I think it's just another irony of history: At all times, people tend to be ambivalent about contemporary buildings, while they hate buildings of the previous generation (50 years old) and love everything older than 100 years. You just have to read what people have said in the past, and you recognize this pattern.
You really believe this? That the only difference between the old Penn station and the new one is that we aren't quite nostalgic enough about the new one yet? It's already older than the other one ever was.
Some eras built grand public buildings as symbols of their pride and progress. Some knocked them down.
yes. i really believe that. ill be the rare voice to say i like current penn station. i like that smell that i think comes from the breaks of commuter trains. i like the simple linear layout. i like the shops that line the mezzanine of the lirr.
but most of all i like penn station because it reminds of a time before the divorce when i would come into the city by train with my father.
whats my point here? my point is that weve deluded ourselves into thinking we have architectual taste when really all we have is nostalgia on a societal scale. whatever buildings were most cost effective to make during high times eventually become the definition of good. its only obvious to me because i have the misfortune to see my fav building shit on by every "expert".
Certainly affection for things you have a personal connection to is different. For most of us this applies to certain foods, and certain paintings, books, too.
Maybe my point is that it's not just "whatever buildings were most cost effective to make" -- those I agree come in many flavors. But Penn station was nothing like that. It was a grand and very expensive statement of confidence, permanence, and belief in the virtue of public space. Of the idea that the plebs catching the train would notice and appreciate the classical features. There were many many such statements made at that time.
At the time Penn was buily Long Island was still a place for the rich (think great gatsby) and the PRR lines to other cities were still an expensive affair. Travel was not a commonplace thing like airplanes today.
GCT and NYP werent built for the civic enjoyment of the plebs out of the kindness of Vanderbelt et al. Quite the opposite in fact. They were built so that the railroad and its rich clients could show off just how far above the plebs they really are. They built monuments to themselves greater than any church built to god. It wasnt faith in the public it was a middle finger to it, just like salesforce tower is today.
For something to become history, it must survive history first. 50 years old is just their parents and possibly grand parents. 100 years old is probably great grandparents, but mostly everyone that age is dead. It is a time completely foreign to their childhood. Some buildings can be historical when they are built, for example weird or innovative designs, but they too must survive the test of time. If they were built like crap, they'll fall apart and be torn down due to excessive costs.
reply