A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism • Hacker News Board

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#21

Post by taffer » Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 9:36 PM UTC

iguy wrote: post #20

taffer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regarding a specific building like Penn Station, no. But in general, yes.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#22

Post by pixl97 » Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

taffer wrote: post #19

iguy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. But there's necessarily some judgement in these things, and it's very very hard to judge the 60's concrete blocks as superior to the best works of 1906.

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.

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.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#23

Post by pixl97 » Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #3

oftenwrong wrote: post #2

>Today, Americans have grown more cautious; when it comes to old buildings, we now have laws at our disposal that allow us to designate and preserve what we value. Yet the enactment of such laws, at such a late stage, illustrates how the Singer’s fate coincided with another milestone: an end to the idea that American industry might be trusted to build permanent things, without answering to the deeper values of law or…

We spend so much space on parking. Our local hospitals most recent achievement is a new parking lot. More floor-space than the rest of hospital, and bigger in footprint than all the rest of the campus. Future archaeologists will probably think we were a society of sentient cars that kept people as pets.

>Although Ford had taken great care to blend into Earth society, he had "skimped a bit on his preparatory research," and thought that the name "Ford Prefect" would be "nicely inconspicuous." Ford "had simply mistaken the dominant life form." The Ford Prefect was, in fact, a British car manufactured in the 1950s. When he first arrived on Earth, Ford was almost run over while attempting to greet a blue Ford Prefect. He was saved by Arthur and this is how the pair meet.

We will miss you Douglas Adams.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#24

Post by IIAOPSWmobile » Sat, Feb 16, 2019, 12:43 AM UTC

iguy wrote: post #20

taffer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#25

Post by aklemm » Sat, Feb 16, 2019, 1:05 AM UTC

pseudolus wrote: post #5

The old Penn Station, mentioned in passing in the article, was apparently incredibly beautiful and aesthetically a rival to Grand Central Station (which itself barely escaped becoming the home of an office tower [0]). For those interested Mashable had a great article that featured some spectacular photographs of the old Penn station [1]. [0] http://gothamist.com/2016/05/25/fred_papert_grand_central.ph... [1] https://…

I like the fact that Penn Station existed when it did; when it was needed and when it catapulted a couple of generations to profound success.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#26

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sat, Feb 16, 2019, 1:58 AM UTC

pseudolus wrote: post #5

The old Penn Station, mentioned in passing in the article, was apparently incredibly beautiful and aesthetically a rival to Grand Central Station (which itself barely escaped becoming the home of an office tower [0]). For those interested Mashable had a great article that featured some spectacular photographs of the old Penn station [1]. [0] http://gothamist.com/2016/05/25/fred_papert_grand_central.ph... [1] https://…

The tearing down of old Penn Station is what kickstarted the movement to preserve historical buildings. Grand Central almost certainly would have met the same fate, had Penn Station's destruction not served as a wakeup call.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#27

Post by iguy » Sat, Feb 16, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

IIAOPSWmobile wrote: post #24

iguy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#28

Post by IIAOPSWmobile » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 1:34 AM UTC

iguy wrote: post #27

IIAOPSWmobile wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 v…

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.