http://www.christilton.com/graphics/newyork12big.jpg

http://arch.ou.edu/arch/2423/Chapter%2026/Grand%20Central%20Station.jpg

http://home.istar.ca/~khiebert/grand-central-ceiling.jpg

http://images.art.com/images/products/large/10114000/10114675.jpg

http://img232.echo.cx/img232/6930/grand20central20station20vogel.jpg

http://www.shutterfreaks.com/albums2/album20/Grand_Central_2.jpg

http://www.budowle.pl/budowle/grafika/ameryka_polnocna/grand_central_terminal_2.jpg

http://www.cnewyork.net/Images/NYC%20-%20Grand%20Central%20-%202ok.jpg

http://pirate.shu.edu/~sahineme/photogallery/Grand%20Central%201.jpg

http://www.noahkalina.com/interiors/archives/images/20040926/20040825%20OysterBar.jpg

http://www.liberty-stone.com/Images/archview.jpg

http://www.janeandrichard.co.uk/travel/ny2004/img/regular196_9650.jpg

http://www.janeandrichard.co.uk/travel/ny2004/img/regular196_9647.jpg

http://www.janeandrichard.co.uk/travel/ny2004/img/regular196_9643.jpg

http://www.darkworldbynight.com/rooms/9012/images/nybn_grand-central-station.jpg

Located on 42nd Street between Lexington and Vanderbilt Avenues in
Manhattan, New York, New York, is one of the world's most famous, and busiest train station. Serving approximately 500,000 people every day who use the commuter trains to get to surrounding areas, or one of the NYC subway lines that connect here.

You will be awed by the grandeur of the Main Concourse, with its majestic staircase and vaulted ceiling, which has been recently restored so the constellations of the zodiac (painted gold) almost twinkle against the blue background. This cleaning was part of a two-year, $175 million restoration of Grand Central station.

You will love the impressive Beaux-Arts exterior view of the clock and the Minerva, Mercury and Hercules statues, seen on the south side of the station as you travel north on Park Avenue. This view is especially beautiful at night.

While you are at Grand Central, make a stop at the famous Oyster Bar or simply find a corner from which to enjoy one of the musicians that is invariably playing in the Concourse or to watch the crowds hurry by in an afternoon rush hour. Grand Central is a must visit.

http://www.janeandrichard.co.uk/travel/ny2004/img/regular196_9640_r1_adjustedjpg.jpg

8.5 It would be higher except I actually saw Penn Station in person, and it seemed more Grand than Grand Central Station. Plus, that darn Met Life building ruined the views up and down Park Avenue.

Yes, but we are not rating the Metlife or comparing it to Penn Station...We are rating Grand Central.

Tazmaniadevil, what year were you born?

from the zodiac constellations painted on the ceiling to the large arched windows....Grand Central is completely mesmerizing.
And its located in one my favorite places in the city! a definite 10

I don't see how anyone could give it less than 11. Trully and amazing place. BTW, tazmanian, I love the Metlife Building.

10/10 for the building itself, but 4/10 for its urban context in NY

10/10

One of the best railway stations around the world.

10, if for no other reason than the grand clock. However, the building itself shows how to perfectly meld light and the substance of a building.

As an aside, the architect of this building, Rafael Guastavino, is buried in a church, the Basilica of St. Lawrence, in the city where I live. The basilica was his last project.

8/10

It's really hugh 9/10

10/10

a great work

10/10

In terms of Grandeur, Craftsmanship, engineering. You cant possibly produce better than this one.

ten and 1/2 !!! :)

20 points after the re novation!!

I love it. 9/10.

8.5/10

9.5/10

10/10

My main jist is with the actual platforms which are a stain on the otherwise grand and outstanding concourse and the associated corridors. Hence when ever people talk about GC they will only show the concourse, but not the actual train platforms. Its like they spent all the money on the above ground sections, but totally neglected the actual platform areas where most people coming into GC from the commuter rail lines actually 'spend their time'.


http://www.subwaynut.com/mnr/gct/gct4.jpg

http://www.subwaynut.com/mnr/gct/gct6.jpg

http://www.subwaynut.com/mnr/gct/gct7.jpg

http://www.subwaynut.com/mnr/gct/gct1.jpg


The platforms aren't third world, but its very trogloditical from what is above. This could have been intentional, as to give the illusion that you commute in from the darkness (the sub-world) into a light and holy New York, then commuting at the end of the day back into the void aftermath! I give it a6.5. That might sound harsh, but if the platforms were radically over-hauled to be more airy, volumous and absorbing rather than some black dingy, un-welcoming void then it would have got higher points. It would have received 10 had there been far less platforms and an actual train shed to allow actual sunlight to reach the platforms.

9.5/10 from me!

8/10.

love it!
8.0

7/10

The underground train shed allowed the New York Central Building to be built and Park Avenue north of the station to be laid out.

I prefer that to a big glass shed full of trains, thanks.

9/10

very nice, 8.5/10

The underground train shed allowed the New York Central Building to be built and Park Avenue north of the station to be laid out.

I prefer that to a big glass shed full of trains, thanks.That is not an underground train shed, that is a station with platforms below ground level. The whole idea of a train shed is to have a vast cavenous space similar to the Concourse of GC. I think only an idiot would want a station where the platforms look like dark dingy alleys and the complete opposite of the main structure above ground!

^The main station floor is on the same level as the top tracks (it's a two level track system) and below, the tracks are immediately adjacent to the vault-arched arcade.

The entire station exists below-grade (except for entrances ramped/staired down) and the monumental spaces lead directly to the platforms on the same planes.

Light filled sheds were rejected in lieu of built density above- a novel solution to a central station on a dense island.

And how much time does one spend on the platform vs. the grand spaces filled with waiting areas and retail? Very little. It's different from Euro sheds, but certainly not a 6.5.

The wide, medianed, monumental Park Avenue north of the station is made possible by this configuration.

^The main station floor is on the same level as the top tracks (it's a two level track system) and below, the tracks are immediately adjacent to the vault-arched arcade.

The entire station exists below-grade (except for entrances ramped/staired down) and the monumental spaces lead directly to the platforms on the same planes.

Light filled sheds were rejected in lieu of built density above- a novel solution to a central station on a dense island.

And how much time does one spend on the platform vs. the grand spaces filled with waiting areas and retail? Very little. It's different from Euro sheds, but certainly not a 6.5.

The wide, medianed, monumental Park Avenue north of the station is made possible by this configuration.Actually a shed could have been viable, it would have taken up a bit more space, but the tracks would still be able to enter tunnels at the end (eg London Liverpool Street) of the shed and the atmosphere overall would have been better and offered a better all-round package. If it had, it would most likely rival the likes of London St Pancras and the Victoria Terminus in Mumbai for one of the most beautiful stations around.

Regarding the amount of time spent on either the platform or the concourse, this would depend on exactly what train your on. If your a daily commuter, you will know when your train goes and will time yourself to arrive at the platform from work when you need to, thus the most amounf of time would be spent on the platforms. If your an individual who wants to get there early, like a traveller then the concourse would be where you spend most of your time. It all varies and the majority of people using the station are daily commuters would most likely get on and off their train and in and out of the station as fast as possible rather than lull about. The platforms though are a part of GCT and drag down its score, it is quite literally two extremes within the same station.

I look at it like this; Michelangelo made David to be perfect....he took every detail to be as perfect as perfect could be. He didn't leave out the legs in a block of marble and only finish the torso and head - he finished it all to perfection. With GCT, you have a magnificant concourse, but half arsed designed, decrepid and shoddy platforms.

The main problem I believe is that there are just far too many platforms, and when you look at GCT which handles around 70mppa (of non-subway traffic) and then compare that to London Waterloo which handles around 70mppa (of non-London Underground traffic) you notice one thing. Waterloo has an airy atmosphere throughout the station from the concourse through to the tracks with far fewer platforms but for the same amount of traffic (67 tracks to 19 track).


It would have got a 10 had it actually been built with respectable non-troglodytical platforms. The cruel irony to this story is that to the north (above the Metro-North Railroad lines heading north out of Manhattan) lies the horrific Met-Life (former Pan-Am) Building. Now ask yourself - would you have wanted a vaulted train shed that would have made GCT a complete station or troglodytical platforms and the Met Life above where such a train shed could have been built!

The New York Central Building is what's north of Grand Central--built by Warren & Wetmore as a compliment to the terminal in the same Beaux Arts style. The Pan Am was a later addition between the two older buildings. And I happen to like the Pan Am Building.

The Terminal is what is it is. Disliking it for your reason seems a bit stupid--like hating St. Pancras for not having a splendid seafood restaurant like the Oyster Bar or a magnificent cocktail lounge like the Campbell Apartment or a ball-room sized newstand like the Vanderbilt Room or any one of a number of other integral places where one can better spend one's time then standing around on a train platform checking one's watch.

The New York Central Building is what's north of Grand Central--built by Warren & Wetmore as a compliment to the terminal in the same Beaux Arts style. The Pan Am was a later addition between the two older buildings. And I happen to like the Pan Am Building.

The Terminal is what is it is. Disliking it for your reason seems a bit stupid--like hating St. Pancras for not having a splendid seafood restaurant like the Oyster Bar or a magnificent cocktail lounge like the Campbell Apartment or a ball-room sized newstand like the Vanderbilt Room or any one of a number of other integral places where one can better spend one's time then standing around on a train platform checking one's watch.Each to their own about the Pan Am, but its one of the most horrific buildings around. Made worse by the fact that its so large and that is make a statement on the NYC skyline, it looks more like a tombstone looking down upon GCT. Perhaps the platforms are meant to represent the hole where the coffin goes into :laugh:

I don't see the need to attack St Pancras here, as this thread is about GCT, but I must defend London St Pancras if people start slurring it for no reason! There is no Oyster Bar, but then there is the Midland Grand Hotel that adorns the front of the station with its impecible neo-gothic staircases, arched corridors and vaulted hotel roooms (currently being renovated for the completion of the CTRL) and easily makes up for lacking some of the delicacies in GCT. Then again every aspect, the waiting areas, the other amenities held within its structure and of course its platforms are full of light, volumous within the Grand Barlow train shed.

Now this is the difference between GCT and London St Pancras, as the latter incorporates an all-round package that doesn't skim on any of the details....GCT on the other hand is ruined by the platforms which are scars on what is a lovely oil painting.

I'm sorry, but there is no way that I could give it higher marks when the main function of the station as a transportation node is littered with cave-like holes in the ground that goes against everything the Concourse is about. Its something tourists rarely see (if I hadn't seen it myself, I wouldn't know either and wouldn't be talking about it) and if they did they would probably wonder what on earth happened and question whether they had gone to Ground Zero. This problem is not just contained to Grand Central though, as the main problem I have had from my travels with most non-European termini stations is that they have one excellent half of a station, only to be contradicted by the other half of the station which resembles dog turd. I stick by my 6.5 vote - its valid if you know very well the platforms or GCT yourself.

Who's attacking St. Pancras? I'm pointing out that GCT does in fact possess certain civilized attributes that the British station does not. You like fancy platforms, I like 36 varieties of oysters served in a vaulted salon.

And as I said, the lack of the shed made the New York Central Building possible. Nice trade-off as far as the skyline goes.

But the thing with St pancras is that it could develop an oyster bar or have a Michelin starred restaurant. But i agree with Nick in that the platforms are the worst part, and changing them is virtually impossible compared to the development of an oyster bar, fashion stores or whatever you want which could be attained at St pancras

"But the thing with St pancras is that it could develop an oyster bar."

Not unless you've hit on some way to bring Raphael Gustavino back from the dead.

Who's attacking St. Pancras? I'm pointing out that GCT does in fact possess certain civilized attributes that the British station does not. You like fancy platforms, I like 36 varieties of oysters served in a vaulted salon.

And as I said, the lack of the shed made the New York Central Building possible. Nice trade-off as far as the skyline goes.elliott summed it up pretty much in that little restaurants can easily be developed, while a train shed that doesn't feel like a prehistoric cave network is far more problematic to build. On the London St Pancras front, I am unsure of the new tenants in the expanded station (Eurostar will terminate here in 2008 from the rest of Europe - 2hrs to Brussels and 2hrs15mins to Paris), but I do expect some high-end units to develop.

Also we are talking about GCT and not the NYCB...so my vote still stands!

Er--the New York Central Building was developed as PART of Grand Central. It was the original headquarters for what is now the metropolitan transit center, among others.

And I think it's a tad more impressive than a train shed would be on the same site.

And for that building, you want every commuter that commutes into New York and out again to be welcomed each weekday by this....yet somehow I should increase my vote even though the platforms where the actual trains in this TRAIN TERMINUS are, are beyond repulsive - they're a joke:

http://www.ruemmel.de/international/NY/NYC%20Grand%20Central%20Station%20Bahnsteige%20(2).JPG


Just looking at that picture makes me question why so many voted it so highly when one half of the station resembles a drained sewer. At least it aint as bad as Penn which is busier and even more messed up!

I actually like the grimness of the platforms--a bit of subterreanian Pirinesian gloom is good for the soul.

You want train shed tra-la-la go to St. Louis. Mind, once you leave the station, you're in St. Louis.

I actually like the grimness of the platforms--a bit of subterreanian Pirinesian gloom is good for the soul.

You want train shed tra-la-la go to St. Louis. Mind, once you leave the station, you're in St. Louis.So how can you like the horrific platforms, but also at the same time adore the concourse? I'm sorry but it just doesn't deserve anything higher than a 6.5 when you look at the entire station.

Somehow I doubt your a commuter on the MNR and thus really wouldn't care what its like for the tens of thousands that actually use the station on a daily basis (maybe you didn't even know about the platforms till I posted). I honestly can't see how leaving and entering Grand Central via a dark cave network!

I commute into GCT on a daily basis.

I know the whole building and the neighborhood around it better than you do your left hand.

Don't patronize me, thanks.

No problem for sounding patronising, but its very odd for someone to want or like such grime (I assume you also have a liking for ghettos also?). You would expect to find something like the platforms of GCT in Lagos, not in New York City.

it was a bit shocking when i learned that a tower was planned for the site, never finished, then planned again in the 70s when Penn Central was having financial problems; the 1978 case of Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York thankfully stopped them from ruining this building.

here's an article on it:

June 26, 2003

25 Years Ago, Landmarks Law Stopped a Skyscraper

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

NEW YORK CITY'S landmarks law took effect in 1965 but gained its real power 25 years ago today.

That was when the United States Supreme Court ruled, 6 to 3, that the city had the constitutional authority to regulate landmarks even when it meant — as it did at Grand Central Terminal — that an owner was prevented from developing its property as allowed by zoning, thereby suffering a financial loss to create a public benefit.

"This was the first time that the High Court had ratified landmarks as an exercise of the police power analogous to zoning," said Leonard J. Koerner, now the chief assistant corporation counsel, who argued the city's case.

Without the power upheld by the decision in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, "thousands of historic buildings that stamp a place as special would be gone," said Jerold S. Kayden, an associate professor at Harvard, who is writing a book on the subject. "Acres of crucial wetlands would be filled. Coastlines and lakefronts would be over-developed."

And the sunlight that so brightened the terminal concourse yesterday would have been blocked.

What is striking is not that a quarter century has passed since the Penn Central decision, but that the constitutionality of the landmarks law was under a serious cloud so recently. Two of the dissenting justices, William H. Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens, still serve on the court.

And the current owner of the Grand Central air rights, Carl H. Lindner's American Financial Group, still has 1,264,364 square feet of unused development potential on its hands.

In 1968, Penn Central, which owned the terminal, struck a deal with the developer Morris Saady to build a skyscraper on top of the landmark and pay Penn Central at least $3 million a year.

That plan was rejected by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which said that "to balance a 55-story office tower above a flamboyant Beaux-Arts facade seems nothing more than an aesthetic joke."

Penn Central returned with plans for a 59-story tower that would have obliterated the south facade. The commission responded: "To protect a landmark, one does not tear it down. To perpetuate its architectural features, one does not strip them off."

To Penn Central, this amounted to a taking of property by the government without just compensation, which the Fifth Amendment forbids. Justice Rehnquist agreed.

"Penn Central is prevented from further developing its property basically because too good a job was done in designing and building it," he wrote. "The City of New York, because of its unadorned admiration for the design, has decided that the owners of the building must preserve it unchanged for the benefit of sightseeing New Yorkers and tourists."

"A multimillion dollar loss has been imposed," Justice Rehnquist wrote. "It is exactly this imposition of general costs on a few individuals at which the `taking' protection is directed."

The majority believed otherwise.

"It is, of course, true that the landmarks law has a more severe impact on some landowners than on others, but that in itself does not mean that the law effects a `taking,' " Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for himself and five other justices, all of whom are now dead. "Legislation designed to promote the general welfare commonly burdens some more than others."

Landmark designation permitted Penn Central "to use the property precisely as it has been used for the past 65 years: as a railroad terminal," he wrote.

AS for air rights — the development potential represented by the difference between the size of the existing terminal and the largest building that zoning would allow on the site — Justice Brennan said Penn Central's ability to use those rights had "not been abrogated," since they were made transferable.

Daniel M. Gribbon, senior counsel at Covington & Burling, who argued the case for Penn Central, said yesterday that the "decision opened new avenues on regulatory takings but didn't really resolve anything."

The rights are now owned by American Financial of Cincinnati, whose founder, chairman and principal shareholder, Mr. Lindner, is also chief executive of the Cincinnati Reds and former chairman of Chiquita Brands International.

Until the city created a special subdistrict in 1992 to expand the sites eligible to receive Grand Central air rights, only one new development had used them: the Altria building at 120 Park Avenue.

Since then, 285,866 square feet of air rights were transferred to the Bear Stearns building at 383 Madison Avenue; 67,679 square feet to the CIBC World Markets building at 300 Madison Avenue; and 19,582 square feet to 360 Madison Avenue. An application is pending to transfer 38,225 square feet to 340 Madison Avenue, said Edith Hsu-Chen of the City Planning Department's Manhattan office.

Based on recent sales, American Financial puts a value of about $50 million to $60 million on the unused air rights. But thinking about the compensation issue, Mr. Gribbon said, "That's not the same thing as cash."


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

what could've been:

original plan on the left, an i.m. pei plan from the 50s on the right (on a side note, it reminds me of the old freedom tower design)

http://www.thecityreview.com/byard3.gif

1968 plan

http://www.thecityreview.com/byard1.gif

-

And I am amazed that it's an issue.

Here's my reasoning:

If I am early for my train (which seldom happens) or if the train is delayed (which has happened once in the three years I've been commuting) I can indulge in a drink or gourmet nibble in any of half-a-dozen wonderful nooks in the station as I wait for my train--many of which are architecturally as impressive as the concourse itself (The Campbell Apartment is even more spectular than the Oyster Bar; the Wine Celler has a a Louis XV style ceiling; etc.) or I could wait on a train platform, staring at my watch. Do the math.

Otherwise, time I spend on a platform at GCT each day--approximately 1/2 minute.

And GCT's plethora of amenities are not something that could be stapled on any old building--they're part of the original architectural scheme. Yes, you could start a little restaurant in a station like St. Pancras, but they won't have the same integral, hidden, private quality.

Valid points, but I just don't believe such a structure deserves to get top marks when a large chunk of the structure is horrific looking. I wouldn't for example give St Pancras a high mark if the train shed was some tatty underground platform area. Maybe you could enlighten me as to why the platforms were left in that state? Was it because they used all the available funds on the concourses, but neglected in all but creating the basic platforms and laying of tracks.

Also details on who will fill the units at St Pancras is not known, but the hotel will be one of the most spectacular once its re-opened and I wouldn't be suprised if a wanna-be Michelin-stared restaurant doesn't start off in one of the vaulted neo-gothic rooms.


If they had built that 1968 building then GCT's score would have gone down even further!!!

Fair enough question--I don't know. It does seem a little strange, given that the client's directions to the architects were to "lay it on with a trowel."

The only thing that suggests itself is that Terminal City (which was the name for the devlopment as a whole) was built and rebuilt over a 25-year period and as such was not finished at the time of the Depression of 1929. Possibly this caused them to leave off any interior plan for the platforms (some of the towers intended for neighboring buildings were not completed until the 1980s).

Perhaps it was thought that as the platforms were underground, people wouldn't care to linger there (which is true) and decoration would be irrelevant. These were the days before air conditioning.

9/10

great

9/10

8.5/10 ;)

8.5

9/10

8/10

Sooooo nice!! :)

8/10

9/10

Grand is the word 9/10

Shame the even grander Penn station fell to the wrecking-ball.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Penn_Station3.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/Penn_Station1.jpg

Super- 9/10 !

10/10

9/10

The most beautiful railway station/terminus in the world. Right in the heart of Manhattan.

Very easily 10/10

10/10 what else?

9/10

9/10

9/10

:eek:

9/10

9,5/10

10/10

9. Very good. Regards.

10/10

10/10 :D

8.5/10

7/10

10/10

10/10

9/10

9 ;)

9/10

9.5/10. Probably my favorite building in NYC.

9.5/10

10/10