A Beaux-Arts Milestone that Almost Wasn't: Happy Hundred, Grand Central

In honor of the celebration of Grand Central Station's 100th birthday, this week we're looking back on the case that, decided differently, could have permanently scarred the iconic Beaux-Arts beauty that Jeff Lunden recently dubbed a "cathedral for commuters."

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons 

In 1965, responding to the loss of culturally significant Manhattan landmarks- including the original Pennsylvania Station- to the wrecking ball, Mayor Robert Wagner signed into effect the New York City Landmarks Law, to be enforced by a Landmarks Commission. Three years later, the newly formed Penn Central Railroad Company- created by the union of the struggling New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroads- unveiled two designs to update and further develop Grand Central Terminal, both of which proposed the addition of a more than fifty story office tower designed in the Modernist style by acclaimed architect Marcel Breuer. One of the proposals called for the demolition of some of the terminal's original walls. After both Grand Central Tower plans were rejected by the Landmarks Commission, Penn Central filed suit claiming that the Commission's restrictions placed an unfair burden on Plaintiff and the owners of the approximately 400 other properties designated as city landmarks by curtailing their development rights in favor of the public benefit of historic preservation. Plaintiff argued that the Landmark Commission's restrictions amounted to a regulatory taking and that Penn Central was entitled to just compensation from the city. On appeal in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), SCOTUS employed a three-part balancing test to determine whether the Commission's actions constituted a mere regulation or a taking. The Court evaluated (1) the character of the government action- notably whether the action fulfilled a government purpose of promoting the community's health, welfare, and safety; (2) the economic impact of the regulation on Plaintiff; and (3) the protection of Plaintiff's reasonable investment-backed expectations. In an opinion issued by Justice Brennan, the majority held for the city, stating that the Landmark Commission's action of rejecting the Grand Central Tower plans was a protection the city's welfare and that the regulation did not interfere with Penn Central's reasonable investment-backed expectations, because they had purchased a train station and were still entitled to run a train station (the Court also posited that Penn Central could sell their air rights to the developer of another parcel). In short, the character of the Commission's action and the lack of threat to investment-backed expectations outweighed any economic impact felt by Penn Central through the diminution of the parcel's value. This decision, which eventually led to the Metropolitan Transit Authority's acquisition and restoration of Grand Central Terminal, was a milestone not just for takings law but a monumental victory for the preservation movement that sought to protect beautiful and historic public spaces from the threat of bland repurposing. If not for the Landmark Commission's actions, preservation activism from New York celebrities including Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, and subsequent Court ruling, the candles on Grand Central's centennial cake might have a lot less architectural luster. Here's hoping Grand Central continues to be a beautiful nerve center for Manhattan transit for another century. Happy One Hundredth, Grand Central!