Comments on: Calatrava terminal not quite dead yet

By: Mike Metzger

Mike Metzger — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:14:33 +0000

Grand Public Infrastructure doesn’t just provide a showcase for architects. It helps make transit something that people want to use rather than just a neccesary evil. Compare Grand Central to Penn Station. No one wants to use Penn, but they do because they have to. On the other hand, Grand Central is an amazing station that the public can enjoy using.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:04:31 +0000

When I hear talk of grand public infrastructure, my first thought is Ceausescu’s palace in Romania. The point of infrastructure is to support an economy, not to provide public works for architects.

By: Judge

Judge — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:18:14 +0000

Yeah, the station proposal was always way out of proportion to PATH’s function. Still, I long to see grand public infrastructure, something that can inspire and make us proud. Now if they were also to make a new LIRR and NJT terminal on a lower level on the other hand…

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:47:45 +0000

From the beginning, the Calatrava station struck me as an extravagance—and that was when the purported cost was “only” $2 billion, and the economy wasn’t in the tank. Don’t get me wrong, the design was gorgeous. I just wondered whether something quite that elaborate was justified for a 5-track loop station.