Preservation
Should Union Station's Great Hall be less great?
Union Station's Great Hall is one of the city's most fantastic public spaces. It is beautiful, engaging, and lively. And somebody wants to tear a couple of giant holes in its floor.
Earlier this week, Washington City Paper reported on a proposal to cut holes in the Great Hall's floor in order to provide better access to the basement food court, and to replace the Center Cafe with a new larger and more modern version.
Yes, holes in the floor. To access the food court.
Why, exactly? Nobody knows. It's not like that food court is hurting for customers. On the contrary, it's uncomfortably packed most of the day.
On the other hand, there are very good reasons why there should not be a couple of holes in the floor.
Most importantly, that such a successful public space should not be torn up on a whim. Union Station is the most visited destination in Washington. By any measure it is a place that is working tremendously well already, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unnecessary changes that don't benefit anything important threaten to make things worse rather than better.
Beyond that, there are good preservationist reasons not to change the Great Hall in this manner. The hall's elegant classicism is fundamentally incompatible with a mundane food court. They're both valuable and worthwhile spaces, of course, but making the Great Hall more like the food court inherently intrudes upon the elegance of the Great Hall.
Finally, there's the small matter of this having been tried once before, and having failed miserably. In the late 1970s Congress spent more than $100 million on a pit in the middle of the Great Hall. It was so unpopular that it was filled in by the early 1980s. While that 1970s boondoggle is only barely comparable to the current proposal, it is nonetheless instructive: Turns out magnificent classical spaces are not appropriate places for large holes in the ground.
In the City Paper comments thread, some responders suggest that opposing changes to Union Station is just like opposing overhead streetcar wires. Nothing could be further from the truth. The streetcar plan promises to greatly benefit the city by virtue of better transportation and revitalized neighborhoods. This Union Station plan offers no such benefits, and as described above, it involves real risk. I oppose it for the same reason that I support streetcars: I want the city to be vital and prosperous. Streetcars would make Washington more so; ripping a couple of holes in one of the city's best spaces wouldn't.
At best, this proposal is a solution in search of an imaginary problem. Even if you think it's harmless, it doesn't solve anything that needs to be solved. At worst, it could ruin one of Washington's most magnificent public gathering places.
Why take the risk?
Cross-posted at BeyondDC.
 | Dan Malouff is a professional transportation planner for the Arlington County Department of Transportation. He has a degree in Urban Planning from the University of Colorado, and lives a car-free lifestyle in Northwest Washington. His posts are his own opinions and do not represent the views of his employer in any way. He runs the blog BeyondDC and also contributes to the Washington Post Local Opinions blog.   |
Comments
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
by Vik on Aug 26, 2010 9:11 am • link • report
by MattF on Aug 26, 2010 9:30 am • link • report
That said, this isn't a particularly well-executed vision for it.
I will also note that the food court is indeed packed, but the back half of it is often deserted. That's because you can't even tell that there's a back half of it even when you're down on that level. Perhaps that's not the best location for retail, then.
by Alex B. on Aug 26, 2010 9:46 am • link • report
I'm also sure they can find better places to install additional stairs and escalators. Although the area is congested, it's not at any sort of tipping point.
by andrew on Aug 26, 2010 9:53 am • link • report
by stevern77 on Aug 26, 2010 9:57 am • link • report
Stairs and escalators are not handicapped accessible. Elevators are.
Hell, I don't even know where the elevators are at Union Station.
by Alex B. on Aug 26, 2010 9:59 am • link • report
by Stanton Park on Aug 26, 2010 10:04 am • link • report
The elevator is at the entrance to Pizzario Uno, but you have to know it's there.
Maybe replacing the fountain/planters with elevators would be a useful compromise - added mobility without taking additional floor space from the Great Hall.
by Stanton Park on Aug 26, 2010 10:08 am • link • report
I may not support the proposal for these changes to the Union Station great hall, but I disagree with your flippant and categorical dismissal of them.
You can't just classify a valid proposal for renovation as a "hole in the ground," and then claim the moral high ground you do by arguing against that straw man. This is a reasonable proposal, that is substantively different than the tourist pit that was installed mid 20th century, and it deserves serious treatment.
There are real problems with the food court below the great hall, and it is no less part of the Union public space than the great hall itself. For that matter, the very successful "holes int he ground" in the hall adjacent to the great hall are part of this public space as well.
I believe that the people proposing this also want the city to be "vital and prosperous," and by implying that only you hold that lofty goal, you reduce your argument to a facile ad hominem attack.
by CJ on Aug 26, 2010 10:09 am • link • report
by aaa on Aug 26, 2010 10:29 am • link • report
http://explorepahistory.com/images/ExplorePAHistory-a0b3e3-a_349.jpg
by aaa on Aug 26, 2010 10:31 am • link • report
In all fairness, New York-Penn wasn't renovated into its current state. It was completely demolished. In fact, that act is one of the things that created the modern day historic preservation movement.
by Matt Johnson on Aug 26, 2010 10:31 am • link • report
Please note that the author of this post is Dan Malouff. Not any one of the Davids who writes for GGW.
by Matt Johnson on Aug 26, 2010 10:33 am • link • report
More importantly, David is right - the flippant dismissal is inappropriate. You don't like the idea? Make a legitimate case without semi-alarming headlines.
by rosenrosen on Aug 26, 2010 10:34 am • link • report
by aaa on Aug 26, 2010 10:34 am • link • report
In any case, I'm interested in a further elaboration of the "real problems with the food court below the great hall", and how these real problems would be addressed by the Very Serious Habitrail-thingy in the first rendering.
by oboe on Aug 26, 2010 10:46 am • link • report
Make a legitimate case without semi-alarming headlines.
Wait a second. What "semi-alarming" headlines. It's simply playing on the double-meaning of the word "great": both "excellent" and "expansive". There's no question sticking a giant platform, some glass tubes, and some holes there will diminish the remaining space in at least the second sense if not the first.
Everybody's a critic.
by oboe on Aug 26, 2010 10:50 am • link • report
by Boots on Aug 26, 2010 10:58 am • link • report
by oinonio on Aug 26, 2010 11:00 am • link • report
by kk on Aug 26, 2010 11:06 am • link • report
First of all, the assumption that the lower level of Unions stations should be relegated to, and then denigrated as, a food court, is in error. THe lower level is part of the facility, and can be used for other purposes, but it has obvious access problems.
THe lower level is only accessible from one side, and is used unevenly, as noted by other commentors above. If the upper level is crowded, why would access to more floor space on another level not be a good thing?
The lower level is cavernous, which could be alleviated through vertical opening. If the space could be made more useful and inviting, maybe we could get something in there besides another hotdog stand.
I'm not a huge proponent of the plan in discussion here. I simply don't see a need to advocate for the status quo by calling it a hole in the ground. Access to the lower level on that side would make the entire space more useful, but might impact the historic integrity of the great hall. That's worth discussing in real terms instead of strawmen.
by CJ on Aug 26, 2010 11:12 am • link • report
The bar up top would be interesting, but I think it's a terrible idea.
by Redline SOS on Aug 26, 2010 11:28 am • link • report
by Steve on Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am • link • report
Did you bother reading the Committee of 100's comments? I would think most of us urbanists would back comments that propose re-making the Grand Hall into the intra-modal space it once was ... albeit with modern transportation modes ...
• Consider moving the rail ticketing and waiting area from the rail concourse, which the master plan recognizes as inadequate in size and in need of immediate renovation, to the Main Hall - as the station was originally intended to be used and as it was for more than a half century. Both the Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation, in its June 18 presentation, and the Union Station Master Plan have given highest priority to the building as the center of intermodal transportation, not only for the city but also for the Mid-Atlantic Region. “(The) Master Plan (is) designed to propel Union Station to the forefront of seamless, state-of-the art intermodal transportation centers globally.”
The master plan also states that Amtrak expects ridership to increase nationwide by 50% by 2030. In response to that, it proposes a new 45,000 square foot concourse as “a must to relieve current and future use congestion issues.” It would be far more logical, in terms of 1) the impact to the historic resource, 2) issues of sustainability, and 3) attracting even greater ridership, if the Main Hall were to be used as the rail concourse rather than as the site of intense retail development.
• Move the rental-car kiosks from the parking garage, where they are difficult to find and inconveniently located, to the main station, which will serve to reinforce the station as a center of intermodal transportation;
• Locate the ticket counter for the buses in the Main Hall;
• Redesign the visitor information counter so that it is easier to find and attracts more users, perhaps through the use of dynamic signage;
• Consider dynamic signage to guide visitors to the lower level rather than cutting a hole in the floor of the Main Hall to reveal the activity below. Such a radical approach to attracting retail clients seems unnecessary in a location that has been reported, by Washington’s most widely-circulated newspaper, as bringing the highest rental of any site in the city.
• Eliminate the current round cafe in the center of the main hall, which blocks the view, confuses visitors, and impedes visitor circulation. With the other cafes in the building, a cafe in this location is not necessary. Do not replace it with the proposed cafe structure, elevators, stairs, and two
openings in the floor . If the ticketing counters were moved to the Main Hall, there would be no room for the proposed structure, elevators, stairs and openings.
• A highly visible sign advising travelers of train information, in conjunction with an information desk in this general location would be desirable
• Produce an historic structures report as recommended by the DC State Historic Preservation Officer.
by Lance on Aug 26, 2010 11:53 am • link • report
by Lance on Aug 26, 2010 11:56 am • link • report
by Lance on Aug 26, 2010 11:57 am • link • report
by Lance on Aug 26, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report
I'm not sure why you directed that comment at me. And yes, I did read C100's comments. I'm not sure how that relates to what I wrote above.
by Alex B. on Aug 26, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report
by Lance on Aug 26, 2010 12:33 pm • link • report
by Lance on Aug 26, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report
You're replying to Alex Baca in a post written by Dan Malouf, and you addressed your comment to my handle, and I had already commented on this thread.
by Alex B. on Aug 26, 2010 12:38 pm • link • report
by Mike on Aug 26, 2010 1:57 pm • link • report
by Andy Peters on Aug 26, 2010 2:56 pm • link • report
I am not sure I understand what problems exist in the lower level, other than having all stairs & escalators in one location, which do act somewhat as a barrier to the Amtrak ticket counters. Does this proposal and whatever reorganization of the lower level might follow have something to do with closing the movie theaters and repurposing that space, which is under the Main Hall?
by ZZinDC on Aug 26, 2010 4:43 pm • link • report
by Steve-2 on Aug 26, 2010 5:21 pm • link • report
While a ludicrous discussion about how best to destroy Union station swirls stupidly on, does anyone care about Amtrack. That a family of 4 has to spend $859 to visit NY from Friday to Sunday. That the trains are rarely on time. That the system is electrified from Boston to DC, but then alll trains have to switch to diesel locomotion to travel anywhere south of DC. Why do people feel they need to waste huge amounts of limited resources for cockamamie plans to a perfectly functional train station. The historic washington notice said " Union Station has not been renovated since 1984,SO,,, all I know is good renovation is for much longer than 26 years. People who need to waste our scarce resources and flush good money down the toilet neeed to be kept out of decision making positions. Put a 1300 foot hole in your own house and then visit the food court , as there are already perfectly adequate entrances on both sides and it was just renovated. When are the people with common sense going to push these idiots out and save money, labor, resources, energy for the things we desperately NEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Daniel in DC on Aug 27, 2010 5:37 am • link • report
Those fabulous heroic statues of vikings or something up on the top of the walls, were done by St. Gauden's( America's greatest sculptor's) son, I'm sure the imbicilic, wasteful and completely unnecessary ideas to corrupt Union Station will make them sick. Why don't we get rid of all those dusty old statues put some glass up there, and dump them in the landfill while we are destroying the rest of the great hall. Sorry Mr. St. Gaudens people in the future will not know what to mess up next. Save us from this lunacy,,please!!!
by Daniel in DC on Aug 27, 2010 5:58 am • link • report
Keep DC's Union Station Whole
http://my.preservationnation.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9439
by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 27, 2010 9:23 am • link • report
The fact that more people pass through there than any other landmark doesn't prove it to me. When I worked on Capitol Hill I walked through or around it every day and was dismayed every day by the cluttered spaces, lousy access, terrible traffic flows, and its abysmal or non-existent connections to the outside world.
Of course the Great Hall is lovely, but the Center Cafe - which seems like a good idea - ends up blocking sight lines and is quite ugly. I'm intrigued by the replacement.
And I am dumbfounded by the reaction here to putting holes in the floor. It could only help the lower level, which certainly needs work, and I cannot understand how it would somehow soil the sanctity of the Great Hall.
While I am at it - and I am not optimistic - any chance that the restaurants which have taken over the station, walled it off from the east, and made traffic flows non-functional (B Smith & America, I am looking at you) will have their territorial ambitions checked?
by DavidDuck on Aug 27, 2010 9:49 pm • link • report
Add a Comment