Comments on: Firming up the Fulton St. schedule

By: With money in place, Fulton Hub progressing apace :: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:57:55 +0000

[...] comments from Horodniceanu came four months ago. Although there is still plenty of time for the project to yet again fall behind schedule, the [...]

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:30:25 +0000

Wrong. Cities and states do too. Look at City Hall, for instance; or the Capitol.

By: k.geis

k.geis — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:42:18 +0000

> Cities and states build grand public spaces

No, private industry does. The New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroad built the original midtown terminals. It’s the Penn Station replacement that was State-sponsored.

Form is great, but functionality is primary, and every year of delay is another year without function.

By: mall

mall — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:20:40 +0000

They want the rent money to use to pay union OT on LIRR.

By: AlexB

AlexB — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:30:48 +0000

All major transit centers should have some sort of retail/commerce function. Imagine Grand Central if there were no restaurants, or no place to buy reading materials or anything else. It would suck. I know I commented in a previous post that this station is redundant, but it will be nice to have light coming into the station, some decent architecture on the site, and yes, some convenient retail.

Someday…

By: Kid Twist

Kid Twist — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:11:57 +0000

I understand perfectly well that the buildings are gone. In my opinion it was a dumb move. That’s all I’m saying.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:44:49 +0000

To begin with, we’re past the point of decision. The buildings formerly at the site are gone forever. Something needs to be built to replace them. The merits of the new design are obviously a matter of opinion. It does not look like “a bland mall” (or any kind of mall) to me, and it certainly looks a lot better than what was there before.

Cities and states build grand public spaces. The current Penn Station fulfils the same function as the old one, but in a hopelessly dull structure that nobody likes. Grand Central Terminal is clearly far more ornate than it needs to be for the simple purpose of getting commuters to their trains.

So yeah, this design is clearly more than was needed for the limited aim of improving access and circulation in the station. But as I say, grand public spaces are part of any great city. Whether this particular space will meet that description remains to be seen, but the animating purpose behind it makes plenty of sense.

By: Kid Twist

Kid Twist — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:36:07 +0000

I still don’t understand why couldn’t just improve underground circulation and leave well enough alone at street level. Can someone explain again why we need a bland-looking mall in Lower Manhattan?

By: Scott E

Scott E — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:14:39 +0000

Well, if this is a four-story building, and the retail is one level below the street, I wouldn’t exactly call it a mall – the retail is probably more remeniscent of Penn Station or the former WTC PATH station. I think the four aboveground stories are supposed to be MTA offices. Maybe this will replace some of the controversial, expensive real estate they’ve got elsewhere in the city. (Though I fail to understand how they could accomplish developing usable office space while still allowing daylight to get from the roof to the basement).

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:40:20 +0000

If the main purpose of the project is to have retail under one roof, then they should call it a mall rather than a transit center. Transit centers evoke the image of a place dedicated to transit.