for the development of
20
Özen Eyüce and Ahmet Eyüce. “Design Education for Adaptive Reuse.” ArchNet iJAR 4: 419-428. 21
“Adaptive Reuse.” MIT; Greening East Campus. http://www.archinode.com/lcaadapt.html (accessed March 13, 2014).
both Penn Station and Madison Square Garden.
99
100
To approach the design scheme, I
assessed the space under the stadium, which
be two perpendicular bridges to support the
mostly consists of auxiliary programming. The
stadium and provide a connection from the
area underneath the stadium to the sidewalk
street level. The two perpendicular bridges
level is approximately 45 feet high. This area
would be sloped outdoor ramps that would al-
could be opened up and the auxiliary program-
low for more visible and discernible connection
ming relocated to an auxiliary ring around the
between commuters from the station, stadium
new stadium. The ring would be multi-storied
patrons and occupants of the living room.
and have connections to the platforms and levels of the seating in the stadium.
The stadium would also need to be
re-skinned, since the structure that currently
THE TRANSFORMATION
Underneath the stadium, there would
encloses it would be removed to allow the space underneath the stadium to be adapted. The new skin of the stadium underneath the auxiliary ring would be a media screen projecting information through pictures, video and digital media to the newly opened space below the stadium.
Figure 35: Media Ceiling
101
102 102
Figure 36: Lightwell
At the connection of the bridges would
A modernized departures area would
be an indoor area connecting the outdoor
be centered in this space, in addition to ticket-
plaza with the new underground concourse
ing and information booths. The waiting room
that lies along the 21 platforms and tracks.
would also have multiple sets of stairs and ele-
Attached to the above-ground area would be
vators leading to the underground concourse.
an outdoor glass hallway connecting the new
Between the new structure under the stadium
grand, daylight waiting room adapted from
and the adapted office tower would be two
the bottom stories of the office tower. The first
light wells and underground garden spaces,
three stories of the tower would be removed to
allowing daylight to penetrate the underground
allow for a 40-foot-high waiting room, walled
concourses.
THE TRANSFORMATION
with glass.
103
104
THE TRANSFORMATION
THE TRANSFORMATION
Figure 37: Transformation 1
105
THE TRANSFORMATION
Figure 38: Transformation 2
107
THE TRANSFORMATION
Figure 39: Transformation 3
109
THE TRANSFORMATION
Figure 40: Transformation 4
111
THE TRANSFORMATION
Figure 41: Transformation 5
113
THE TRANSFORMATION
Figure 42: Transformation 6
115
THE TRANSFORMATION
Figure 43: Transformation 7
117
THE TRANSFORMATION
Figure 44: Transformation 8
119
THE TRANSFORMATION
Figure 45: Transformation 9
121
THE TRANSFORMATION
Figure 46: Transformation 10
123
124
SECTIONS
Figure 47: East/West Section
125
Figure 48: North/South Section
127
PLANS
THE SITE
Figure 49: Platform Level
129
THE SITE
Figure 50: Concourse Level
131
THE SITE
Figure 51: Street Level
133
134
The current station was a feat of engi-
neering expertise when it was built in 1963. The design I propose with the new bridge structure is not structurally sound without some form of load-bearing supports. In my proposal, I do not present a fully conceptualized support structure; yet I have begun an analysis of the strategy for its placement.
The concept of an upside-down circular
dome with support only at the base has been accomplished before. The Egg is an example.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
The Egg is a theatre in Albany, New York designed by Wallace Harrison between 1966 and 1978 and was a part of the Empire State Plaza project. This building was created on a green field, which is why such a complex engineering feat was possible. The similar structure of the bridges underneath the stadium lies on top of one of the largest railroad hubs in the world.
The structure that I present would
hence also require additional supports, in addition to the support the bridges provide. The support structure would need to have a base deep in the ground, past the platforms and tracks. The supports would then need to extend from their roots in the ground up to the elevated stadium. Supports would not be able to pierce through the tracks, as that would be an obstruction to train traffic. Hence, I evaluated where the supports should distributed, in descending order from darkest to lightest.
STRUCTURAL MAPPING
Figure 52: Structural Analysis
135
136
GROUND PLANE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
PORCH BAR LIGHTWELL WAITING ROOM KIOSKS RECREATION STATIONS MSG SPONSORSHIP STATIONS FOOD AND DRINK STATIONS RETAIL BOOTHS OPEN TO CONCOURSE BELOW
9 6
5
4
4
2
5
6
9 3
7
8
2
7
8
1
4
9
Figure 53: Living Room Map
One of the main arguments of my thesis
Bryant Park uses the connection to the New
is the application of reuse, but the other main
York Public Library, the new Penn Station liv-
argument is the creation of a successful city
ing room could benefit from having a connec-
living room. With my transformation process, I
tion to Madison Square Garden.
adapt the current features of the site to create a space that encourages the development of a
successful city living room.
skin of the stadium would allow anything to be
First, the creation of new media screen
projected to the public and commuters. Madi
The building that currently houses
son Square Garden could use any one of the
Madison Square Garden makes up a large
four screens to live-stream games or concerts.
portion of the footprint of the site. The building
This partnership would create a truly unique
is also completely blocked off to the public and
public space devoted to sports and entertain-
creates a large obstacle on the site of Madison
ment. People go to Bryant Park to read, watch
Square Garden. Removing this building and
films and have lunch; people go to Madison
creating a structure that supports Madison
Square Park to eat at Shake Shack, walk their
Square Garden while opening up space for the
dogs or look at installations. People would be
public is imperative.
able to go to Penn Station to watch a game
CREATING A CITY LVING ROOM
on a large screen while drinking a beer and
Deriving from my analysis of the city
living room, I concluded that Madison Square
eating a gourmet hot dog from outdoor kiosks before catching their train home.
Garden could be a beneficial asset. Just as
137
138
Second, my design proposal creates
would seem cramped and restricted and lose
a lot of outdoor space that could be used to
the lively energy that makes the space a suc-
create green spaces with grass and trees, out-
cessful city living room. Allowing for the inter-
door seating with tables, chairs, benches and
action of the different groups would make the
kiosks providing food and drink. Moreover, like
space less restrictive and encourage the use
Bryant Park, this outdoor space could be used
of the space as a city living room.
CREATING A CITY LIVING ROOM
to set up recreational stations for children and adults. For example, Madison Square Garden
Penn Station is one of the most heav-
could set up basketball and hockey themed
ily trafficked train stations in America, and at
stations.
rush hour the efficient egress and ingress of commuters is key to the success of a modern
Third, the bridges leading up to the
Penn Station. The one-level concourse that
station would be outside and exposed to the
lies along the tracks and platforms allows for
public, creating more interaction between sta-
direct access to and from the tracks to the
dium-goers, the public and commuters. One of
street level. Commuters can access the sta-
the reasons for the success of Grand Central
tion from the main waiting room under the tow-
Station is the interaction it fosters between dif-
er, the structure underneath Madison Square
ferent kinds of users. Michael Jordan’s Steak
Garden and the new concourse of Moynihan
House and the Apple Store are clearly visible
Station in the Farley Post Office. The abo-
from the main waiting room. If all the spaces
veground portion of the station consists of the
were blocked off from each other, the space
main waiting room, the entrance under the sta-
them. Most of the outdoor space is designed for the programming of the city living room, but the concourses and glass tunnel allow for the smooth and efficient passage of rush-hour commuters and circumvents the activity of the living room.
The site would be transformed into
a city living room, while keeping Madison Square Garden and the office tower and while
CREATING A CITY LIVING ROOM
dium and the connecting glass tunnel between
also allowing for the successful circulation of commuters.
139
140 140
Figure 54: Waiting Room
Reimaging Penn Station is remember-
ing the old, analyzing the current and exploring the future. The expiring lease for Madison Square Garden and the growing need for
CONCLUSION
high-speed rail has made Penn Station a focal point for the future modernization of New York City. The Municipal Arts Society’s four selected proposals call for massive new projects with extensive social, economic and environmental impacts.
After investigating five New York City
public living rooms - Penn Station, Grand Central Station, Bryant Park, Madison Square Park and Union Square Park, I have been better able to define what makes an urban public space successful. All the living rooms are contained within a city block and provide insightful comparison to one another.
141
142
of Robert Moses’s original park design, but as
The factors that make the other city
living rooms successful or unsuccessful is
new park meeting the needs of today’s New York.
CONCLUSION
what the Penn Station reconstruction should ascertain and utilize. Bryant Park, I feel, is the
most successful and widely used living room
solution to the four projects discussed earli-
because of the connection to the library. Grand
er. It utilizes the principle of adaptive reuse
Central, a close second, is still a beautiful and
in order to create a modernized and efficient
loved New York City landmark, due in part to
transit hub paired with a successful city living
the demolition of old Penn Station and the
room. Adaptive Reuse is a design technique
resulting Conservation and Preservation Acts.
lauded for being environmentally, socially and
My investigation led to the interaction of Penn
economically sustainable. A key principle of
Station and Madison Square Garden using
adaptive reuse is to extend the life span of
the Bryant Park and New York Public Library
a building or structure as much as possible.
relationship as a model to create a successful
Elements of the site of Penn Station can be
and unique living room. Bryant Park, like Penn
salvaged and revived as presented by my
Station, was not always a well-used and loved
proposal. Perhaps, if adaptive reuse had been
space, but was recreated as one of the most
used in 1963, we would not have lost the land-
successful living rooms, an oasis in the middle
mark that is still missed today.
of concrete and traffic. When Bryant Park was revived it was not redesigned as a duplicate
My proposal provides an alternative
Diehl, Lorraine B. The Late, Great PennsylAlberts, Hana., “Four Plans For A New Penn
vania Station. New York: American Heritage
Station Without MSG, Revealed!” Curbed NY,
Press, 1985.
BIBLOGRAPHY
Text
sec. Architectural Craziness. May 29, 2013 Droege, John Albert. Passenger Terminals and Anderson, Susan. “Library Starts Road to
Trains. New York: McGraw-Hill Dorege, 1916.
84-Mile Shelves Under Park .” The New York Times, October 27, 1987.
Eyüce, Özen, and Ahmet Eyüce. “Design Education for Adaptive Reuse.” ArchNet iJAR 4:
Anuta, Joe. “Big plans—but no cash—unveiled
419-428.
for Penn Station.” Crain’s; New York Business, October 17, 2013.
Goldberger, Paul. “Architecture View; Bryant Park, An Out-of-Town Experience.” The New
Bagli, Charles V. . “Madison Square Garden Is
York Times, May 3, 1992.
Told to Move.” The New York Times, July 24, 2013.
Grynbaum, Michael M.. “The Joys and Woes of Penn Station at 100.” The New York Times,
Bagli, Charles V.. “Garden Unfurls Its Plan for
October 18, 2010, sec. City Room; Blogging
a Major Renovation.” The New York Times,
From the Five Boroughs.
April 4, 2008.
143
144
Huxtable, Ada Louise. “Farewell to Penn Sta-
Plosky J., Eric, 2000. The Fall and Rise of
tion.” The New York Times, October 30, 1963.
Pennsylvania Station; Changing Attitudes Toward Historic Preservation in New York. [Mas-
Jonnes, Jill. Conquering Gotham: Building
ter in City Planning, thesis, MIT. http://www.
Penn Station and Its Tunnels. New York: Pen-
subjectverb.com/www/writing/thesis.pdf
guin Books, 2008. Rasmussen, Frederick N.. “From the Gilded Leland, Roth. McKim, Mead & White Archi-
Age; A Monument to Transit.” The Baltimore
tects. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.
Sun, April 21, 2007.
Low, Willam. Old Penn Station. New York:
Randolph, Eleanor. “Bit by Bit, Evicting Mad-
Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2007.
ison Square Garden.” The New York Times, June 27, 2013.
BIBLOGRAPHY
Parissien, Steven. Pennsylvania Station; McKim, Mead and White. London: Phaidon Press,
Rivlin-Nadler, Max. “Wild Visions Of What
1996.
A New Penn Station Might Look Like (In An Architect’s Dreamworld).” Gothamist, May 29, 2013. Tolchin, Martin. “Demolition Starts At Penn Station; Architects Picket; Penn Station Dem-
“Moynihan Station Redevelopment.” SOM Ar-
The New York Times, January 1, 1963.
chitects. http://www.som.com/projects/moynihan_station_redevelopment (accessed April 10, 2014).
BIBLOGRAPHY
olition Begun; 6 Architects Call Act a ‘Shame’.”
Weis, Lois. “Madison Square Garden’s many incarnations - and locations.” New York Post,
“Moynihan Station.” The Municipal Art Society
October 24, 2013, sec. Real Estate.
of New York. http://www.mas.org/urbanplanning/moynihan-station/ (accessed April 10,
“New $10,000,000 Penn Station To Be Cooled
2014).
and Landscaped.” The New York Times, September 28, 1962.
“New Penn Station.” The Municipal Art Society of New York. http://www.mas.org/urbanplan-
Web
ning/new-penn-station-2/ (accessed March 27, 2014).
Friends of Moynihan Station. http://www. moynihanstation.org/newsite/ (accessed Feb-
H3 Architects. “H3 Design Challenge Presen-
ruary 18, 2014).
tation.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/144964379/ H3-Design-Challenge-Presentation (accessed July 11, 2013).
145
146
DSR Architects. “DSR Design Challenge
Madison Square Garden; The World’s Most
Presentation.”. http://www.scribd.com/
Famous Arena. http://www.thegarden.com/
doc/144711099/DSR-Design-Challenge-Pre-
(accessed July 11, 2013).
sentation (accessed July 11, 2013). “The History of Madison Square Garden.” SHoP Architects. “SHoP Architects Design
Central New York; New York City. http://www.
Challenge Presentation.”. http://www.scribd.
central-nyc.com/places/226/ (accessed April 7,
com/doc/144709863/SHoP-Architects-De-
2014).
sign-Challenge-Presentation (accessed July 11, 2013).
“Adaptive Reuse.” MIT; Greening East Campus. http://www.archinode.com/lcaadapt.html
SOM Architects. “SOM Design Challenge
(accessed March 13, 2014).
Presentation.”. http://www.scribd.com/ doc/144703042/SOM-Design-Challenge-Pre-
“History & Architecture.” The Egg; Center
sentation (accessed July 11, 2013).
for Performing Arts. http://www.theegg.org/ about/historyarchitecture (accessed March 12,
BIBLIGRAPHY
The Municipal Art Society. “Penn 2023.”. http://
2014).
www.scribd.com/doc/176397390/Penn-2023 (accessed January 27, 2014).
Bryant Park. http://www.bryantpark.org/ (accessed July 12, 2013).
squarenyc.org/ (accessed July 13, 2013).
Immediate Entourage; Free Cropped Photos for Architectural Renderings. http://www.imme-
Madison Square Park Conservancy. http://
diateentourage.com/
BIBLIGRAPHY
Union Square Park Partnership. http://union-
www.madisonsquarepark.org/ (accessed July 13, 2013).
Bryant Park. http://www.bryantpark.org/ (accessed July 12, 2013).
Grand Central Terminal. http://www.grandcentralterminal.com/ (accessed July 13, 2013).
Union Square Park Partnership. http://unionsquarenyc.org/ (accessed July 13, 2013).
Film Madison Square Park Conservancy. http:// The Rise and Fall of Penn Station. DVD. Di-
www.madisonsquarepark.org/ (accessed July
rected by Randall MacLowry. : WGBH Edu-
13, 2013).
cational Foundation, produced for American Experience, PBS, 2014.
Grand Central Terminal. http://www.grandcentralterminal.com/ (accessed July 13, 2013).
Image Citations Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimeSkalgubbar, Cutout People by Teodor J.E..
dia.org/wiki/Main_Page (accessed March 11,
http://skalgubbar.se/
2014).
147
148
“We will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.” Ada Louise Huxtable