I took an unplanned one-month absence during the holidays, due to travel, shopping and socializing, but I should be back regularly now, or at least as regular as I've ever been.
The NY Times ran an
article recently about the new downtown transit hub they're building, which I think is a great idea. If you've ever tried to transfer from a 5 train to a J train at Broadway/Fulton/Nassau/Timbuktu, then you probably agree that the place is a mess. The new station will be ambitious and all-inclusive, and will not only clean up the existing connections between the J/M/Z, A/C, 4/5 amd 2/3 lines, but will also connect to the nearby R/W line and the new Calatrava PATH station at the former World Trade Center site. Also, I believe that the Airtrain from JFK will eventually push across the rest of Brookly and the E. River to terminate here. The Times put together a nice interactive graphic of the site, showing how people would make connections in the station. I've pinched a nice elevation from it for you to take a look at.
But of course anything this big is going to cause controversy, especially in downtown Manhattan. The sticking point in this case is the large conical atrium that will extend up above ground level at Broadway and Fulton and will serve as the focal point of the whole complex. The original design called for a big seashell shape made entirely of glass that would allow light to pour down into the station, which just sounds great.
But not everyone agrees. Some people think that the atrium structure was unnecessary and expensive, and should be eliminated in the interest of saving money. As one board member put it, "It's not like we're building cathedrals here."
Well, I agree. I love cathedrals, but you know what? Nobody uses cathedrals anymore. They used to be the focus of public life, but nowadays church attendance is down and we're essentially a secular society, and a more diverse one. Transit hubs come about as close to a universal gathering place as we get these days, and it doesn't seem ridiculous to me that if you're going to drop $700 million on a new transit center, you might as well make sure it looks good.
Aesthetics are certainly secondary to concerns about pure functionality, but a major access point to the city should say something about this city, should present a confident and friendly image to visitors and be a point of pride for residents and commuters. Clothes and the paint on your house are both aesthetic after all, and you wouldn't catch many people in successful positions who think that these should be neglected just to save a few bucks. Image does matter, and affects how people feel about their city and themselves.
I'm reminded of the quote by the architecture critic Vincent Scully about how the new (and current) Penn Station compared to the magnificent Beaux Arts building that was leveled to make Madison Square Garden: "One entered the city like a god, one scuttles in now like a rat."
The destruction of Penn Station is credited with starting the historic preservation movement, which was able to prevent Grand Central from suffering a similar fate. And thanks to several decades of greater awareness, the mistakes made at Penn Station are getting partially rectified, with the plans for the Farley Post Office to be reconstruted to serve as the new Penn Station, restoring a little dignity to many people's first glimpse of Manhattan.
And at the end of the day, both sides reached a compromise over the atrium for the downtown transit hub as well. Instead of an all-glass seashell, it will be a metal cone instead, with a skylight at the top and a system of mirrors for bringing light down into the atrium. Maybe not ideal, but certainly a solution that seems reasonable.
