Grand Central Terminal, as a “monumental” structure, or in a more accurate sense, a “structural” monument, of New York City’s significant growth and transformation, delivers quite a compelling message through its consistent existence and ever-improving change in design. With Manhattan’s industrial railroad tradition rooting from numerous “competing” and unorganized railroad lines, what eventually resulted in the creation of today’s famous Grand Central Terminal, at first began with the temporary and make-shift stations of the many “Grand Central’s” preceding the final “Terminal” as we know it to be now. The many Manhattan lines soon enough conglomerated into a Grand Central Depot, then becoming a Grand Central Station, then a Grand Central Terminal (of 1913), and then finally a Grand Central Terminal refurbished and rejuvenated in 1983.
Thus as can be observed from the many slightly different “versions” of Grand Central Terminal (which existed before the final), it can be justly concluded that the New York City icon, as a monument, contains an argument in that errors, failures, disappointments, and destruction may all play an essential role in the eventually positive change and beneficial shaping of an unexpected masterpiece (Grand Central Terminal of the 21st century). It is a lasting example that an honored and well-recognized monument such as itself need not be “unchanging” or original from the start, but instead may be a product of a few, or many failed and misunderstood projects preceding it. Furthermore, the persistence and longevity found in such a lasting architectural feat appropriately matches and thus reflects the consistent and similarly challenging growth of its surrounding city, Manhattan.
Long before the development of any “Grand Central”, railroad lines and stations such as The New York and Harlem Railroad, The New York and New Haven Railroad, and the Hudson River Railroad, all of which were independently competing companies, existed throughout the city area of New York. As a result of personal ambitions, as well as for the sake of convenience, efficiency, and improvement of New York City railroad transportation, “Commodore” Cornelius Vanderbilt merged two notable existing railroad lines, the Hudson River Railroad and the New York Central Railroad, in 1864, and soon after began the development of Grand Central Depot, the “first Grand Central” (Grand Central Terminal). Opening in 1871, Grand Central Depot proved its purpose to be that of a symbol of progress, conglomeration, and improvement for the railroad line system throughout the New York City area. It’s designer, John B. Snook, had no intentions of making any distinctive statements with such a structure, for its argument seemed to be that of simply practicality; keeping up with and thus indirectly reflecting the technological as well as infrastructural advancements of its city.
It was such humble yet practical beginnings that allowed for Grand Central Depot to undergo such loose and constant change. Shortly after its construction, the Depot underwent additional changes and “improvements” by architects Bradford Lee Gilbert and Samuel Huckel, Jr. Such additional work on the Depot could have been considered quite unexpected by many city-residents of the time, since such a station was rarely in regular and habitual use (Grand Central Terminal). Thus when a new and improved Grand Central Station was constructed in replacement of the previous Grand Central Depot, its underlying argument in its existence strongly appeared to be that of a somewhat devoted or consistent “structural attitude’ towards the increasingly better recognized/respected train station. The new Grand Central Station as a structure in itself held no unique purpose or meaning as a rail-line station, for its construction was most clearly a natural result of the continual growth and modernization of its New York City. Thus once again, while keeping with the persistent nature of refusing to neglect and possibly demolish an at once “obsolete” structure, (citation), as well as portraying the parallel relationship between the stations development and its surrounding city’s growth, the “Grand Central” station was one step closer to the “Grand Central Terminal” as it is known today.
With the at first seemingly successful refurbishment of Grand Central Depot to Grand Central Station, the soon-to-be monumental station was faring somewhat well. However as it is with all rapid technological changes and adjustments, technical/mechanical errors were soon to be found. On January 8th, 1902, a large accident occurred within the station in which seventeen people were killed and thirty-eight injured. Following such an accident, the station experienced several other devastating accidents, most of them pertaining to setbacks of the steam locomotive. Thus to keep in touch with the ever-rapidly modernizing city and thus nation, the station had plans made to undergo another and this time most major improved development; in this case for the more specific and acute purpose of allowing electric trains to run through the station. Grand Central Terminal, as the new station was thus called, had its construction plans headed by chief engineer William J. Wilgus and designed by architectural team Warren and Wetmore (Grand Central Terminal). Similar to the prior two Grand Central stations, this station’s architectural design, and more-so its architects, had no specific or monumental intentions in designing and creating such a structure.
Each successive design seemed to be rooted directly from business-related and thus uncreative/unsentimental reasons. It was such a weak direct argument found by such architects that allowed for the overall growth of a strong yet somewhat vague underlying argument. Each station lacked any “personal” or more specifically, “argument-al” meaning in its existence. For with the creation of the final Grand Central Terminal, despite the minor necessary excuses of an electric railroad line, any further architectural finishes and additions were conducted mainly out of decoration, business, and leisure. Hotels such as the Biltmore and Commodore as well as office buildings such as the Graybar and Chrysler, all sprung up surrounding the station. The stations significance and monumental aura grew more-so from its erratic past rather than its stable future. While it did experience a never before felt sense of necessity by the people of New York City, it too like its predecessor encountered a period of decline and thus failure. For with such a weak and indirect existential meaning of significance, Grand Central’s ability to remain as one consistently growing solid structure was inhibited. In order to remain a part of the city’s growing body, it had to ritually undergo one demolishment and refurbishment after another.
Prior to the plans for Grand Central Terminal’s demolishment, the station was being used as an infrastructure to display numerous billboards and other business-centric appliances. With a rapidly growing list of inner-maintenance problems such as leaks, chips, and rusting, the station seemed near its end. Ironically however, it was at this lowest-point where the Terminal was recognized as a landmark by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission; and was thus protected from destruction by law. Such an action thus further follows the argument of Grand Central’s monumental significance; its connection, parallelism (in growth), and reflection, of the surrounding city in which it finds it self in. Fortunately for the declining building, Metro-North gained control of the Terminal in 1983, and began the last final major reconstruction of New York’s persistently surviving railroad station. The high-expense plan gave Grand Central Terminal the appearance, feeling, and occupation that it has today. With the Metropolitan Transportation Authority leasing the Terminal in a 110-year deal, the station at last finally seemed to fall into a period of secured stability. While this last feat in architectural as well as structural rejuvenation, like the other prior attempts, lacked much significance in its exact precise purpose, the important fact to note is that the scheme was completed successfully, thus allowing for the structure to gain and maintain a monumental argument of a parallel growth to the city, and a lasting consistent growth to itself.
The structure in and of it self holds no actual argument and meaning – neither do the architects who accepted the requests for its design – however it is this very lacking that allows for an argument to be made and a meaning to be found: that a monument’s statement need not be intentional or direct in any way; as shown by Grand Central Terminal’s continual ups and downs, the argument of a monument may be most effectively developed without intention but instead naturally as a result of the overall net result of its endurance.