Pennsylvania Station Research Paper

Abstract (turn this into intro)

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission was formed to protect and preserve the buildings and neighborhoods that make the city unique, and are representative of its history and culture. Formed as a reaction to the controversial destruction of the original Pennsylvania Station, the Commission is the largest preservation agency in the nation .

While the history of the city is certainly important, critics argue it prevents necessary and inevitable development. The land that is taken up by historical buildings is not being utilized to its full economic potential . I examine the amount of buildings landmarked over time, in each borough, and in the city as a whole, to look for an indicator of the act no

longer serving its intended purpose. I look at examples of particularly contested landmarks, and attempt to find ways of improving the efficacy of the Commission.

History of the Landmarks Preservation Act

“UNTIL THE FIRST BLOW fell, no one was convinced that Penn Station really would be demolished or that New York would permit this monumental act of vandalism. . . . Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately deserves. Even when we had Penn Station, we couldn't afford to keep it clean. We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tin-horn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed." – NYTimes Editorial by Ada Louise Huxtable Oct. 30, 1963

While the destruction of Pennsylvania Station catalyzed the preservationist movement in New York City, it was the not beginning of historical preservation in this city. The precedent for historic preservation was first set in Charleston, South Carolina, and Charleston’s lead was followed in other southern cities.2 Historical preservationists seek to preserve rooms, buildings, and even whole neighborhoods as reminders of the rich past of an area. Historical preservation is not only an idea but also a field of study, one that is connected to the fields that drive urban change: architecture, city planning, and urban design. In cities, chaotic centers of rapidly evolving neighborhoods, preservation is even more central to keeping history alive.
Whereas some may understandably think that preservationism is meant to prevent change and modernization, it was meant to be an integral part of modernization. Preservation was intended to be a “cultural counterweight” to the growth of the metropolis. A Columbia University professor of architecture wrote in 1901, “The preservation of historical monuments is no mere fad, it is no mere concession to the poetic but impractical and visionary notion. It is a duty, as truly as is the preservation of our forests…”4 The goal of preservation may seem to be “save the past in its entirety”, but it is rather a question of “what do we keep to best serve as a reminder of our past.”
Somewhat ironically, historians themselves have contributed to the misconceptions about preservationism in New York City. Historians have characterized the trajectory of the city as being based solely on economic considerations, the triumph of which would wholly erase the city’s past. Yet what actually occurred was the success of both preservationist and expansionist policies. The arguments of preservations taken out of context sound anti-development, but in reality the majority of early 20th Century preservationists were led by a group of city builders “fully committed to growth, expansion and the hegemony of the business elite in urban affairs.”4 Preservationism was largely lodged within the progressive movements of the time, who worked to against the “expensive and futile methods of past ages” to develop “one plan for the unified city that will provide conditions of living, methods of transit and travel, and features of adornment, suited to advance the comfort convenience and happiness of the whole.”4 Thus it is clear that from its first wave, prior even to its manifestation after the destruction of Penn Station and even before its building, preservationism was not a creature of vanity. Preservation went hand in hand with attempts to improve and modernize the city. It arose out of the “cultural crisis” which was plaguing the city as the rate of modernization increased, separating people from their history ever more quickly. Historical preservation aimed to create a tangible connection to the history of the city by “rooting historical narratives in the actual urban environment.” As Henry Kirke Bush-Brown stated, the history of the city should be “made definite and permanent in the mind by a living picture that shall endure.”4 Preservationism remained a background issue and had only champions and no legal presence in the city until half a century later.
Prerservation came to the forefront of New York City’s collective psyche with the destruction of the original Pennsylvania Station in 1963.

Designed by McKim, Mead and White to look like the Roman baths of Caracalla, the Station was the largest building erected all at once at the time. It was absolutely massive; taking up nine acres between 7th Ave and 8th Ave and 33rd St to 35 St. The Station was a magnificent reminder of the opulence of the Gilded Age, however this was not a desirable look to some. More important than the value of the architecture, however, was the value of train travel and the land it was located on. New York’s “Master Builder,” Robert Moses, was a true believer in the automobile as the future of the United States, and this was reflected in his public works. Moses built highways and bridges, and this decreased the practical value of Pennsylvania Train Station. In fact, the destruction of Penn Station was one factor that contributed to public opposition against Moses who was known for his focus on development and disregard for historical value. Due to the change in economic circumstances, the owners, Pennsylvania Railroad, were out of money and looked for a way out of their financial

hole.1
Unlike the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the owners of the original Madison Square Garden on 8th Ave and 50th St were doing very well for themselves.

As a result, they were looking for opportunities to expand, and set their eyes on the land that Penn Station occupied. Initially, it was communicated that part of the building would be incorporated into the new Madison Square Garden.1 However, it very quickly became clear that Penn Station would be completely leveled to the ground. With this revelation came a mobilization of architects opposed to this plan, called Action Group for Better Architecture in New York (ABAGNY). A year after the plan to replace Penn Station was announced, ABAGNY organized a protest against the plan. For a year they led the fight against the demolition, suggesting renovating or reusing the building, and making the point that the construction should not go forward as the “proposed space was already designated for a public purpose.” As unanimously agreed upon as it is today that the destruction of Penn Station was a tragic loss, at the time few were affected. Thus in these protests and action against the building of Madison Square

Garden

The Arguments Against Landmarking

“We deify the past, taking it out of the realm of reality and raising it to sacred status, and we scorn the present as lacking any capacity to enter into a meaningful dialogue with what has come before.” – Paul Goldberger, NYTimes, 1990

In the early 20th Century, attempts at landmarking were viewed as vain matters of luxury rather than out of any practical or logical reasoning. In some places, this position that aesthetics were motivation enough to impose landmarking laws.2