GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL CENTENNIAL
1913-2013
By the mid-1970s, Grand Central had become run-down and dingy, dominated by advertising and overrun with transients. The old New Haven ticket windows had been converted into a betting parlor, making the terminal even less inviting to visitors and commuters alike. JOHN FASULO
return tracks, set Grand Central Ter- minal up to be one of the most modern railway stations ever built. Before a single bit of rock was exca-
vated, or a single stone was laid for the project, Grand Central Terminal was meticulously planned. One of the diffi- culties that plagued Grand Central Station was the chaos of commuters in- termingled with arriving and departing long-distance passengers, as well as baggage, express, and mail. In the new terminal, everything would be separat- ed by purpose, eliminating much confu- sion and congestion. The lower level, al- so called the “Suburban” level, would be used for commuters and would have its own set of ticket windows, so a com- muter would never have to even enter the main concourse. Also included with the lower level would be two loop tracks, allowing for quick reversal of commuter trains. The terminal’s upper “Express” level tracks on the west end would be used for incoming long-dis- tance traffic, tracks in the center for outgoing long-distance traffic, and tracks on the east end for mail and
small freight, meaning none of them would have to intermingle. Furthering the ease of movement be- tween parts of the Terminal, ramps would be used. The ability to move to anywhere without having to descend a single step was a major boast. New York Central’s engineers built various experimental ramps in the old station and simply observed passengers using them, all in the hopes of determining the perfect grade for people to move over. These ramps would lead to the high-level train platforms that were in line with the train doors. Engineers de- termined this would cut boarding time in half. Thus Grand Central would not only be able to accommodate more trains (366 train cars in the old Station, 1,053 in the new Terminal), it would be much more efficient.
The architectural wonder
Now that the groundwork and basic concept for Grand Central Terminal was laid out, work could begin on the aesthetic design of the station proper. On at least two occasions, the proceed-
ings were influenced by family ties. Charles Reed, of the firm Reed & Stem, was a brother-in-law and friend of chief engineer Wilgus. Whitney Warren, of the firm Warren & Wetmore, was a cousin of the Vanderbilts (and largely responsible for the Terminal’s “Vander- bilt” aesthetic). Though Reed & Stem won the design competition put on by the New York Central, William Kissam Vanderbilt used his significant influ- ence to get Warren & Wetmore also in- volved with the project. Begrudgingly, the two firms worked together under the name of Associated Architects. The partnership was fraught with drama, and upon Reed’s death in 1911, Warren & Wetmore maneuvered into taking sole credit for the project (an act that later
got Whitney Warren expelled from the American Institute for Archi- tects for unprofessional conduct). Despite the tensions between the two firms, Grand Central Terminal was definitely a blend of both their talents. Integral elements of the design, such as the ramps and the Park Avenue vehic- ular viaduct were contributions by
33
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60