Updated Penn Station Design

Not sure how much buzz has been going on around here regarding the proposal to move Penn Station into the James Farley Building but I found an article online that is pretty interesting.

I thought this might spark some debate....

http://words.grubbykid.com/2006/04/27/u ... .html#more

I'm wondering what added benefits Amtrak would receive from an operational standpoint. Of course the city at the center of the NEC would finally have a grand gateway (again) but would more space be the only added operational benefit. (My understanding is that the station would not just simply move but expand, with both the Farley building and existing site being connected underground.

Think all those designs are out-of-date already - they're all over a year old now!
I think the basic problem (and one we have discussed) is that operationally nothing changes - still the same platforms & tracks that we have now (discounting the independant NJT THE tunnel 34th St. terminal plans). A new (additional) concourse space, waiting room, and ticket booths I suppose, and additional entrances/exits on the West side (these would be useful). Considering that after, what, 7 years? there still seem to be no concrete plans, just lots and lots of sketches and drawings, tells me the planners are having some confusion as to the exact purpose and usage.
Then again, how swiftly have been things moving at the former WTC site?

There are really about three different projects here. Turning the Farley Post Office into a new Amtrak station will not, as previously noted, change any actual train operations. But it will open up some more space in Penn Station for LIRR and NJT.

The bigger news is the "Access to the Region's Core" study, which embraces both THE tunnels and a new station under Penn Station, to handle NJT trains and possibly MNR and/or LIRR as well.

There are plans now to build a new LIRR tunnel from the 63rd Street tunnel (which was designed with two levels, LIRR and NY subway) to Grand Central, and a new four-platform, eight-track station below the existing lower level of GCT (reason: it's easier to build a totally separate station than to try to cut into the existing structure to make connections.

From this new station, tracks could continue in a deep tunnel to 33rd Street and turn west into a similar new station under Penn Station. These tracks, in turn, would connect to both THE tunnel and the existing river tubes.

We'll have to see how much of this actually happens.

NellieBly wrote:The bigger news is the "Access to the Region's Core" study, which embraces both THE tunnels and a new station under Penn Station, to handle NJT trains and possibly MNR and/or LIRR as well.

The new station is not proposed to be built under Penn Station but under 34th St between 6th and 7th Aves. As for LIRR and MNRR ever getting to it I am not holding my breath. At present it looks quite unlikely.

NellieBly wrote:From this new station, tracks could continue in a deep tunnel to 33rd Street and turn west into a similar new station under Penn Station. These tracks, in turn, would connect to both THE tunnel and the existing river tubes.

Yes, they could, but the billion dollar question is if they would. As we discuss this here the connection from the new tunnel to the old Penn Station is on the chopping blocks already to cut cost apparently.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Sorry Kyle, but it is difficult for me in my later years of life, to accept as a recognized newssource, any organization that chooses to title a blog with such as "grubbykid'.

Clearly noted.

I noted the title myself and even cringed when using the word "article" when referring to it in my initial post, nonetheless, found the content worthy enough to warrant discussion and possible debate.

IMHO, the latest renderings seem to do a better job at harkening back to the style of the old Penn Station's Concourse.

What caught my eye, aside from the fact that I used to work in 1 Penn Plaza and am very familiar with the study area was the proposal to build a new office tower over the western annex. Clearly this defeats the purpose of the entire project in the first place. My understanding is that the new station would not be owned by Amtrak and so the proposed tower wouldn't even bring in added revenue for the railroad via its tenants otherwise it would be harder for me to disagree with the idea.

Anyone see the August 4th article in the NY Times? It also mentions Amtrak's sudden new plans to re-embrace Farley.

Via UTU's website (otherwise paid via NYT's site)…Link here

Look, they should just leave the Farley Office alone, demolish that dump called Madison Square Garden & relocate it to the west side(maybe over the open Penn Station tracks?), and build a magnificent replica of the original Penn Station. Moving into Farley would be like destroying something so something else can be reborn. Farley is also McKim, etc. designed. Well, that's what I think.

Lucius Ameri wrote:Look, they should just leave the Farley Office alone, demolish that dump called Madison Square Garden & relocate it to the west side(maybe over the open Penn Station tracks?), and build a magnificent replica of the original Penn Station. Moving into Farley would be like destroying something so something else can be reborn. Farley is also McKim, etc. designed. Well, that's what I think.

Not a bad idea. I yearn to have been able to set foot in the old NYP. Hope the blueprints have been saved.

BTW what are THE tunnels?

motor

Lucius Ameri wrote:Look, they should just leave the Farley Office alone, demolish that dump called Madison Square Garden & relocate it to the west side(maybe over the open Penn Station tracks?), and build a magnificent replica of the original Penn Station. Moving into Farley would be like destroying something so something else can be reborn. Farley is also McKim, etc. designed. Well, that's what I think.

Sounds like a great idea to me. I too wish I'd been able to see/experience Pennsylvania Station. Now if I come into the city on Amtrak, it's like a rat maze. And on the day I was there, hot as, well, you know where. GCT's air conditioning was on full blast and felt great. Another option - move MSG over the "open air" space west of Penn and the Post Office. Rebuild Penn Station, but without, lets say, the arcade. That can be scaled down and the office towers built in that area. Though I don't think we'll see a terminal like the original Penn Station ever being built in NYC. Too bad

THE stands for TRANS-HUDSON EXPRESS and is the name of the tunnel (tunnels?) that are going to be built underneath the Hudson River to increase capacity into/out of Penn Station, to NJ. Lots of things I'm not sure of here - this is a NJ Transit project, so is Amtrak going to have rights to be able to use the tunnels?
And doesn't it remain 2 tracks for a distance after the Hudson River crossing anyway? What's going to happen there?

What's the deal with the Farley Post Office building anyway? It's a beautiful building, but is it still a functional building? If that's the case, I don't think they should use it as a train station. The only reason I would was if the building had no other possible use.

Eventually the arena at Madison Square Garden will be replaced (whats the life-span for one of those arenas? I believe this is MSG #3 or #4 already!). Then they can put up a modern Penn Station.

Sadly, I do not advocate rebuilding the old Penn Station. First of all, the stone would be too expensive. You might as well just come up with a new design. Obviously I would prefer to have the old Penn Station, but this country was doing some real stupid stuff during the era of its demise and it's just gone.

Also, I DETEST the idea of seperate buildings for Amtrak and the LIRR. That's just a terrible way of dividing people. One lobby for all.

shadyjay wrote:THE stands for TRANS-HUDSON EXPRESS and is the name of the tunnel (tunnels?) that are going to be built underneath the Hudson River to increase capacity into/out of Penn Station, to NJ

At present, they have nothing to do with the current Penn Station, and they will not increase capacity into and out of there; at last report, they are planned to merely provide access into the new 34th Street Station, which currently consists of six new tracks and platforms, will be exclusively for NJ Transit's use (as it appears to me) and is supposed to be built somewhere under Macy's department store.

starfox wrote:Sadly, I do not advocate rebuilding the old Penn Station. First of all, the stone would be too expensive

There are plenty of rock quarries running at full tilt in northeast PA. Assuming you are not requiring marble columns, there is no shortage of stone.

Lucius Ameri wrote:Look, they should just leave the Farley Office alone, demolish that dump called Madison Square Garden & relocate it to the west side(maybe over the open Penn Station tracks?), and build a magnificent replica of the original Penn Station. Moving into Farley would be like destroying something so something else can be reborn. Farley is also McKim, etc. designed. Well, that's what I think.

I'll cast another vote for this. I had the same though myself, a number of times, and damn near posted it on this forum. Thanks Lucius!

A "post modernist" structure on the present garden location that architecurally "recalls" McKim's Penn Station seems as plausible as anything else that has been talked about.

And build a new garden over in the meadowlands, which is the new "epicenter" of non-baseball sports activity. Yeah, I know --- that's easy for me to say since I'm not a basketball or hockey fan.

I take trains into and out of the current Penn Station several times a week, and absolutely hate the place.

The only criticism I have of the long-proposed transformation of the Farley Post Office is that each successive architectural rendering has looked like the inside of an airline terminal -- sleek, plastic, sterile, and ultimately without any soul or atmosphere whatsoever. It's hack architecture. And so far, no proposal has shown any true respect for the building's original design.

Regardless of what happens, most of the Farley building (which occupies an entire square block) will remain intact, including the area fronting Eighth Avenue, which will remain a Post Office. As for the building's interior. . . 90% of it is unremarkable factory floorspace filled with postal workers and grimy mail sorting equipment. So "interior preservationists" need not be alarmed.

---------------------------------------