Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife
But if the specifics about this was simply to be about Penn Station, then I think the history of the demolition of Penn is an important one. No one thought anyone would tear down such a key landmark and replace it, that demolition is what gave preservationists a true foundation to protect older buildings and neighborhoods and Penn Station's demolition may be the key that saved a large percentage of Manhattan from the wrecking ball.
|
Was Penn Station's demolition a paradigm which served as a catalyst to establish landmark and preservationist policies in this country? Perhaps. Is it appropriate to rationalize the destruction of one of the most iconic landmarks in New York as a means to serve the preservationist movement as a collective? I don't know. A play by Durrenmatt comes to mind (I apologize for the esoteric reference).
Please, lets not all assume a false posture of intellectual fastidiousness and claim we are unaware of the ambiguous term "architectural modernism"; however I will describe the term more specifically as Post War Architecture (ie Brutalism, International, Bauhaus, Post Modernism). There is certainly a conspicuous demarcation between the prevalence of architectural aesthetic before and after WWII. To claim otherwise would be to falsely reject widely accepted notions of the evolution of architecture and urban planning during the last century.
Finally, comparing the new and the old Penn Station, renowned Yale architectural historian Vincent Scully once wrote, “One entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat.”