Early last week, the state announced that Vornado and the Related Companies properties had been awarded the right to redevelop the Farley building, bringing the vision of late Senator Moynihan one step closer to reality. And the announcement also introduced the intriguing fact that after years of presenting the gleaming Quonset hut from SOM as fait accompli, it turns out very little was — and really, still is — settled about the project. Aside from New Jersey Transit chomping at the bit for additional platform space, the project seems as uncertain as ever. And it became readily apparent that the role of David Childs was perhaps the only thing that wasn’t, the twist in this case being that Childs, uber-fixer and institutional stalwart, had been usurped by the neophytes — in this market — HOK. Everyone’s pointed out how ironic, gratifying and whatnot such a development is, so I’ll pass over more gratuitous grave dancing.
But oddly, even though the story of the new station is as rich as the personal melodrama of its progenitors, it apparently was necessary to root out some additional controversy. Though most of it has centered on the superficial issue in the form another change that, hey, slickly corporate glass structures can look a lot alike, the Gutter has proffered some possible insight that, while not addressing the issues of primacy in design concept, nonetheless exposes the machinations that might transpire in the course of landing such big fish.
The renderings released look like, well, most anytime someone puts a glass roof over a previously open court, but some have claimed that HOK was cribbing from Foster project previously executed. There is some merit here, but no more than arguing that the concept is comes from the retro-historicist arm of the HOK juggernaut (the other half is Blade Runner-chic) and is a perhaps only an attempt to create a thin simulacrum of the old Penn Station (and, to be circular, maybe the Foster building was a riff on the same — or, while we are at it, the Crystal Palace or a Nervistructure?). So we’ll put aside for a moment both the juvenile glee at watching the previously impenetrable armor of David Childs take a solid hit, and the distraction of the mostly non-issue of the whether or not the glass roof idea is original enough and look at what the new vision might imply.
Vision is overstating things a bit, if only because, once again — insert boilerplate about how such large projects get discussed with far too little in the way of information, and the expanse of the Internet doesn’t encourage the government, press, or firms involved to present more comprehensive samples. Of course, the terrifying part is that this may be the full scope of what is available. Years ago, I toiled — well, more that I coasted along like an opportunistic barnacle — for a large firm that did ‘entertainment architecture’ (though I suspect they bristle at that designation now), and most of their larger concepts were presented as a single rendering, with no intervening schematic work, simple a furious day of hand sketching before passing of the result to a highly proficient watercolorist.
The treatment provided thus far only partially explicates the major programmatic shift. In the SOM scheme, the entry hall was further west, almost mid-block, while the courtyard closer to eight avenue featured a rather pedestrian inset grided skylight. Major entrances would have come to from the north and south of the insertion (dubbed my many as the ‘potato chip’).
The HOK version relocates the entrances to the perimeter of the Eighth Avenue side of the Farley building, likely utilizing the existing elements, and results in a form that is pretty familial to Grand Central. The courtyard is less corporate TW Center sleek, and more blatantly historicist, the gentle rolling roof as much a riff on the Foster plan as a much more dramatic barrel vaults that were a signature of late, lamented Penn Station. The rest of the interior looks to be Camden Yards-chic, but, if detailed well, is no worse, or better, than fussy over-detailing that SOM typically produces. HOK certainly has plenty of experience programming large and complex spaces.
The loss of the entry hall is lamentable because it is one of the better efforts of Childs’ career of late, and it did introduce to the program a more complex resolution than the typical big event focus. Grand Central is so grand because it several interlocking spaces of proportional scale are evident, even if your path doesn’t directly engage them. The HOK scheme appears diminished in this way, but the ticket hall, which will always be the primary space, no matter how grand the entry was, and the rendering we see so far is an incremental improvement. And Childs’ gesture was a triumph of client management and program development, not form, and one that was even questionable for its impact on circulation. The mid-block entrance wasn’t on a major pathway, and pulled intermodal travelers yet another half block west (making it nearly a three block jaunt for PATH or IND passengers). In practical terms, most people would have utilized entrances nearer to Eighth Avenue. Utimately, the truncation of the plan was at the behest of budget and program concerns, and leaving a compromised program in the hands of Childs, well, we’ve seen what that results in as of late.
The issue that is not represented in the renderings, but very much in the air, is how much futile security overreactions will compromise planning. We have seen what the ham-fisted efforts of the TSA have wrought on both the visitor experience and circulation of airport terminals. The civic experience of train travel, with its superior benefits of inner city access, and the prominent cultural role of their attendant termini, is still an unfettered signifier one of the most liberating advantages of being a city dweller. Air travel has been a frustrating, cramped and generally dehumanizing experience since well before 9/11. To degrade our rail system similarly would be an event far more sad than the loss of the great Penn Station. Hopefully the planner and agencies wringing their hands over the best way to look, rather than be, prepared, will see the wisdom of a freedom of movement that isn’t simply symbolic, but essential to who we are.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Can you say Schadenfreude? I can barely spell it.
Early last week, the state announced that Vornado and the Related Companies properties had been awarded the right to redevelop the Farley building, bringing the vision of late Senator Moynihan one step closer to reality. And the announcement also introduced the intriguing fact that after years of presenting the gleaming Quonset hut from SOM as fait accompli, it turns out very little was — and really, still is — settled about the project. Aside from New Jersey Transit chomping at the bit for additional platform space, the project seems as uncertain as ever. And it became readily apparent that the role of David Childs was perhaps the only thing that wasn’t, the twist in this case being that Childs, uber-fixer and institutional stalwart, had been usurped by the neophytes — in this market — HOK. Everyone’s pointed out how ironic, gratifying and whatnot such a development is, so I’ll pass over more gratuitous grave dancing.
But oddly, even though the story of the new station is as rich as the personal melodrama of its progenitors, it apparently was necessary to root out some additional controversy. Though most of it has centered on the superficial issue in the form another change that, hey, slickly corporate glass structures can look a lot alike, the Gutter has proffered some possible insight that, while not addressing the issues of primacy in design concept, nonetheless exposes the machinations that might transpire in the course of landing such big fish. The renderings released look like, well, most anytime someone puts a glass roof over a previously open court, but some have claimed that HOK was cribbing from Foster project previously executed. There is some merit here, but no more than arguing that the concept is comes from the retro-historicist arm of the HOK juggernaut (the other half is Blade Runner-chic) and is a perhaps only an attempt to create a thin simulacrum of the old Penn Station (and, to be circular, maybe the Foster building was a riff on the same — or, while we are at it, the Crystal Palace or a Nervi structure?). So we’ll put aside for a moment both the juvenile glee at watching the previously impenetrable armor of David Childs take a solid hit, and the distraction of the mostly non-issue of the whether or not the glass roof idea is original enough and look at what the new vision might imply. Vision is overstating things a bit, if only because, once again — insert boilerplate about how such large projects get discussed with far too little in the way of information, and the expanse of the Internet doesn’t encourage the government, press, or firms involved to present more comprehensive samples. Of course, the terrifying part is that this may be the full scope of what is available. Years ago, I toiled — well, more that I coasted along like an opportunistic barnacle — for a large firm that did ‘entertainment architecture’ (though I suspect they bristle at that designation now), and most of their larger concepts were presented as a single rendering, with no intervening schematic work, simple a furious day of hand sketching before passing of the result to a highly proficient watercolorist. The treatment provided thus far only partially explicates the major programmatic shift. In the SOM scheme, the entry hall was further west, almost mid-block, while the courtyard closer to eight avenue featured a rather pedestrian inset grided skylight. Major entrances would have come to from the north and south of the insertion (dubbed my many as the ‘potato chip’). The HOK version relocates the entrances to the perimeter of the Eighth Avenue side of the Farley building, likely utilizing the existing elements, and results in a form that is pretty familial to Grand Central. The courtyard is less corporate TW Center sleek, and more blatantly historicist, the gentle rolling roof as much a riff on the Foster plan as a much more dramatic barrel vaults that were a signature of late, lamented Penn Station. The rest of the interior looks to be Camden Yards-chic, but, if detailed well, is no worse, or better, than fussy over-detailing that SOM typically produces. HOK certainly has plenty of experience programming large and complex spaces. The loss of the entry hall is lamentable because it is one of the better efforts of Childs’ career of late, and it did introduce to the program a more complex resolution than the typical big event focus. Grand Central is so grand because it several interlocking spaces of proportional scale are evident, even if your path doesn’t directly engage them. The HOK scheme appears diminished in this way, but the ticket hall, which will always be the primary space, no matter how grand the entry was, and the rendering we see so far is an incremental improvement. And Childs’ gesture was a triumph of client management and program development, not form, and one that was even questionable for its impact on circulation. The mid-block entrance wasn’t on a major pathway, and pulled intermodal travelers yet another half block west (making it nearly a three block jaunt for PATH or IND passengers). In practical terms, most people would have utilized entrances nearer to Eighth Avenue. Utimately, the truncation of the plan was at the behest of budget and program concerns, and leaving a compromised program in the hands of Childs, well, we’ve seen what that results in as of late. The issue that is not represented in the renderings, but very much in the air, is how much futile security overreactions will compromise planning. We have seen what the ham-fisted efforts of the TSA have wrought on both the visitor experience and circulation of airport terminals. The civic experience of train travel, with its superior benefits of inner city access, and the prominent cultural role of their attendant termini, is still an unfettered signifier one of the most liberating advantages of being a city dweller. Air travel has been a frustrating, cramped and generally dehumanizing experience since well before 9/11. To degrade our rail system similarly would be an event far more sad than the loss of the great Penn Station. Hopefully the planner and agencies wringing their hands over the best way to look, rather than be, prepared, will see the wisdom of a freedom of movement that isn’t simply symbolic, but essential to who we are.