The legendary Pennsylvania Station




http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t028/T028222A.jpg
http://www.osa.ceu.hu/galeria/sites/chicago_newyorke/sections/ny_intro.jpg
http://www.das-fotoarchiv.com/portfolio/Schaefer/station.jpg
http://pro.corbis.com/images/BE050122.jpg?size=67&uid={3e60a54e-cc68-4b3d-8502-2ba8d812ac47}
http://www.design.upenn.edu/archives/majorcollections/furness/penn1x.jpg
http://pro.corbis.com/images/GNUS565A.jpg?size=67&uid={31e6be24-4bf5-4fd3-b6c6-406b44ae0c75}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/HU043152.jpg?size=67&uid={30d06a2b-3234-499f-8dc4-d4293d34898a}
http://66.230.220.70/images/post/ny/35a.jpg
http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH172901.jpg?size=67&uid={ac05d1db-015c-47f5-b007-10fc3df40296}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH169763.jpg?size=67&uid={88f0d43b-bdcb-4258-9732-b73a70b9c328}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH169756.jpg?size=67&uid={56a82843-ee0f-450d-8d74-53eafccb11a1}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/GNUS565C.jpg?size=67&uid={352e58b9-8f95-4039-8a7a-724c7b520641}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH162293.jpg?size=67&uid={a5dbbd24-331d-477a-9f9c-9502e0ebf9fe}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/VV724.jpg?size=67&uid={c9bc205c-d2a4-4968-acba-ab9681c9b7a0}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U1095422B.jpg?size=67&uid={172c5690-ac0e-4a40-87d4-1d2d098e3813}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U499415INP.jpg?size=67&uid={44d25c8d-fbc9-4ba6-bf2d-2c0e9ac59b10}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U921580ACME.jpg?size=67&uid={7ee84295-d048-48f2-bff4-201a6eff5607}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/KT001844.jpg?size=67&uid={2692b28e-51f6-4b0d-8bcb-53ce4ef235e7}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U1362008.jpg?size=67&uid={28d0ebf2-ae70-4558-af33-405da6be170f}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/U1492895.jpg?size=67&uid={ea6a95cf-189e-437c-a881-1cc35d02cf2b}


Now a building of legend, Pennsylvania station was the grandest, greatest and largest railroad station ever built and designed by the most prestigious architectural firm of the early 20th century, McKim, Mead and White. The intense and elegant shadow play of the gigantic station penetrated hearts from all over the world in its 50 odd years in existence. Changes were made here and their toward the ends of its days, but the sense that some of the most important moments in many people's lives were played out here hung it its air. It was that very special something that a place becomes when wives say good bye to husbands going off to war, when a ticket in your hand means the start of a new life in another town, another country, maybe even another time-as place and history become one. World War I, World War II, the Great Depression, the Roaring Twenties- all the flappers, and soldiers and gangsters and families and sailors, secretaries, shysters, congressmen and women, farmers, cops, poets and dishwashers-the billions who would pass through this place would leave part of their lives here- even if just an echo or a feeling. It was a place designed for the upliftment of one and all, and to underscore the greatness of the Pennsylvania Railroad; It was almost anything you wanted it to be. It was Pennsylvania Station. -Timothy Jacobs

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8647/concours7fq.jpg

http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/2559/imagesxs7cd.jpg

Lovely Station ! 10/10

Great railway terminal,It's a pity they destroyed it...
10/10

Beautiful. Anyone who voted less than 9 is an ignorant fool with no eye for architecture. 10

Amazing building!!!! 10/10

Grand... 10/10

Btw, on those old pictures it looks like Pennsylvania is pretty big, what does it look like nowadays?

Penn Station today:

http://www.charge.com/geopics/ASI01-PennStation.jpg

Quote:Btw, on those old pictures it looks like Pennsylvania is pretty big, what does it look like nowadays

They knocked it down and put MSG on top of it. Now an ugly platform is under MSG as seen above.

All the people who voted lower than 9 are skanks.

Right............why bother putting a poll up if people aren't allowed their own opinion. Frankly I find it funny that it was destroyed - its not as nice as St Pancras, but nicer than GC....but either way its platforms were submerged below ground and some of the exact same styles are seen in elsewhere in other stations. The new one won't be as good as is trying to do something which just won't work - 8 (and by god don't allow those people who think "trainsheds and stuff to vote" - cause this station has a half attempt at one and that'll make em go crazy :laugh: )

First of all Nick, you are wrong on all of your "points" made.

Not as nice as St. Pancras? Sure.
Tracks submerged? Take a good look at this:

http://www.vazyvite.com/photo_us/newyork/jour3/penn_concourse.jpg The tracks were submerged only a few years before the razing.

And about what I said earlier, that is why I posted this thread for people to share their opinions. But when people vote a 3, you know damn well this isn't posting your opinions but trying to lower the score of this celebrated building. It is like a 3 or below for your beloved St. Pancras. Unacceptable.

Yes - but the platforms are still submerged below the ground - they go down, not along to the platforms!!!!! The new one I doubt will be able to recreate the old one though.

They are below ground, as that photo shows, but the tracks are not submerged. The are open to the air, the inspirational glass work above.

But they are not level platforms - they are submerged into the ground - just answer my question: are they on level with the waiting areas????? No - they are not, you have to walk down a flight of stairs to get to the platform before making your way to which carriage you want which is under the upper levels!!!!!!

That's why you don't like the station? Because you have to walk down a flight of stairs to the tracks? :lol:

And submerged is definitely the wrong word for this case. It wasn't covered, made obscured, or made subordinate by any means.

Oh goodness. It had to be lower than street level, Nick! If it was level with the street, the tracks would waiste precious space, which is a no no, or, it would have very stiff railway grades from the tunnels. If you have to knock a wonderful station because of a few steps or an elevator ride to a platform 10 feet below, I have nothing to say to you.

Oh, and by the way, the platforms are in the concorse, a totally separate room next to the waiting area. And the waiting area and concourse are on different levels, as they are separated by a few stairs. But just a few.

But its meant to be a gradual flow into the station and on to the train without being impeded.....London Liverpool Street shares the same architecture of the roof of Penn (over the platforms) and manages to create a awesome light space where you can walk straight on to your train. The Concourse and platforms at Liverool Street are on the same level and as soon as the trains leave the station shed, they enter a tunnel which goes under a few tall buildings and a busy throughfare before coming out on a viaduct to exit the city!!!! Not like its impossible and in my honest opinion a train station should have platforms that are in essence a part of the station, not a troglyditic feature.... :)

Yeah, well you win some and you lose some. And with the amount of stairs and elevators to the platforms, only a small amount of interruption was present, I assume. But you must realize, the Hudson and East River Tunnels go over 100 some odd feet into the ground under the rivers, and Manhattan Island is only a few miles wide. The gradient would be very, stiff, 6% above to get to level platforms, which are essential. It would be an impossibility.

Yes exactly GVNY - thats why its not a perfect station in my opinion :)

Nothing is impossible - it would have been possible to create a curved tunnel (just like you have when you leave Liverpool Street - you end up at a right angle from the station on to a viaduct). Having the platforms higher or the entire station lower was a possibility - but instead both were split. Having the platforms some 2 stories higher isn't exactly a engineering problem - it was simply because the whole idea was to hide the trains and tracks from public view!! In my opinion that was a missed opportunity.

Don't get me wrong - it was an architectural crime that this station was destroyed - it reminds me of Euston Station which had a massive Triumphal Arch at its entrance...... it was smashed up - and instead of having MSG like Penn has on top - it has a Postal Office slapped bang on top - its interior looks identical to Penn and hopefully in the near future it will be redeveloped just like the current Penn is facing!

Absolutley, many stations in Britain were also vandalised and destroyed for no reason. Birmingham Uk's stations were totally destroyed including the exteriors because of 60's idiots.

I feel sorry for you, Pennsylvania station was amazing, but its interior was disgustingly ruined.

London still has the greatest collection of stations in the world however,GCT hall is fantastic, the train concourse is awful.

Nick I have to admit that I don't agree with you at all. The old Penn Station is one of the world's all time great train stations - along with Grand Central, Paddington, St Pancras, Gare de Nord, Lyons, Frankfurt, Amsterdam Centraal, Kyoto, Bombay etc etc.

10/10. A tragedy that it was destroyed. The new designs look good however.

7/10

10/10 ! :)

Yes exactly GVNY - thats why its not a perfect station in my opinion :)

Nothing is impossible - it would have been possible to create a curved tunnel (just like you have when you leave Liverpool Street - you end up at a right angle from the station on to a viaduct). Having the platforms higher or the entire station lower was a possibility - but instead both were split. Having the platforms some 2 stories higher isn't exactly a engineering problem - it was simply because the whole idea was to hide the trains and tracks from public view!! In my opinion that was a missed opportunity.

Don't get me wrong - it was an architectural crime that this station was destroyed - it reminds me of Euston Station which had a massive Triumphal Arch at its entrance...... it was smashed up - and instead of having MSG like Penn has on top - it has a Postal Office slapped bang on top - its interior looks identical to Penn and hopefully in the near future it will be redeveloped just like the current Penn is facing!


Nick, look at the photos of Midtown Manhattan in 1907. And elevated track system for a major station is impossible! And a curving tunnel in the rock of Manhattan? First of all, again, it is not wide enough for a tunnels of the length and magnitude and the rock would almost impossible to bore.

And stop raving about St. Pancras. It wasn't all that amazing when I visited. The facade was wonderful, but in your celebrated train shed, it was dark and cold, as your waiting room was left open to the elements. At least Pennsylvania Station and GCT are closed from the outside and are heated and are very bright.

And do not get confused your wonderful train sheds with a overall station. GCT is a city in itself and all it lacks is a glass covered train shed to establish its kingship. Penn had everything you could ask for.

No not elevated tracks - the station could have been raised an entire storey so that there would be no need for platorms being submerged.

Actually at this moment the shed is completely closed and being redeveloped for the 400m long Eurostar passeneger trainsets. Its being repainted and transformed so that the trains can fit in. The roof is being reglazed to its original look (it actually had far less glass in it than before the reconstruction). The temporary St Pancras station operates from the extended train shed at the far end of the station while the original station is being modernised :)

I don't see how GCT is a city in itself - it handles less passengers than London Liverpool Street, London Victoria and London Paddington and less than Penn. Of course the majority of the station is based along the dark platforms....if that is the representation of a city your trying to give....... ;)

Over 500,000 people pass through GCT each day, not including tourists. That is 182,500,000 people per year. Pennsylvania recieves over 600,000 people a day, 219,000,000 a year. That is over 401,500,000 people for only two stations. You literally do not have to leave the station complexes. You got eateries, beds, hospitals etc, everything you need to maintain a good life. Both stations are a city within a city.

And again, about Penn Stations old station, the tracks couldn't be moved to street level. Too much space would have been wasted and it would have costed too much to demolsh street level buildings. Elevated tracks, same thing.

......the same is with all the 13 mainline rail termini in Central London!!!! They all have shops (food, beauty, entertainment, clothes, etc), restaurants, offices, hotels, apartments, newsagents, etc.

I'm interested - how do you differentiate business and tourist passengers - those sound like total passengers, plus visitors to the shops at the station plus non-connections and throughbut traffic. I am going out to watch the first day of the Premiership...so I'll have to do the searching later - but if I remember total commuting rail into New York was around the 1175-225mppa mark and 700mppa into London - there is a thread on this here somewhere the illustrates these points :)

When I was referring to Penn - the entire station during construction should have been raised - ie when it was getting built :)

Oh, I think I mixed you up. Take GCT, 500,000 people a day pass through there by train, but that doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of other people that visit the station on a daily basis.


And yes, your stations have beds, eateries, etc. also, but do any of your stations have a hospital?

And when you refer to Pennsylvania station, my apologies but I just have no idea what you're trying to tell me.

Very nice architecture !!!! ;) 9/10

Oh, I think I mixed you up. Take GCT, 500,000 people a day pass through there by train, but that doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of other people that visit the station on a daily basis.


And yes, your stations have beds, eateries, etc. also, but do any of your stations have a hospital?

And when you refer to Pennsylvania station, my apologies but I just have no idea what you're trying to tell me.I just want to address something here - now you state those figures for Penn and GCT - thats a combined 500,000 + 600,000 weekday passing (which as you states excludes tourist and visitors and excludes also through traffic?) through which is 1.1mn per day or some 400mppa per year..........which sounds odd considering that as they are both mainline rail termini....they don't handle some 400mn in commuter rail......

MTA Long Island Railroad - 346,900 average weekday ridership
MTA Metro-North Railroad - 257,300 average weekday ridership

Total yearly ridership - 220,684,050

Now Amtrak ridership is some 8mn into Penn and the only way both stations would be able to get to the 400mn figure is through: ALL passengers (terminating, connecting, passing through (ie included subway passengers if they are changing lines, getting on/off or just passing through)), be them tourists, businessmen, kids, and most likely those who live/work/shop in the stations :)

Source:
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridershp/riderep/documents/03q4cr.pdf


Don't get me wrong - I love New York because it uses rail extensively and I'm happy with that :)


And I don't have a clue if they have a hospital....but most have first aid posts, some have a clinic and most probably have a pharmacy :)

Awesome Station!! I get depressed everytime I see pictures of this station and try to imagine what kind of bonehead decided to knock it down. I think the destruction of Penn Station is one of the biggest architectural travesties in American history.

Oh, BTW, Nick doesn't like it because it isn't in London. I'm tired of London being brought up in every single thread thats posted on this forum. London has great stations- but this thread is about NYC, not London.

I have a confession. I always thought the old Penn Station was much less interesting than GCT or DC's Union Station. I mean it was just a big lifeless tomb with no color or delicacy and none of the fanciful decor of GCT. Not that the new one is better--it ain't--but I just don't think that Penn Station was the masterpiece everyone said it was.

Yes, the totals for GCT I gave you include everyone that passes through the station. Disregard my tourist comments, etc, please. But, for Penn station, those figures are just for the passengers that walk through the terminal, not including tourists and other people. The numbers for Penn if everyone was including would be obviously very large.


And Flatiron, sadly, since Pennsylvania station was destroyed in 63, not many colour photographs are available to show the brilliant glory of the colours that graced the station. Take it from me, my father worked as a railroad engineer outside the station for Pennsylvania Railroad and I spent many hours inside. It was 10 fold better than GCT.

Beautiful. The most stunning train station the world has ever seen.

the grandest station for the greatest city on earth!

its design is everything what a great train station should have: historical architecture, skylights, wide open mezzaine, etc... even the grand central terminal can't compare to it (even if we get rid of metlife and other buildings that tower over it).

its replacement is the biggest architectual disaster ever afflicted on nyc until the corrupt rebuilding plan for ground zero surfaced.

I'm old enough to have actually walked through Penn Station before it was destroyed. The main problem back in the early 1960's was that the Pennsylvania RR Company did not have the money to renovate the station, and they had let it slip into disrepair. A lot of the beauty of the station was hiding behind the grime that had coated everything over the years. If Penn Station existed today, the money to repair it would have been raised. But back then the money the Penn RR Co made on the sale was needed to keep the company solvent. A real Shame.
By the way, has anyone been to Leipzig to see the train station there? When I saw it I was told it was the largest station in Europe in size.

There are several reasons the tracks were placed below ground level.

1). It was easier to create a tunnel underneath existing buildings than to level them and displace residents and businesses so that tracks could be laid on the ground level. You have to keep in mind that Penn Station had two different rail lines coming from each direction. Manhattan at that time was already built up with sizeable structures. To have had ground level train sheds would have meant tearing down hundreds of office and residential buildings from the Hudson to the East rivers. Manhattan real estate was too valuable in that part of town to lose it to surface-level rail.

2. It would have also required building either: tunnels for the avenues to go under the tracks, or bridges to go over them. The avenues couldn't have crossed the tracks at ground level because there were too many trains going back and forth day and night, and it would have disrupted traffic.

3. Some of the subways were already underground, and plans were made to tear down the elevated tracks above city streets and put those underground as well. Many working people disembarked from commuter trains from Long Island and New Jersey and then transferred to underground subways, and did the opposite at the end of the day--subways to commuter trains. Why make them walk up and down stairs to make the transfers, when they might just walk across a platform on the same level? The majority of commuters transferred to underground subways when they left the trains to go to other parts of Manhattan. When the station was built, most office workers took the subway downtown to their jobs in and around the Wall St. area. A much smaller number of travelers had to climb up the stairs at Penn Station after leaving the commuter trains.

4. Trains going back and forth over the city's avenues created a lot of noise. Most adjacent buildings had no sort of cooling systems at that time, so they had their windows open in summer. New York City was a very noisy city already. Putting the trains in tunnels under the streets cut down on a lot of unnecessary noise. Horse-drawn trucks and wagons were still in use when Penn Station was built. Loud trains also scare horses when they pass by. A train crossing city streets on the surface would pass within close proximity to hundreds of horse-drawn vehicles. Loud trains would also disturb lots of sleeping people at night in one of the densest parts of the city. That is why the elevated tracks were taken down.

5. There were too many dangerous situations that could arise from surface-level tracks in such a busy part of the city.

6. Digging the tunnels also provided the city will much fill-dirt and rock to create landfill along the shores of the Hudson and East rivers. Just like when the World Trade Center was excavated, and the fill-dirt and rock were used to create the additional ground in the Hudson River for what is now Battery Park City. A lot of coves and valleys were filled with that dirt and new real estate was created. There are sizeable pieces of Manhattan that exist entirely on landfill.

7. Finally, Penn Station was tremendous in size. It would have been very hard to heat in the winter, and cooling was not available at that time on a large-scale. Placing part of the train station underground provided a type of insulation from blowing winds and moderated temperatures inside the station.

It was better all the way around to have the trains underground.

a beautiful Station! its stood where now MSGarden stands right?

a beautiful Station! its stood where now MSGarden stands right?

unfortunately...

9.5/10

just great

For the old Penn Station, it's a 10 -- there's no other option. Further, I think the death of rail travel in the US is one of the worst tragedies to ever strike this nation. I personally don't even know how to "use" a train, how to board, where to go in a station, etc.

9/10

From the tracks:

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_releases/2001pressreleases/PennsylvaniaStation.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/PENN.jpg

http://hanser.ceat.okstate.edu/6083/American%20Architecture/McKim_Mead__White__New_York_Pennsylvania_Station_1907E9.jpg

http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/Cities/imgb/imgb3/152c.jpg

Waiting Room:

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t028/T028222A.jpg

http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/Cities/imgb/imgb3/152d.jpg

I never got to see it but gawd it was gorgeous.

http://www.lileks.com/postcards/ny/pennint.jpg

http://pdxhistory.com.tripod.com/ny1/ny2/pennsystationin2.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/post_interior.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/28PENN.postcardxl.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON004-Penn.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn1.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn6.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn2.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn9.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn7.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn10.jpg

http://www.arch.tu-dresden.de/ibad/Baugeschichte/bilder/new%20york/pennsylvania%20station%20halle.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn11.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn4.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn5.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn3.jpg

http://www.gono.com/adart/historicalpics/190817.jpg

http://www.hackelbury.co.uk/images/artists/abbott/PennsylvaniaStationIn_bg.jpg

http://webcircle.com/users/cobrandt/pennsta.jpg

In my opinion, the greatest building ever to have been built in New York City. Masterpiece.

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/26penn.large.jpg

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/gon-penn1.jpg

http://www.howardfrank.com/Photographs/StreetLife/TicketCounter.jpg

its magnific :) a great job of stone and iron 10/10

This station rules!! how does it look nowadays??

10/10
the best old station ever

one of the greatest stations 10

If anyone is curious on the rebuilding of this station visit here:

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=153483

sad man, sad; i could sorta see giving it a 7 for...sorta imitation architecture, but that's far-fetched stupidity. anything below that's lame reverse-boosterism.

10. there's a series of depressing photos taken during the demolition.

-

8.5/10

Nick Taylor, not to stir up more disagreement, but even your own "British Architectural Review" declared Pennsylvania Station, "Monumental," and even said that "Nothing in Great Britain can compare".

Read here (http://www.subjectverb.com/www/writing/thesis.pdf ): -Page 13

Some pics of new Penn Station:

Penn Station was razed for Madison Square Garden:
http://www.brics.dk/~barnie/Photos42/Photos42-Images/33.jpg

The new station is underneath MSG.

Main Enterance:
http://tinypic.com/21zw92
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/asohn2/septoct2004269.jpg

Main Terminal waiting area (NJTransit and Amtrak):
http://tinypic.com/21zvr4

http://tinypic.com/21zvqh

http://www31.ocn.ne.jp/~nhajime/dillon/station2.jpg

http://www31.ocn.ne.jp/~nhajime/dillon/station1.jpg

http://tinypic.com/2201aa

Long Island Railroad Terminal:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/asohn2/septoct2004273.jpg

http://tinypic.com/21zvw3

Nick Taylor, not to stir up more disagreement, but even your own "British Architectural Review" declared Pennsylvania Station, "Monumental," and even said that "Nothing in Great Britain can compare".

http://www.subjectverb.com/www/writing/thesis.pdf -Page 13Goes both ways - Gourmet Magazine which is a US publication and the leading food publication in the US, for their March 2005 issue produced a whole publication (ie every 180 pages) devoted to the food capital of the world: London. No other city has ever had such a devotion.

"Editors of the "food bible" said they were "blown away" by London's food. "The glory days are back," said one.

The magazine devotes its entire 180-page March issue to London dining. It was the first time that Gourmet, which has a worldwide circulation of more than a million, had been dedicated to Britain - and the first time that one city had been declared better than all the others, the editors said.

The verdict confirms London's pre-eminence among the world's centres of culinary excellence after decades of struggling to shake off a reputation for stodgy, unimaginative food."


I like Penn, but it is not the original way of how a terminus should be - it should be full-on train shed along the entire length of the platforms, eg in London: Paddington, Marylebone, St Pancras, Kings Cross, Liverpool Street, London Bridge, Waterloo and Victoria. Like the money was spent on the main waiting area, but neglected the actual platforms, eg Grand Central. Saying that, it should not have been demolished (same goes for London Euston in London and the unfortunate problem that befell Cannon St when the Luftwaffe gutted it completely during WW2). The current station is utterly shocking, resembling one of the Tokyo stations and a rat race to get from the entrance to platforms.

I like Penn, but it is not the original way of how a terminus should be - it should be full-on train shed along the entire length of the platforms, eg in London: Paddington, Marylebone, St Pancras, Kings Cross, Liverpool Street, London Bridge, Waterloo and Victoria. Like the money was spent on the main waiting area, but neglected the actual platforms, eg Grand Central. Saying that, it should not have been demolished (same goes for London Euston in London and the unfortunate problem that befell Cannon St when the Luftwaffe gutted it completely during WW2).

Personally, i perfer the Penn and Grand Central aproach over the train-shed approach. Also, keep in mind that in Manhattan it was impossible to build that type of station, as the tracks couldn't run on the island, and had to run underground. The tracks have to be underground, so a shed approach would have been impossible.

The current station is utterly shocking, resembling one of the Tokyo stations and a rat race to get from the entrance tom platforms.

Hey, at least we agree on something!

The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that Penn Station was ugly as fuck.

A dreary, pretentious, badly integrated example of Beaux Arts planning at its superficial worst and in New York's ugliest neighborhood to boot.

Thank God it was taken down. I'VE SAID IT! I FEEL FREE! GOOD RIDDANCE TO THAT UGLY FUCKING TOMB OF HIDIEOUSNESS!!!!

Grand Central is infinitely better.

Personally, i perfer the Penn and Grand Central aproach over the train-shed approach. Also, keep in mind that in Manhattan it was impossible to build that type of station, as the tracks couldn't run on the island, and had to run underground. The tracks have to be underground, so a shed approach would have been impossible.Actually quite a few of London's termini go into tunnels as soon as they leave the station shed. However take present day Penn - its located inbetween 7th + 8th by W31st +W33rd yes? Now between 8th and 12th, it would be impossible to have tunnels that would gradually go under the Hudson a feet deeper than what was already there in what is maybe 1mile between the end of Manhattan and into Penn?

Then again its not like it would be impossible to have a total airy platform space - remove the partitions that hide the platforms, sheds go the full length, they don't just stop after a few platforms and that is why the old Penn looks stunted. Also how comes when people talk about GC, they neglect to show the actual platforms! Its because their horrific! Termini submerged underground in a sort of trogolytic complex are scary things.

To be honest though, they should re-build the old Penn - spend less money on the waiting hall, and put it on expanding the roof shed to ensure the entire platforms are drenched in light. I have similar hopes for London Euston.

However, talking about the new Penn, aren't they going to be building over it again with possibly up to 2 large towers?

Actually quite a few of London's termini go into tunnels as soon as they leave the station shed. However take present day Penn - its located inbetween 7th + 8th by W31st +W33rd yes? Now between 8th and 12th, it would be impossible to have tunnels that would gradually go under the Hudson a feet deeper than what was already there in what is maybe 1mile between the end of Manhattan and into Penn?

Then again its not like it would be impossible to have a total airy platform space - remove the partitions that hide the platforms, sheds go the full length, they don't just stop after a few platforms and that is why the old Penn looks stunted. Also how comes when people talk about GC, they neglect to show the actual platforms! Its because their horrific! Termini submerged underground in a sort of trogolytic complex are scary things.

To be honest though, they should re-build the old Penn - spend less money on the waiting hall, and put it on expanding the roof shed to ensure the entire platforms are drenched in light. I have similar hopes for London Euston.

you sure did your research, and you definately have valid points, but its much easier to submerge the tracks, and not have an open shed structure.

However, talking about the new Penn, aren't they going to be building over it again with possibly up to 2 large towers?

What do you mean exactly. And what do you mean by the "new" Penn?

you sure did your research, and you definately have valid points, but its much easier to submerge the tracks, and not have an open shed structure.

What do you mean exactly. And what do you mean by the "new" Penn?No what I mean is, is that it doesn't matter if the tracks are submerged, in a trench, on-surface, you can still have an open shed above the entire platforms. London Liverpool Street as an example has platforms 1-10 under the main roof with another 8 platforms in a Penn/GC style underground look - but more airy and actually painted white and lighted. So under natural light and at the end of the platforms, the lines immediately go into a tunnel.

I ain't going to pollute the thread by posting pictures, but this is what I am talking about: http://img132.exs.cx/img132/6774/0143ck.jpg - note the vast open train shed and then the ending with the tracks entering a tunnel. If Penn and GC actually had this with their waiting areas, then they would have been the greatest around, but this is not the case and the platforms are unfortunately neglected. Good for the tourists who visit the Concourse, but for the daily commuter the look of a troglodytic sub-city is not warm to my heart.

I thought the new Penn would be built in the Farley Building next to MSG with like the option with one or maybe two towers dominating over the station.

How could this station be placed 194th?

Open train sheds are for wankers who enjoy sweating their balls off in a steam bath of pollution. Penn Station had an open train shed and it looked like cock as far as I'm concerned.

10!!!

10/10

magnificient build, im feeling that this station was destroyed :cry:

http://www.powwmedia.com/pennsy/images/mainwait.jpg

:master:

10/10

Open train sheds are for wankers who enjoy sweating their balls off in a steam bath of pollution. Penn Station had an open train shed and it looked like cock as far as I'm concerned.I assume you gave the old Penn a low mark then? It did afterall have a half-attempt of a trainshed.

Well, it was a train shed. What do you mean half attempt?

9/10

Fantastic! She climbed to 187th! (Not very much, but still climbing!)

I don't know why I feel so attached to the placement of this station on the list. Maybe it is because I saw the station in all of its entirety and beauty, and know it should be at least in the top 20.

Well, it was a train shed. What do you mean half attempt?The platforms weren't totally under the roof shed but semi-uncovered due to the concourse level above (you can see this in some of the pictures which I have sourced below) where the stairs lead down to the platforms from the train shed concourse area. Reality is that the train shead covered the concourse more than the platforms and trains themselves. Also the train shed itself is okay - nothing really special or grand compared to dozens of other stations where the roof is more elegant, but also the supports that hold the roof up lack the detail, grace and humanity that can be viewed at many European termini where train sheds are apparent. When I talk about train stations - they are train stations where the trains can actually be viewed, not tucked away under various apparatus like some sort of freaks.

You get the idea from the following two pics
http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH162293.jpg?size=67&uid={a5dbbd24-331d-477a-9f9c-9502e0ebf9fe}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH172901.jpg?size=67&uid={ac05d1db-015c-47f5-b007-10fc3df40296}


Technically this thread should also be called the 'Old Pennsylvania Station' as there is a new one that doesn't look anything like this current Pennsylvania Station. I do think though, had there been a choice between keeping GC or this - I would have chosen Penn as at least it makes an attempt at a train station and not some over glorified hall with the other half of the station resembling troglodytic rabbit holes.

I think it deserves a top 50 ranking, but no more as there are quite a few nicer looking and still-existing stations.

10!

The platforms weren't totally under the roof shed but semi-uncovered due to the concourse level above (you can see this in some of the pictures which I have sourced below) where the stairs lead down to the platforms from the train shed concourse area. Reality is that the train shead covered the concourse more than the platforms and trains themselves. Also the train shed itself is okay - nothing really special or grand compared to dozens of other stations where the roof is more elegant, but also the supports that hold the roof up lack the detail, grace and humanity that can be viewed at many European termini where train sheds are apparent. When I talk about train stations - they are train stations where the trains can actually be viewed, not tucked away under various apparatus like some sort of freaks.

You get the idea from the following two pics
http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH162293.jpg?size=67&uid={a5dbbd24-331d-477a-9f9c-9502e0ebf9fe}
http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH172901.jpg?size=67&uid={ac05d1db-015c-47f5-b007-10fc3df40296}


Technically this thread should also be called the 'Old Pennsylvania Station' as there is a new one that doesn't look anything like this current Pennsylvania Station. I do think though, had there been a choice between keeping GC or this - I would have chosen Penn as at least it makes an attempt at a train station and not some over glorified hall with the other half of the station resembling troglodytic rabbit holes.

I think it deserves a top 50 ranking, but no more as there are quite a few nicer looking and still-existing stations.


What are you talking about? You state your opinions as if they are fact, and I if I may add, are ridiculous. Well Nick, I must disagree with you on the station's concourse being "nothing special," becuase if that is nothing special, you must be impossible to please. Or do you just like degrading this station in better hopes of making London's look better? I also certainly must disagree with your equally absurd statement that the concourse glass lacks grace, beauty, or detail compared to other stations or terminuses. The intricate iron work is as delicate and graceful as a spiderweb, and it elegantly plays and dances with the light. Penn Station is as good as it gets.

...but I will agree on one thing; I should have named this thread Old Pennsylvania Station. I hope no one knocked down points after seeing the piece of crap that is there today.

10/10

What are you talking about? You state your opinions as if they are fact, and I if I may add, are ridiculous. Well Nick, I must disagree with you on the station's concourse being "nothing special," becuase if that is nothing special, you must be impossible to please. Or do you just like degrading this station in better hopes of making London's look better? I also certainly must disagree with your equally absurd statement that the concourse glass lacks grace, beauty, or detail compared to other stations or terminuses. The intricate iron work is as delicate and graceful as a spiderweb, and it elegantly plays and dances with the light. Penn Station is as good as it gets.

...but I will agree on one thing; I should have named this thread Old Pennsylvania Station. I hope no one knocked down points after seeing the piece of crap that is there today.Why would I need to degrade it? The authorities saw to that and people have voted here to how they wish! My points are valid and as a functional building it fails to highlight that it is a station.

I won't go into detail because the issue here is about Penn, but there are countless termini, even smaller termini that have more definitive and detailed iron/steel work in German cities, UK cities, Italian cities, etc... In most of those stations the metal work isn't just a collection of pre-fabricated bog-standard peices of metal slapped together like those visible in Penn. That isn't art - having iron work that flows towards the arches shaped either in other forms, flowers, etc, now THAT is art. Now I'm sorry if it hurts deep that New York lost its better terminus, but there are many problems with it that I just can't put myself forward to go all the way in awarding it higher marks. Especially not when countless other cities in the world including London HAVE better stations than what Penn was. Its like saying something is better than something else when its blander and has only one shining show of brilliance (the waiting room). Also if it was 'as good as it gets', the platforms wouldn't have been visible instead of tucked away in the basement of the station and surrounding streets. The iron work would have been more detailed and there would have been a train shed. The fact that your making excuses for something that was a half attempt and your accusing me of somehow playing some sort of game to improve London's chances (I think creating multiple accounts might be a tad easier than trying to sway people, something that I haven't and have no plans to do). Also its not like the platforms were all under some train roof, they were underground, tucked away.


Penn is good as a building, not as a station which is why it fails to get top marks.

I don't know why it is so hard so to understand that this station made the best out of its situation, Nick. You flabbergast me with your ridiculous statements. I would try to have this debate with you once again, but talking with you is a lot like talking to a republican over here. You just disregard and toss out the truth. So, I will pass.

Dear lord, I've explained myself to the fact that it didn't make the best of its situation because it built above most of the platforms and missed out onthe grandeur detail of the train roof. Only the main hall is the saving grace.

Dear lord, I've explained myself to the fact that it didn't make the best of its situation because it built above most of the platforms and missed out onthe grandeur detail of the train roof. Only the main hall is the saving grace.


Dear Lord, Yes. Your assessment is just ludacris.

Everything you have said I have proven wrong, but you keep on trucking with your nonsense.

Yes nonsense, the fact that it skips on details on one half of the station and hides the platforms as if they were something to be hidden :|

:) Typical. As expected from you, Nick. Congratulations, you've lived up to your name.

:) Typical. As expected from you, Nick. Congratulations, you've lived up to your name.ie stating the obvious here.

Wow, down to 151! Keep voting people!

This was the most beautiful station in the US...10/10
Also give a 10/10 to the greed and stupidity of those who commissioned its destruction.

Impressive little photo I found:

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/ny/35a.jpg

http://pro.corbis.com/images/VV11737.jpg?size=67&uid={1784b630-b3ff-463f-8cf3-5d10a131ae53}

http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH102436.jpg?size=67&uid={a0a16879-eda4-4ff3-bf6b-adf8ad122d70}

10/10

9/10
Nice building and it has a special atmosphere inside

It was cliched shit.

Glad it's gone, really.

"Now I'm sorry if it hurts deep that New York lost its better terminus"

Oddly enough, it didn't.

What's with this fascination with sweating your balls off in a train shed? Masochist, or do you have deep pores? Should we tell Nick about this thing called a "sauna?" Or explain to him that New York in summer is actually hot, because the sun shines?

impresive building..great lights, shadows and overwhelming space..

10

It's really cool 9/10

Beautiful and realy big.
8.5/10.

9.5/10

9.5/10

8/10 for the exterior, but 12/10 for the interior, so that makes 10/10!
No doubt about that.
Did the barbarians realy destroyed this beauty? It's a shame!
In the eighties there were plans to demolish the great Antwerp Central Station too.(in Belgium, the station is also somewhere in this poll). But now they are renovating and modernising it. It's worth a visit, when you are in Europe!

9/10.

8/10

9.5/10

10/10

8.5/10

10/10

9/10

If you like this you will love the station in Washington, just a block from the US Capital

8/10

10/10 :cheers:

9.5/10

10/10

Bump

8/10

10/10

Arguably the greatest Architectual loss of America.

10/10

10/10

10/10

10/10

9/10. That`s how a station should be. Great building!

10/10

10/10

9 / 10

10. Excellent. Regards.

AWESOME
PERFECTION
_>10/10<_

monumental 9/10

8/10

Penn Station was patterned after the Baths of Caracella in Rome, and probably as large. The trains were at a level for the people who worked in the office towers and lived in the huge apartment houses of Manhattan to go between their buildings and board an Ocean Liner on the Hudson River without ever having to deal with inclement weather. I know I am a few years late in this discussion. Just wanted to clear up and add a few facts. Thank you, very much!

10/10

^^^^^^ Seems I have a stalker. LOL :cheers:

8/10. I love the inside.

9/10

10/10

10/10

9/10