Penn Station redo and skyscraper plan may lead to a repeat of past mistakes

The myriad network of lawmakers, real estate developers, advocates and small-business owners embroiled in the Penn Station redevelopment seem to agree on one thing: The station is overdue for a face-lift. Though it remains the busiest train station in the country, the entirely underground structure sports no natural light, cramped platforms and corridors, and a plethora of confusing signage.

More than a year ago, then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo took on revamping the station, and Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration has since taken up the mantle. But as progress inches forward, criticisms of the state’s plan have only grown stronger.

Last month, the state Public Authorities Control Board approved agreements between the city and state that outlined a funding model for the project. The model itself was what many advocates took issue with: The governor’s plan hinged on several skyscrapers that the state would allow commercial real estate developers to build around the station. Instead of taxes, the developers, namely Vornado Realty Trust, will make payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOT, to the state, which will help pay for the new Penn Station.

The vote did not solidify any agreements with developers, which opponents counted as a victory – including state Sens. Liz Krueger, Brad Hoylman and Robert Jackson, who have criticized the funding model.

“We will continue fighting alongside the community to ensure that those deals are not just corporate welfare for developers,” the senators wrote in a statement after the vote. “That means much more guaranteed affordable housing and no unnecessary tax breaks that reward developers for building projects they wanted to build anyway.”

Meanwhile, proponents of the governor’s plan hailed its potential to deliver more affordable housing units and jobs to Midtown. In statements after the vote, Carlo Scissura, president and CEO of the New York Building Congress, praised “the economic boost a reimagined Penn Station and surrounding community will deliver for the entire region,” while Vornado pledged in a statement to “deliver significant public realm and transit improvements across the district.”

Metropolitan Transportation Authority Construction and Development President Jamie Torres-Springer told City & State that the MTA is “moving quickly to achieve Governor Hochul’s vision for a reimagined Penn Station that benefits the entire region by replacing a poorly lit, cramped, and outdated facility with a single-level, world-class, modern, spacious, light-filled station that's easy to navigate and gives New Yorkers a station worthy of a great metropolitan area.”

But advocates said the specifics of how the sprawling redevelopment will actually revitalize the station and surrounding neighborhood were murky. According to an independent review by government watchdog Reinvent Albany released last month, the PILOT revenue could cover just over half of the total project cost, meaning the state will likely need to secure anywhere from $3.4 billion to $5.9 billion – which could end up leaving taxpayers footing a significant chunk of the project. Vornado, on the other hand, will receive up to a $1.2 billion tax break from the deal.

Larger transit system debate

Some transit advocates have had criticisms of the proposed changes to the station itself. Hochul’s plan would rework the multilevel platform into a larger, single-level train hall with plenty of natural light. Despite the state’s renderings of a sweeping platform under a glass skylight, advocates pointed out that the reconstruction leaves Penn Station under Madison Square Garden. With the sports arena still sitting atop it, the amount of natural light would be unlikely to measure up to the state’s images.

According to the project documents, the other transportation improvements would center mostly on widening platforms and stairs, along with constructing new entrances and connectors across the station. Advocacy groups like ReThinkNYC, which proposed an alternate project plan, argued the redevelopment should be grounded in a more robust overhaul of the station.

ReThinkNYC’s proposal was based on establishing a “through-running” system at Penn Station, as opposed to its current “terminal” system. The system would hinge on allowing trains to continue in one direction after unloading and loading passengers, instead of reversing direction after unloading passengers. The group said transit hubs in London, Paris and downtown Philadelphia have adopted the strategy because it maximizes efficiency by avoiding trains crossing paths.

“(Through-running) is what modern international financial center cities are almost uniformly doing and have been doing for some time since the ’60s – London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris and Madrid,” ReThinkNYC Chair Sam Turvey told City & State. “It’s the consensus standard, and why they are thinking about anything else is puzzling.”

Last year, an advisory committee of the Empire State Development released a report dismissing the possibility of converting Penn Station into a through-running system. “There are too many physical constraints and fatal flaws, the costs would be highly disproportionate to the limited benefits and the implications for the Moynihan Train Hall would be untenable,” the report said.

But Turvey said those reasons were relatively vague. While the committee reported “highly disproportionate” costs, ReThinkNYC has claimed its plan would save billions compared to the state’s current plan. To reconcile these discrepancies, Turvey said they have pushed for an independent review of a through-running proposal before the project breaks ground – and their requests have remained unmet.

An argument against this proposal came last year, when an advisory committee of the Empire State Development released a report dismissing the possibility of converting Penn Station into a through-running system. “There are too many physical constraints and fatal flaws, the costs would be highly disproportionate to the limited benefits and the implications for the Moynihan Train Hall would be untenable,” the report said.

But Turvey said those reasons were relatively vague. While the committee reported “highly disproportionate” costs, ReThinkNYC has claimed its plan would save billions compared to the state’s current plan. To reconcile these discrepancies, Turvey said they have pushed for an independent review of a through-running proposal before the project breaks ground – and their requests have remained unmet.

Affordable housing versus “luxury city”

Alongside the station’s face-lifts, developers and lawmakers have also promised significant economic development and new affordable housing units in the neighborhood as a result of the plan. As part of the state’s plan, there could be as many as 1,800 housing units created, including 708 new affordable and supportive housing units.

But the new buildings could displace more than 400 businesses. A table of businesses potentially displaced by the project lists up to 10,000 workers who could be affected by the project. And while the largest company was an advertising firm with more than 2,000 employees, many of the businesses with fewer than five employees will almost certainly not be able to afford office spaces in the new skyscrapers.

The development would also displace 206 residents in 128 apartments. While the project would likely create more affordable housing units, nonprofit community group Human-Scale NYC founding member Lynn Ellsworth said the promises of “economic development” were more complicated than the developers claimed – especially if new housing units came at the expense of a network of restaurants, retailers and a local church.

“It’s cheap rent for little entrepreneurs of all kinds – theater companies, therapists, musicians, people just starting off with their new business,” Ellsworth said. “And for some reason, the city thinks we don’t need that kind of space, and (the idea that) we can just get rid of it and replace it with Class A office space is gentrification of the small-business sector.”

Ellsworth believes Vornado’s vision for the area around Penn Station contrasts with many of the businesses that currently occupy the neighborhood. The new office buildings promise to include rooftop pavilions and full-service restaurants with private dining rooms, along with the building Vornado has already redeveloped on West 34th Street.

Ellsworth said these developments will benefit few of the people living and working in the area, pointing to the Molly Wee Pub as a prime example of what will be lost. Located a block from Penn Station, the pub was among businesses slated for displacement if the project breaks ground.

“Go to the Molly Wee Pub diagonally across (from Moynihan Train Hall). The pub is full of a working-class population after a Rangers game having fun. They’re not the sort of high-class gentry portrayed in Vornado’s depiction of what it wants to do to the neighborhood,” Ellsworth told City & State.

Ellsworth said the development was indicative of a push to build a “luxury city” chock full of Class A offices as an approach to economic development. But, she added, fostering economic growth was more complicated than building skyscrapers, and it was unclear how a Hudson Yards-esque expansion would benefit the surrounding neighborhood.

While the far West Side development took a significant hit in the months before the pandemic, the success of Hudson Yards remains uncertain more than three years after its initial launch. And even if the $25 billion development eventually delivers on its investment, it’s unclear how much value several more supertall office buildings within a couple blocks would add as only 8% of Manhattan office workers reported working in person five days a week earlier this year, according to Partnership for New York City. Ellsworth noted that while there was rarely a catch-all solution to fostering economic development, meaningful investments in transportation and education have always revamped communities.

Holding out for a return to Penn’s original grandeur

Advocates like Turvey have pushed for a Penn Station renovation that builds on the foundation of the original station – a landmark above-ground structure that was demolished in 1963 to make room for Madison Square Garden. While relocating the arena was floated by lawmakers and advocates as part of the current Penn Station redevelopment, the idea was rejected by MSG executives.

“I personally think that if you rebuild the original Penn Station and reverse the architectural crime of the century,” Turvey said, “throughout the world little kids would be reading about this … and you would probably be generating four or five generations of tourists and other interest in the city.”

Maia Pandey is a New York City native and journalism student at Northwestern University.