A Reimagined District

David Sinco Honors Thesis 2019 A Reimagined District Abstract: West Midtown in Manhattan is at a unique juncture. Centering around Penn Station, multiple factors are beginning to close in on the district allowing for the potential for an entirely new place to be imagined. The overcrowded and outdated design of Penn Station is standing in the way of the district’s progress. With the ideas of urban planning and architecture converging into a single place there are things to consider beyond logistical issues of traffic and circulation. The identity of a place can be combined with architecture, planning, and culture where Midtown now possesses these opportunities and gives the potential for reprogramming. A new focus could be given to the district that would solve the pragmatic issues of urban design while also tackling the weightier ones of identity and a sense of place. Sitting squarely in the lower end of the island of Manhattan, Penn station rests bloating over the extents of the sidewalk. This terminal for commuters, tourists, and residents is a mound of movement where access to the streets are buried into a narrow network of overcrowded levels supported by outdated column grids. The number of travelers is so large that one central station is not enough. This terminal hosts the “largest number of commuters traveled by LiRR and by NJ Transit, the second- and third- biggest commuter rail operators in the United States behind metro-north.”1 The complex is comprised of a network of terminals; Moynihan station, an Amtrak access point to the south of Penn that exist below three 1MAS, “Shaping the Future of West Midtown,” (October 2014): 17 buildings at street level, the office tower at Two Penn Plaza, the Cylindrical Madison Square Garden, the Farley Post Office Building, and the Farley Annex. The complex is expansive stretching from 31st to 33rd streets from 7th ave to 9th ave. While it may seem counterintuitive for such a congested, important point in a city’s infrastructure to be below street access, faith in public transport was in decline and the integration of the car was becoming the dominate means of transportation in the early 1900s. Public funds were allocated more heavily towards the construction and maintenance of roads, highway systems, automobiles, and suburban life in general. The architectural critic Aldolf Loos described this moment in time as making the decline of the city fabric, “We are an impoverished society. It is a poor society indeed that can’t pay for these amenities; that has no money for anything except expressways to rush people out of our dull and deteriorating cities.”2 In effect, city life had become so monotone and plagued by the impression of a place for work, not for enjoyment. The lead architect who designed Penn, Charles Luckman, did not foresee the reemergence of the city in 1960 as one that would need to account for growth in transportation. As the economy and city at large began to expand and develop New York City has seen a reemergence in vibrant culture and a life in Manhattan is now much different than when Penn was conceived. Inside the station, three major transit lines inhabit the space. LIRR, NJ Transit, and Amtrak organize themselves by dividing their services in separate lobby and ticketing. Their independent use of signage and wayfinding operate on their own terms while not coexisting with and integrating into an architecture that provides logical circulation and trajectory from street level to train and vice versa.3 It is not just inhabitable space that causes the need for renovation. The condition of the rails have become a large factor in the need to reimagine the transport system. After Hurricane Sandy the rails crossing the Hudson River experienced significant flooding, impacting their functionality and requiring renovation. This increases the urgency at which something must happen to address not only the arrival point that commuters interact with at the terminal level, but also the rail lines themselves. But that would be a relatively straightforward 2 MAS, “Unlocking Penn’s Potential Establishing a Penn Station Redevelopment and Revenue Capture District,” (July 2013): 5. 3 MAS, “Envisioning a New Penn Station, the Next Madison Square Garden, and the Future of West Midtown,” (October 2013): 6. renovation if it was only the rails that were requiring attention. At the street level, the portion of the hub that is accessed through Madison square gardens is blocked and closed from security concerns that have been raised after 9/11. This prevents passengers from having a place to unload their luggage, forcing them to do so in the streets. In the broader sense at the district level, it is seemingly counterintuitive for an access point of this magnitude to release commuters and travelers into a district that does not support the level of foot traffic that it has. Unlike Grand Central Terminal and Manhattan’s East Side or similar transportation hubs, the district surrounding the station has never existed as a world-class business district. 4 Despite the station being surrounded by areas of Manhattan that have renowned office space, the district that encompasses Penn sees rent at comparatively low rates reflecting the current quality of the area. This low rent is counterintuitive to its location as Penn station provides prime regional connectedness.5 4 MAS, “Envisioning a New Penn Station, the Next Madison Square Garden, and the Future of West Midtown,” (October 2013): 3. 5 MAS, “Unlocking Penn’s Potential Establishing a Penn Station Redevelopment and Revenue Capture District,” (July 2013): 15. The outdated poor condition of this district would not be as significant if it weren’t for the sheer number of people who depend on Penn for their daily lives. In the last ten years, ridership of all three transit lines has increased by 26%, with an additional projected growth in ridership of in the NJ trainline of 28% by 2030. Two of the three rail lines, NJ Transit and LIRR, are at the second and third largest of raillines in the United States, just behind Metro North. 6These statistics reflect the overall capacity of Penn station which reaches over half a million travelers exceeding its original capacity of two hundred thousand riders. A major factor to the process of reimagining the transit center of Penn station is that the massive circular building sitting above street level poses major logistical issues to reshape that of Penn station. Madison Square Garden is fulfilling its termed lease to its end date of 2023. This arena causes not only infrastructure problems below ground, but also major congestion issues at street level. Beyond the location of the station which causes visual confusion when wayfinding through the district, the outdated, unsafe design is causing issues on an urban 6 MAS, “Shaping the Future of West Midtown,” (October 2014): 10 scale impacting the flow of pedestrians and cars. The street level is plagued at every event held at MSG as the ten to twenty trucks used to set the event do not have proper access to the venue due to inadequate loading areas congest the streets, plazas, and sidewalk, adding to the already difficult access to the terminals below.7 The nearly fifty-year-old special events arena is outdated and despite a recent ten-million-dollar renovation, competing venues are out performing MSG. This arena could be relocated but the sites proposed are tied mainly to its relationship to Penn station. Currently patrons of Madison Square Garden move entirely indoors from train 7 MAS, “Unlocking Penn’s Potential Establishing a Penn Station Redevelopment and Revenue Capture District,” (July 2013): 12. to stadium seat. Moving the arena will force the partrons onto the streets, accompanying the rush at the beginning and end of events taking place. While this may seem like a major deterrent to relocating the arena, the streets are chaotic now from the lack of effective urban design. Using architecture to thoughtfully create a proper means of access from street to train would mitigate any drawback to increasing pedestrian flow at specific event-based times. The potential of unlocking the district’s ability to serve as a monumental transit hall with rezoned retail and office space would then work in tandem with the increase in pedestrian impacts. The final force advocating for the redevelopment of Penn station is that of contextual nature. Hudson Yards is experiencing exponential growth. This expansion of the area is slated to bring more visitors, employees, and residents to the area that will be dependent on Penn Station. Midtown’s central flow is shifting to the west, the current street level rail lines will be covered by a complex of mixed-use towers centering around an open-air green space.8 Responding to this move west the city is considering two sites for Madison Square Gardens: the Farley Annex or the Morgan Postal Facility and Annex Site. These two sites, while relatively 8 MAS, “Envisioning a New Penn Station, the Next Madison Square Garden, and the Future of West Midtown,” (October 2013): 18. close to each other create the discussion of how to reimagine the master plan of the district. The Farley Annex Provides much greater access to transit, similar to its current position, while the Morgan Postal Facility provides the opportunity of interacting with the highline and the exponential growth and development of Hudson yards. The question then is raised, regardless of Madison Square Garden’s permanent location, when Penn station emerges as a world-class transit hub, what will the thousands of people emerging from the ground see? The district has not been updated since the 1960s leaving the area surrounding Penn underutilized.

Load more