Talk:Pennsylvania Station (New York City)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.
Trains Portal
DYK 2007-04-18
Sel week 22, 2008
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stations.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City Public Transportation.
High Importance: high within New York City Public Transportation WikiProject.
Flag of New York City
NYC Portal

This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

I think this article is very good. I'm changing MSG to Penn Square in the first paragraph, since it is not correct to say that the station is the underground level of MSG. Rather, the station spans a much greater area than MSG, which is above only the portion of the station south of 32rd Street. Penn Square is the entire block, however, and thus it is a more correct statement. Decumanus 04:18, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A good distinction Decumanus (even for us New Yorkers). It needs to be quite clear in the main article. Wetman 09:26, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Considering "considered"

I have deleted the "considered" from the sentence " the original Pennsylvania Station of legend was considered an outstanding masterpiece of the Beaux-Arts style" C'mon! Inserting "considered" into a statement does not render a false note valid, or create neutrality if there is none: it merely exposes the writer's timidity and fear that their value judgments are not founded on insight, experience and education— only too often quite true, alas. Sensible value judgments about works of art and culture, about the importance or lack of it of historical events, these are what make an encyclopedia, as long as plenty of accurate fact is also marshalled. A phrase like "St Peter's Basilica is considered a masterpiece of Baroque" has less of limpness and bathos stated in the active voice and without the dreadful generic "considered." Wetman 08:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think these are really appropriate value judgments to make in the active voice. It is not a verifiable fact that it is "an outstanding masterpiece", since this is entirely an opinion. It is a verifiable fact that many people hold that opinion---that it is "considered an outstanding masterpiece". Even better would be to say that it is "often cited as an outstanding masterpiece" (or similar), with a reference to someone relatively authoritative who actually does so. This is one of the major differences, IMO, between Wikipedia's "NPOV" approach and earlier encyclopedias, like the famous Britannica 1911, that made stronger value judgments, like "this is so-and-so's best book" or "although quite famous, [some play] is rather overrated". --Delirium 22:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pov?

Is this not POV? How should it be fixed?

“The demolition of such a well-known landmark, and its replacement by a mediocre slab of real estate, were widely deplored ...”

— Michael J 10:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Less Used?

I do not think that Grand Central Station is less used than Penn Station. In fact I think it is the busiest train station in the United States. Someone may want to check the numbers on that one.--69.140.113.223 02:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any numbers or anything (I'm currently looking), but common sense would seem to say that Penn is more used than Grand Central. Penn is served by the
v • d • e
Long Island Rail Road
Routes
Branch services
Former and freight lines
Atlantic Avenue rapid transit • Bay Ridge • Bethpage • Bushwick • Central Extension • Creedmoor • Evergreen • Manhattan Beach • Manorville • Northport • Rockaway Beach • Sag Harbor • Southern Hempstead • West Brighton Beach • Whitestone
Other
(the busiest commuter rail system in the country), Template:NJT, and Amtrak, while GCT is only served by Template:MNRR. I could be wrong, though. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Penn Station is four times busier than Grand Central Terminal. Penn Statio handles about 500,000 rail users a day compared to Grand Central which has about 125,000 commuters per day.

  • Haha, Im sorry but I don't think so. Grand Central may fool you with it's impressive looks but it is nowhere near Penn Station in terms of passengers per day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.197.26 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article for Moynihan Station?

I think the time has come to give moynihan Station its own entry. There is enough information, and released sketches for this. Milchama 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Moynihan Station should not have a separate article, just as there are not separate articles for the old Penn Station and the present one. Moynihan Station redirects to this article, which I think is correct.
I agree Moynihan Station should not have a separate article. In fact what is called Moynihan Station is just an additional passenger concourse for Penn Station. Similarly the NJT 34th deep underground station will be yet another set of tracks and underground concourse associated with Penn Station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.214 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Destruction" heading

The heading in this article titled "Destruction" is inherently POV. Obviously Penn Station was not destroyed. The below-ground railroad platforms remained intact, and the above-ground structure was replaecd with something else. Those who deplore the decision (I am among them) may view it as a mistake, but a more neutral word would be something like "Replacement," "Reconstruction," or something like that. Marc Shepherd 12:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed "destruction" to "demolition," as the old station was undisputably demolished to make way for MSG. Wl219 00:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That works for me. Marc Shepherd 00:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moynihan Station proposal in wake of Silver veto?

How would a veto by Silver affect the Moynihan Station proposal? It looks like the following might occur: Pataki throws his tantrum, recommends not pursuing the Moynihan project, NJT and New Jersey disagree with Pataki and attempt to negotiate Farley building lease anyway or persue action against NY state; Pataki leaves in disgrace, Spitzer comes into office; meanwhile, clamor for a giant Penn Station continues (this is a popular proposal, remember) and politicians seek to ruin Silver by whatever means possible. It's a risky game Silver and Pataki are playing here. Eventually, a new and larger Penn Station DOES wind up built, but it might require renegotiation with the federal government over purchase options for the Farley building (which will likely wind up given a do-over in whatever case), and the legacy of both Silver and Pataki will likely be tarnished by this sorry affair. Furthermore, I cannot predict whether the grander Penn Station would be on the current block of Penn or across the street from it. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Veto by Silver - done. Pataki tantrum and counter-recommendation - done. NJ reaction - we'll see. 204.52.215.107 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning of article

What happened to the beginning of this article? The section before the table of contents (that is, that is not under any specific headings) seems to have gotten far too long and congested. Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article split

Since the old and new Penn Stations are/were two very different places, shouldn't each have its own article? (Yes, I realize they were located in the same place, but the differences are vast to say the least.) Paul 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It's the same station even though the internal configuration changed. Kyoto Station and John F. Kennedy International Airport come to mind. - Sekicho 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; I believe the underground area has not changed much since 1910. However, it might be valid to create Pennsylvania Station (former building) and write about the architecture there. --NE2 06:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The interesting and well written old station section does not overstuff the present article, but we might want to rearrange the sections. As it is, the first half of the article says what once was, and the much smaller service section is stuck on at the end. I do not propose expanding the service section, but do propose putting it up front. Then readers would instantly learn all about what this particular station does, and then study the past if they've got the time. Jim.henderson 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What films?

"It was immortalized in films (see link below)." What movies? I don't see any list. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)