Amtrak/LIRR Moynihan Train Hall

I hope that the decision makers ditch the glamour of a starchitect. There's got to be a design out there that can give the passengers that pass through NYP a modern gateway, plus other revenue generators, without breaking the bank. It's a matter of willpower and care about cost control.

But definitely don't get me wrong, I am THRILLED to hear about the city council decision. I'm sick of that station; I don't know how my dad does it every day. The problem with NYP is that 300,000 commuters (round-trip) pass through a complex built for 100,000--and designed as an intercity gateway. To fix that is going to call for way more than a few tweaks to the passageways. Whatever plan gets put into action, it's common sense that the construction will definitely go easier without MSG to work around.

Agreed, 35dtmrs92, though I do support having Madison Square Garden atop Penn Station for convenience and revenue. I suspect a student architect could make a very nice-looking building combining elements of Old Pennsylvania Station, Old Madison Square Garden, and 21st century desires and needs. For my part, I'm picturing a colonnaded white marble building resembling Farley, but gracefully topped by a new MSG arena, looking like a light-filled crown in metallic gold, silver, blue, and red.

Maybe I should just sketch my design, mail it to Amtrak and the Dolans, and wait for the royalty checks to come in? . It will be a long several years of the Rangers, Liberty and Knicks playing elsewhere, and and also a long time for commuters to curse their way through station construction, but I think it will be worth it (in 2033? Lol.)

Well, at least "something" appears to be in the works... But it would be a real slap in the face if NOTHING gets done to improve trans-hudson capacity!!

How does this 10 year permit impact new trans-hudson tunnels (and the overall Gateway Project)?

markhb wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens 10 years from now... if the city doesn't have the money available to build, will they extend the lease again?

We'll know well before then if MSG has actually started moving or not. It's not like in 9 years NYC can say, "move in 365 days" and have it happen.

5 years from now,MSG will push for a "revisit" on the City Council ruling,and try to get the Council overturn it.

Backshophoss wrote:5 years from now,MSG will push for a "revisit" on the City Council ruling,and try to get the Council overturn it.

And when that fails, they'll start scrambling. Seriously, a 47-1 vote isn't the kind of thing that gets overturned that easily.

Am I correct in thinking there aren't any other suitable basketball or hockey arenas in Manhattan, if/when MSG undergoes a demo/rebuild and the teams need to move temporarily? The Barclays Center and the Prudential come to mind as alternates, unsuitable as it would be to play in your rivals' homes (and to bring it back to transit and Amtrak, the Pru at least is immediately next to Newark Penn and connections with NJT, Amtrak and PATH.)

I can't say I know Manhattan all that well, but AFAIK neither NYU nor Columbia has a hockey team which might have a suitable arena. The first available place (that doesn't currently have any major-league tenants) that comes to mind would be the Izod Center out at the Meadowlands. As far as relocation possibilities for the arena itself, I don't know Manhattan well enough to hazard a guess as to what's available there, but I wonder if they might look into building out by CifiField in Queens, and leverage the baseball stadium's parking.

mtuandrew wrote:Am I correct in thinking there aren't any other suitable basketball or hockey arenas in Manhattan, if/when MSG undergoes a demo/rebuild and the teams need to move temporarily? The Barclays Center and the Prudential come to mind as alternates, unsuitable as it would be to play in your rivals' homes

It's not really that unheard of; the Yankees played in Shea Stadium for two full seasons (1974-1975) while Yankee Stadium underwent renovations. The New York Giants played home games in the Yale Bowl in New Haven in 1973 and 1974, and in Shea Stadium in 1975. Also, considering how much of a financial pain the Knicks were to the Nets during the mid-1970s, it would be karmic.

markhb: Yale and Princeton have teams and arenas, but even the Whale at Yale isn't large enough for the Rangers. The Nassau arena of the Islanders is, but the Pru is nicer and closer. EDIT: I don't know if the Izod has ice or whether its ice plant is any good, but it would probably be fine for basketball.

Hamhock: true enough! Might be worth it to investigate home games at Rutgers, Yale, and the other big universities too.

mtuandrew wrote:markhb: Yale and Princeton have teams and arenas, but even the Whale at Yale isn't large enough for the Rangers. The Nassau arena of the Islanders is, but the Pru is nicer and closer. EDIT: I don't know if the Izod has ice or whether its ice plant is any good, but it would probably be fine for basketball.

Hamhock: true enough! Might be worth it to investigate home games at Rutgers, Yale, and the other big universities too.

I knew about Yale and Princeton, but I thought New Haven and Princeton might be getting a bit too far afield from NYC (yes, the Giants played at the Yale Bowl during the Yankee Stadium reconstruction and before Giants Stadium was completed, but those were far different times in the sports marketing world). I didn't think of the Nassau Coliseum, but what's the prognosis for that building to even remain standing after the Islanders leave for Barclay's? The reason I discounted the Pru is simply that it's the home arena for the Devils, and I think the Rangers would prefer not to share if possible. The Izod used to be the Devils' arena, and a look at its current event schedule shows Disney on Ice is on tap for November, so the ice plant is working, if not necessarily at NHL-grade (but then again, the ice for the Stanley Cup finals in late June isn't necessarily NHL grade, either ).

Due to my years of high school debate experience, I feel a need to touch on the topicality of this entire thread of discussion. Since the thread is nominally about Moynihan/NYP, and therefore implicitly about Penn Station expansion and renovation plans, I think "what is to become of Madison Square Garden and its tenants" is worthy of discussion. Being from and living in Portland, I hear seemingly constantly about our Union Station being torn down and the shopping center that replaced it; I think that flipping that POV around to consider what's going to have to be destroyed and relocated in order to rebuild a train station is entirely proper.

markhb wrote:Due to my years of high school debate experience, I feel a need to touch on the topicality of this entire thread of discussion. Since the thread is nominally about Moynihan/NYP, and therefore implicitly about Penn Station expansion and renovation plans, I think "what is to become of Madison Square Garden and its tenants" is worthy of discussion. Being from and living in Portland, I hear seemingly constantly about our Union Station being torn down and the shopping center that replaced it; I think that flipping that POV around to consider what's going to have to be destroyed and relocated in order to rebuild a train station is entirely proper.

I would agree with you if, and it's a big if, Madison Square Garden had to be torn down to rebuild Pennsylvania Station. But the facts remains, it doesn't.

Amtrak doesn't have to tear down MSG to move to Moynihan Station, nor does the existing Farley post office building has to be torn down; it just needs refurbishing. The potential Gateway project expansion of the railroad business of Penn Station doesn't need either MSG or Moynihan torn down. So all this speculation what may happen 10 years hence when the lease expires has no effect on Amtrak operations.

I would prefer speculations about where MSG tenants might move to be placed somewhere else than under Amtrak forums, because it certainly doesn't effect Amtrak, even by a little bit.

While my personal opinion is that the Moynihan project is somewhat unnecessary, it does make sense to have it run in parallel with Amtrak's Gateway and for it to be complete before Gateway opens. That way, there will be the option of running passenger operations more through that side of the station complex, when it comes time for Penn Station to undergo either a complete remodel or a demo/rebuild that would most probably include a demoed/rebuilt MSG.

And yeah, I agree we got a bit off the topic... but at least we weren't discussing Gateway

Having worked in all of the NY metro sporting venues, there were big reasons why the Nets and the Devils moved out of Izod arena, and bluntly arena management was happy to see the teams go because of financial arrangements. The city just has it in for the present owners of MSG.
If the city thinks funds to rebuild the late great Pennsylvania Station will be available when monies for the Moynihan project are scarce, they're dreaming. Without new North river tunnels and more track infrastructure, it doesn't matter what is above the NYP footprint, sports arena or Starbucks.

The current infrastructure situation of Penn Station, MSG, Farley Post Office, West Side Yards, existing railroad tunnels, existing subway tunnels and any future tunnels in that vicinity are all very much tied together. The reason for the rush project to build a tunnel box to preserve a right-of-way under the West Side Yards for any future Amtrak Gateway project before any commercial development for proceeds for the Hudson Yards project. This is because the level of cost and difficulty increases exponentially for any future Amtrak projects if this is done AFTER all the footings, pilings and foundations for the Hudson Yards towers are put in.

Thus, we start getting to the point of "fixing" Penn Station.
MSG is the elephant that is perched upon and slowly breaking the back of the Penn Station tortoise.
As long as MSG sits atop Penn Station, it will be significantly harder and more costly to renovate any of the vital track level structural elements. As long as there are giant columns and beams to carry all of that extra weight, that architects and engineers then have to work around in their plans, the costs will be significantly higher. You cannot cheaply fix platform level passenger flow issues without eliminating the columns that carry the weight of MSG. As long as all of the station level infrastructure has to be squeezed between the underside of MSG and the top side of the track level, it will resemble a rabbit warren.

The Farley Post Office renovation into "Moynihan Station" does not resolve the fundamental structural and infrastructure issues that limit Penn's throughput. To fix Penn, we need more tracks, more platforms, more tunnels into and out of the station, better passenger flow on the platforms, better passenger flow to and from the platforms and better connections to mass transit and the surrounding neighborhood to get passengers into and out of the station. Most of the Moynihan Station plans just put a nice facade onto an escalator lobby down to the existing Penn Station tracks, with no major improvement in transit connections and certainly no improvements in track capacity at Penn.

To truly fix Penn, MSG needs to move elsewhere and Penn Station operations temporarily ENTIRELY moved to Farley Post Office, so that the existing warren of tunnels can be exorcised and replaced with a more modern and functional station infrastructure to accommodate the future needs of Amtrak, LIRR, NJT, MNRR and High Speed Rail. Anything less than that, will just be another band-aid on a massive chest wound.