Conquering Gotham presents itself as an inside examination of the incredible Penn Station. In reality it is the story of the politics, the tunnels, and the people that forged a path for the railroad to finally make its way in to the heart of Manhattan.
I have always been fascinated to learn of Penn Station, especially as someone who never had the privilege of seeing it first hand. I have always wondered at the reasoning and the politics that led to its demise. In this sense, for me, the best portions of this book were the last two chapters, where we finally see Penn Station completed. Unfortunately it rushes through these chapters, leaving us with merely a glimpse of this architectural wonder and the brief years in which it managed to survive.
Similar to the history of the Brooklyn Bridge, the weight of the story is found in the incredible effort that such an architectural feat (tunnels and infrastructure) demanded of the workers. There is a lot of overlap with the story of the Brooklyn Bridge (as a Guilded Age story) that sees the expansive and explosive growth of the railroad move across North America. It would be short sighted for us to forget about how dangerous it really was to pursue these societal advances and build these sorts of ground breaking monuments during this period.
One can also add that this was still the age where such buildings and bridges and tunnels and stations represented a whole lot more than simply a building. One could argue that modern architecture has lost of bit of this old soul.
For a historical biography of a particular piece of architecture, this book makes the mechanics and the details interesting and dramatic. There is something marvellous and breathtaking, for example, of having to wait years to see if a shot in the dark decision to abstain from drilling a couple of positioning posts might one day lead to the collapse of the tunnels and the death of civilians, or if this decision would end up actually saving the future state of the tunnels. This is the kind of risks that these projects demanded in the absence of tried and true theories and examples.
Again, as with the story of the Brooklyn Bridge, politics and money play a big part in shaping the landscape of this period in New Yorks history (not to mention the greater American landscape). This is another part that I enjoyed immensely. I found it fascinating to read about the ebb and flow of economic growth in light of the age of the railroad. What is even more informing and interesting is to read of the individuals that sat at the helm of moving the American economy forward. It is a story of corruption and morality, and it is actually refreshing to see that even in the midst of the corruption some of the key individuals who shaped our current landscape were the ones who were interested in seeing the moral high ground survive. It is a reminder that while the railroad represented money, it really was about the people (as all great architecture and infrastructure is). Casatt (the visioneer of the Penn Station idea) was one of those people, and sadly he never lived to see his project to completion. It was also nice to see a bit inside the person of Roosevelt, who comes off as a wholly compelling individual.
Another part that I loved is, not surprisingly, found near the end. When you finally see Penn station complete, we are given a glimpse of some of the problems that lie underneath this incredible Roman-like construction. To read that its initial purpose did not for-see its actual function as a commuter station and a link to Long Island (and thus was not designed appropriately to compliment the people who would end up riding) is telling. The image of the station is as a link from (North America) in to Manhattan. In reality, Manhattan would attempt to claim the station exclusively for its own interests. This leads us to the examination of the relationship between Philadelphia and New York City. It is in this relationship that we find the real reason for its premature and unfortunate demise. According to Jones, NYC rejected the station as an architectural wonder because it represented Philly more than it did the character of NYC. It was low lying and expansive rather than a high rising and space saving design. As he puts it, it had its "soul" in Philadelphia, and it's physical presence in New York City. It is for this reason that Grand Central remains to this day as one of the great symbols of NYC, a true part of its own history that sits at the actual heart of the city. Penn Station would forever struggle (and fail) to live up to its promise as a game changing piece in the Manhattan landscape.
There are so many stories of the progress of NYC that follow this same trend of moving (through and under and over) neighborhoods in an effort to consistently and persistingly re-define the larger city in the face of more modern expressions and realities (the larger city in actuality functioning as a series of ever changing neighborhoods in which concerns, gentrification, politics, social dynamics are constantly evolving and shifting with it). This is why NYC is known as the unfinished city. It is constantly changing. It was no different with the story of Penn Station. The station was in the middle of one of its poorer neighborhoods, a fact that leads in to some decent commentary about the function of architecture and infrastructure in light of the people that a make up these neighborhoods. Often these developments came through with a force (guided by a vision and fueled by money and politics), Neighborhoods become forced to adapt and change (thus becoming temporarily displaced), and then at times moved and/or redeveloped in to another section of the city accordingly. This mentality has its shortcomings (short term disruption of the neighborhoods and the people involved, and the tendency to forget about the people who are affected. As well, there is a danger in failing to recognize the value of history and historic architecture). But in a city made up of multiple boroughs and with a unique diversification of character and immigration, it has a way of forcing the city to stay honest. It tends to keep the problems in view, and guards against complacency. It makes certain that conversation is happening as time moves forward. And it allows for the struggles of one area to find solutions in the experiences and perspectives of another. And ultimately, when a city is not afraid to revamp, reconfigure and reimagine how it does things on a consistent basis, this opens the door for the different and competing sections of the city to work together.
For Penn station this sort of revamping of a poorer neighborhood in order to create one of the more upscale, glamourous, artistic and lovely pieces of architecture in America (and one of the more ambitious transporting hubs of the era) forced these two characteristics to work together (upper and lower class). Unfortunately what it failed to do was for-see the middle/working class as the glue that would need to hold it together, a class that was ultimately glossed over in the design of the structure itself.
"Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and ultimately, deserves. Even when we had Penn Station, we couldn't afford to keep it clean. We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tin-horn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed." This was written for the New York Times during the 60's, a period of time that saw history come in to a full force collision with the nature of forward progress. The railroad was taking over, and with it New York was reaching for the sky in a fashion unlike it ever had before (along with the rest of America). Now, of course history will now tell us that this sentiment was not entirely accurate. The demolition of Penn Station would be the very thing that would lead to future legislation that would protect the rest of NYC's historic architecture. There has since been a lot of movement not only to save it, but to re-envision it and reinvent it at the same time. Any visit to NYC is a wonderful fusion of past and present, romantic and modern. But what this article does show is just how hard it is to respond to the ever changing world accordingly. Just as soon as the railroad exploded, car culture pushed itself in to its path (along with aviation). And with every change the landscape has to adjust. But Penn station looms over this truth as a tall example of what is lost when we neglect our architectural history, and a great example of what happens when we disassociate. our buildings from the people that use. them. It is a reminder that these kinds of buildings are not just made from the elements, but are a reflection of the people's soul and tells the story of a city in a way little else can. For Penn Station, that it had such an impact on the displacement of a neighborhood, and that it (in the end) neglected the actual needs of the people is a testimony of how much power lies in these kinds of developments. For every way that culture pushes us forward, we must continue to make efforts to remember these stories and to see the people behind the building. Cassatt saw this in the initial vision, and this is why his statue remains.