Currently, with a government with no debt and flowing in money; all children properly fed and cared for; average educational level at it's highest in history; crime at such a low rate; all borders are secure; terrorism is of no concern; uh oh, I had some of that wrong.
Maybe some of that money could have been put to a better use. Not everything has to look ugly and non--functional. What was it from the original twin towers that inspired this?
The Port Authority of NY & NJ built office buildings like WTC I and II, and now the Freedom Tower. The Flying Bones is going to have a Mall in it, according to one of the above posts. What do these activities have to do with TRANSPORTATION?
Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should.
it kind of reminds me of the Milwaukee Art Museum complex located on the shore of Lake Michigan. Never could understand the reason nor the reference for this huge structure but it kind of looks like some sore of bird and it has "wings" that open and close at different times of day. Always thought that it was the result of efforts of people that have too much time on their hands!
The one time that I did enjoy seeing it was a few years back when the "Cedar Rapids" the former Milwaukee Road, Skytop Lounge had been brought over by truck and place on the steps of the museum with high capacity cranes. The occasion was a tribute to the late Brooks Stevens, the famous industrial designer who, among a lot of other things, designed the post war Milwaukee Road name trains, the Hiawatha and Olympian Hiawatha. Inside the museum were examples of literally hundreds of products that Brooks Stevens had designed during his 50 plus years as an Industrial Designer.
Paul Fischer
Dominic Mazoch posted:The Port Authority of NY & NJ built office buildings like WTC I and II, and now the Freedom Tower. The Flying Bones is going to have a Mall in it, according to one of the above posts. What do these activities have to do with TRANSPORTATION?
It isn't just about transportation. It's also about collecting rent from the retail shops in the mall.
Dominic Mazoch posted:In Houston, along each of the LRT stations was made a little "different" for each local. But do the passengers actually LOOK at the items? I think not. They are trying to cath a train or bus!
However, Houston METRO did do something right. Some group wanted to build a special platform for Central Station Main. But the BOD looked at the costs of keeping it up on METRO's dime, and said, "NO!". Smart move
Maybe the concept "form follows function", as mentioned above, should have bee used in NYC.
You hit on a point I have often promoted. Architects often don't look at the long term life of a structure, meaning the cost to run and maintain it. Without proper maintenance and funds, any building, no matter how grandiose will look shabby in time. Remember, paper doesn't refuse ink. A designer can draw all kinds of lines on paper, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it will work.
An architect is said to be a man who knows a very little about a great deal and keeps knowing less and less about more and more until he knows practically nothing about everything.
On the other hand, an engineer is a man who knows a great deal about very little and goes along knowing practically everything about nothing.
A contractor starts out knowing practically everything about everything but ends up knowing nothing about nothing, due to his association with architects and engineers.
The exterior of it reminds me of the crab bait in my pots, after a full day of catching Dungeness, the Best tasting crab in the Sea.
The platforms resemble an operating room, with subway tracks running through it. The overall feel(just judging from the photos) is not one of warmth, looks chilly, a place to pass through Quickly, without much notice give to the place itself.
Doug
I haven't seen it yet in person, so I can't really comment on how it fits in. Architects are often like music composers, they create things that the rest of us look at it and say "What the heck?". The idea was to try and create a grand transportation hub , not really as a memorial from what I can tell, but more about making a statement that terrorism wouldn't stop people from dreaming (or so I heard). I don't necessarily object to spending money on something like this, there are always things that need to be done, there are always problems, there are always threats and dangers, and if all we did was spend all our money and time on those, it would be a pretty drab world we live in. Whether I think this was worth it or not, it at least left something behind. People said the same thing about Grand Central, about the Empire State Building, about the original WTC, about the space program, how there were better, more practical ways to spend the money, but it left something behind, as did the original Penn Station (and think about this one, the old Penn Station was replaced for MSG and office buildings that 'would actually do things', knocking down Penn Station was sold as creating the modern NYC,it would bring efficiency to the street, be a 'hub of the economy' and the like....and in the end, was that an upgrade?
As far as why these things end up costing more than they estimated, there are a number of factors. I don't know if they granted an exemption for this particular build, but NY State has something called Wickes law, that when there is a public project, the state or city has to act as general contractor, rather than hiring a general contractor who brings in the sub contractors after submitting it for bidding. The idea was, in the depression years, to prevent a small group of contractors and subcontractors from getting all the work, this allowed the city or state to 'spread it around'...the problem there is that when you have a GC, they have all the risk on the project and also can keep the subs from screwing around, because if they do, they won't get jobs sent their way. So you have things like the electrical contractor telling the guy doing the plumbing "hey, do me a favor, when you go to put in those pipes, when you punch a hole through that wall, could you take out the conduit there?"........it lengthens the job. Plus unless things have changed, when you do private contracting, there is a finish date, and if the contractor misses that, penalties kick in (likewise, if they finish early, they get bonuses). As far as I know, that doesn't apply to public contracts, so there is no incentive to finish on time, and the longer it goes, more it costs.
It also is because state government often takes the lowest bids (by law usually), and often don't look at the firm's ability to do the job or their past track record. The city back in the 80's time and again hired this excavating and paving firm to redo major roadways, and every job this company fouled up, streets had the wrong grade, sidewalks, curbs would be left "hanging in space", sub surface elements like pipes and such broken, trees destroyed..but they were the low bidder. Same thing applies to materials, when they built the SF bay bridge, they decided to get the steel made in, no big surprise, China..and guess what, they ran into all kinds of problems with getting the steel delivered in a timely fashion, it was not unlike what we see with the trains we love, stuff doesn't ship on time. Train doesn't ship on time, we get angry, steel doesn't arrive on schedule and other things cannot be done, and that costs time which ends up costing money. Plus on government large scale jobs, you have inevitable change orders, someone decides they want this done this way instead of that, and that is costly as heck (contractors make a lot of their money on change orders). With public jobs, too, if the cost of materials goes up, the contractor can pass that along, on private jobs if the cost of materials goes up, the contractor eats it. That doesn't mean private work is a testimony to efficient production either, a lot of private projects end up taking longer and costing more than estimated, we just don't hear about it as much.
The other factor is that public projects often are done as public projects because no one else would touch them, because they involve big, messy projects that have a lot of risk with them. Putting up an office building or the like is a relatively finite kind of project, something like a public site like a transportation hub or a new subway tunnel or a bridge are infinitely more complex, on a larger scale, and it is why you don't see private firms doing those kinds of things, why you didn't see a private developer doing the transportation hub, for example, because there would be no profit in it for them, too complex. Infrastructure by its very nature is expensive, and doesn't offer much of a return, so it is left to public entitites to do it. The subway system in NYC is a good example of that, despite what some think, private ownership of the subway did not produce great service (or profits), it ended up leaving the subways a mess that took many decades to get out of. Even if the fare hadn't been fixed at a nickel, which was ridiculous, it is likely that private operators would have found in the end they lost money on them. If they charged a fare that allowed them a decent profit, they would not have the ridership to support it, and if they charged a fare to build ridership, it likely would cost them more to run it than they got in fares.
Here in Houston TX, on the Harrisburg Overpass on the Green LRT line, there is a bonus for finishing early, and a penalty for finishing late. TXDOT has had like contracts.
But on some of these government contracts, there HAS to be a percent of "small/minority businesses with a sub-contract in the project. Personally, if they can win the contract standing alone, great. If not, well..... It does not work that way in the private world. If you can't do the job, you get F****, from the Donald's Lexicon. (Comment on word use, not anybody running for office.......)
bigkid posted:I haven't seen it yet in person, so I can't really comment on how it fits in.
I have seen it and as for how it fits in.... It doesn't, really. I don't have nearly the issues with it as some here do, but I really thought the building was lacking a roof when I saw it in September.
Heck, I didn't even know what it was at the time as I was focused on the footprints of the WTC when I was there.
It's kind of hard to see, but the building in question is almost in the center of this photo, the only one I took that has it in it...
bigkid posted:I haven't seen it yet in person, so I can't really comment on how it fits in. Architects are often like music composers, they create things that the rest of us look at it and say "What the heck?". The idea was to try and create a grand transportation hub , not really as a memorial from what I can tell, but more about making a statement that terrorism wouldn't stop people from dreaming (or so I heard). I don't necessarily object to spending money on something like this, there are always things that need to be done, there are always problems, there are always threats and dangers, and if all we did was spend all our money and time on those, it would be a pretty drab world we live in. Whether I think this was worth it or not, it at least left something behind. People said the same thing about Grand Central, about the Empire State Building, about the original WTC, about the space program, how there were better, more practical ways to spend the money, but it left something behind, as did the original Penn Station (and think about this one, the old Penn Station was replaced for MSG and office buildings that 'would actually do things', knocking down Penn Station was sold as creating the modern NYC,it would bring efficiency to the street, be a 'hub of the economy' and the like....and in the end, was that an upgrade?
As far as why these things end up costing more than they estimated, there are a number of factors. I don't know if they granted an exemption for this particular build, but NY State has something called Wickes law, that when there is a public project, the state or city has to act as general contractor, rather than hiring a general contractor who brings in the sub contractors after submitting it for bidding. The idea was, in the depression years, to prevent a small group of contractors and subcontractors from getting all the work, this allowed the city or state to 'spread it around'...the problem there is that when you have a GC, they have all the risk on the project and also can keep the subs from screwing around, because if they do, they won't get jobs sent their way. So you have things like the electrical contractor telling the guy doing the plumbing "hey, do me a favor, when you go to put in those pipes, when you punch a hole through that wall, could you take out the conduit there?"........it lengthens the job. Plus unless things have changed, when you do private contracting, there is a finish date, and if the contractor misses that, penalties kick in (likewise, if they finish early, they get bonuses). As far as I know, that doesn't apply to public contracts, so there is no incentive to finish on time, and the longer it goes, more it costs.
It also is because state government often takes the lowest bids (by law usually), and often don't look at the firm's ability to do the job or their past track record. The city back in the 80's time and again hired this excavating and paving firm to redo major roadways, and every job this company fouled up, streets had the wrong grade, sidewalks, curbs would be left "hanging in space", sub surface elements like pipes and such broken, trees destroyed..but they were the low bidder. Same thing applies to materials, when they built the SF bay bridge, they decided to get the steel made in, no big surprise, China..and guess what, they ran into all kinds of problems with getting the steel delivered in a timely fashion, it was not unlike what we see with the trains we love, stuff doesn't ship on time. Train doesn't ship on time, we get angry, steel doesn't arrive on schedule and other things cannot be done, and that costs time which ends up costing money. Plus on government large scale jobs, you have inevitable change orders, someone decides they want this done this way instead of that, and that is costly as heck (contractors make a lot of their money on change orders). With public jobs, too, if the cost of materials goes up, the contractor can pass that along, on private jobs if the cost of materials goes up, the contractor eats it. That doesn't mean private work is a testimony to efficient production either, a lot of private projects end up taking longer and costing more than estimated, we just don't hear about it as much.
The other factor is that public projects often are done as public projects because no one else would touch them, because they involve big, messy projects that have a lot of risk with them. Putting up an office building or the like is a relatively finite kind of project, something like a public site like a transportation hub or a new subway tunnel or a bridge are infinitely more complex, on a larger scale, and it is why you don't see private firms doing those kinds of things, why you didn't see a private developer doing the transportation hub, for example, because there would be no profit in it for them, too complex. Infrastructure by its very nature is expensive, and doesn't offer much of a return, so it is left to public entitites to do it. The subway system in NYC is a good example of that, despite what some think, private ownership of the subway did not produce great service (or profits), it ended up leaving the subways a mess that took many decades to get out of. Even if the fare hadn't been fixed at a nickel, which was ridiculous, it is likely that private operators would have found in the end they lost money on them. If they charged a fare that allowed them a decent profit, they would not have the ridership to support it, and if they charged a fare to build ridership, it likely would cost them more to run it than they got in fares.
Most "Improvements for the public good" are someone's way of selling a project. The people selling, have their own good in mind. The Penn Station catastrophe gave New York what, a boxing ring and office tower. Really ? They have built high rises over streets there. You mean to tell me they couldn't find another venue ? Thank God for the preservation movement. It gave me alot of work.
I must differ with you on the scenario about the electrician asking the plumber to remove some pipes while he had the wall open. To my mind, it saves time.
As for the inept contractor getting the street grades wrong, where was the superintendent ?
Your last point about subway fares has no easy answer except that we all want services of some sort. But most of us complain about paying more taxes. Well, if we want a better life, we must be willing to pay something for it. In the case of the fares, we must be willing to subsidize the fares with taxes. But we don't want to be the ones to help improve infrastructure. We'd rather leave it to the next generation. And as we have all seen, it is too late by then.
Our national infrastructure is in peril. Yet what are we spending money on. Highway work. New projects. While the old continues to deteriorate.
OK, I have gotten myself agitated again on this subject. That's enough.
Boy you guys are tough! It is fine buy me, We are in the 21 century.
It is not a Romulan bird of prey but a white bird of piece, maybe.
Now you want to see Crap, come to DC metro.
John,
Whats wrong with DC Metro? I spent 5 years working in Washington DC building 2 stations below ground ( Tenley Circle and Freindship Heights Stations ) and associated shafts and sub stations in NW Washington DC. I even spent a year doing track work between Tenley Town station to the yard at Shady Grove. Loved the column free design in the stations we built. To me it was more like a commuter line bringing people from miles away to the center of DC. We have visited it several times with our sons over the years and I would explain some of the problems we had in tunneling and constructing the civil work for the stations and associated entrances and shafts.
Dan,
I don't disagree with everything you said, like if we want a better life you need to pay for it.
However, somebody needs to be overseeing projects like this to make sure they don't double in cost or take twice as long.
Tom
Randy T posted:As a life long New Yorker I hate it! Waste of my tax dollars by the Port Authority of NY & NJ. The over runs were HUGE! I would have preferred a more subdued and dignified entrance but my opinion does not count. Hopefully it will be kept clean and move the commuters from the different modes of transportation efficiently.
The big difference between the WTC hub and Penn Station is that Penn Station had to come out of the PRR's wallet not some one else's.
Not at all being political but one glance at what the Port Authority takes in from bridge and tunnel tolls is astounding, I believe the 'net says three quarters of a billion dollars in six months. That's a lot of money to basically be used for operating costs with very little real oversight outside of the insular Port Authority system.
Anyway, seems like bad stewards of the public treasury. Had I be one of the regular taxpaying commuters that use it I would much have preferred function over form, especially for what is essentially a commuter terminal.
"I am expecting a troop of Romulans to exit."
...Or Buck Rogers and Ming the Merciless?
Could cost another 6 billion to keep it clean!
Say what you will about Chris Christie, at least he kept us from that ludicrous "dead end tunnel to Macy's basement" disaster!
OLDGUYFROMNJ
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
