Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision on compensation for regulatory takings . Penn Central sued the government of New York City after the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission denied its bid to build a large office building on top of Grand Central Terminal . The Supreme Court ruled in the city's favor.

Contents

• 1 Events leading up to the case

  • 1.1 New York City Landmarks Law

  • 1.2 Railroad decline

  • 1.3 Proposals to replace Grand Central Terminal

    • 1.3.1 Landmarks Preservation Commission's rejections

• 2 State case

  • 2.1 Penn Central files suit

  • 2.2 Supreme Court decision

  • 2.3 Aftermath

• 3 See also

• 4 References

• 5 Bibliography

• 6 External links

Events leading up to the case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penn_Central_Transportation_Co._v._New_York_City&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Events leading up to the case")

New York City Landmarks Law

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penn_Central_Transportation_Co._v._New_York_City&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: New York City Landmarks Law")

The New York City Landmarks Law was signed into effect by Mayor Robert F. Wagner, Jr. , in 1965. This law was passed after New York citizens grew concerned over the loss of culturally significant structures such as Pennsylvania Station , demolished in 1963. The Landmarks Law's purpose is to protect structures that are significant to the city and still retain their ability to be properly used. This law is enforced by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission .

Railroad decline

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penn_Central_Transportation_Co._v._New_York_City&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Railroad decline")

Use of railroad systems saw its peak in the 1920s and began to falter in the mid-to-late 1930s. World War II revitalized use of the railroad systems in the early 1940s and brought the industry back to prior success. While this period saw nearly half of Americans using the railroad systems, by the late 1940s, there was once again a steep decline in railroad use. That put many of the railroad companies out of business and left others to find new ways to increase revenue.

The New York Central Railroad , owner of Grand Central Terminal in New York City, found itself facing bankruptcy in 1967 because of continued decline in railroad use. The Pennsylvania Railroad found itself in a similar position, and in 1968, the New York Central Railroad merged with the Pennsylvania Railroad to create the Penn Central Railroad company. The newly formed Penn Central began to look into updating the uses of the Grand Central Terminal to increase revenue and save the company from financial straits.

Proposals to replace Grand Central Terminal

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penn_Central_Transportation_Co._v._New_York_City&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Proposals to replace Grand Central Terminal")

See also: Grand Central Tower

In 1954, the New York Central Railroad began to look at replacing Grand Central Terminal with Grand Central Tower , an office tower. Early designs by William Zeckendorf and I. M. Pei included an ambitious 80-story tower, the tallest in the world. None of the early designs ever made it past the sketch phase. : 177  In 1958, Erwin S. Wolfson created proposals to replace Grand Central Terminal's six-story office building just north of the Terminal. Erwin S. Wolfson developed the project in the early 1960s with the assistance of the architects Emery Roth and Sons , Walter Gropius and Pietro Belluschi . The Pan Am Building was completed in 1963 and bought Grand Central Terminal more time away from proposed reconstructions.

In mid-1968, the Penn Central Railroad unveiled two designs by Marcel Breuer , one of which would potentially be built atop Grand Central Terminal. The first design (Breuer I) was a 55-story tall office building to be constructed on top of Grand Central. That building was to be cantilevered above the existing structure allowing Grand Central to maintain its facade. The second design (Breuer II) called for the demolition of one of the sides of Grand Central in order to create a unified facade for a new 53-story office building. Both designs were submitted to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission after the structures met city zoning laws.

Landmarks Preservation Commission's rejections

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penn_Central_Transportation_Co._v._New_York_City&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Landmarks Preservation Commission's rejections")

Upon reviewing the submitted designs for Grand Central Terminal, the Landmarks Preservation Commission rejected the plans on September 20, 1968. Penn Central then filed for a Certificate of Appropriateness for both proposals but was again denied. The Landmarks Preservation Commission summarized their reason for rejecting both plans:

Breuer I

Breuer I which would have preserved the existing vertical facades of the present structure, received more sympathetic considerations [than Breuer II]. The Commission focused on the effect that the proposed tower would have on a desirable feature created by the present structure and its surroundings: the dramatic view of the Terminal from Park Avenue South.

Breuer II

To protect a Landmark, one does not tear it down. To perpetuate its architectural features, one does not strip them off.

[We have] no fixed rule against making additions to designated buildings – it all depends on how they are done. ... But to balance a 55-story office tower above a flamboyant Beaux-Arts facade seems nothing more than an aesthetic joke. Quite simply, the tower would overwhelm the Terminal by its sheer mass. The 'addition' would be four times as high as the existing structure and would reduce the Landmark itself to the status of a curiosity. Landmarks cannot be divorced from their settings – particularly when the setting is a dramatic and integral part of the original concept. The Terminal, in its setting, is a great example of urban design. Such examples are not so plentiful in New York City that we can afford to lose any of the few we have. And we must preserve them in a meaningful way – with alterations and additions of such character, scale, materials and mass as will protect, enhance and perpetuate the original design rather than overwhelm it.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission offered Penn Central the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) to allow them to sell the air space above Grand Central Terminal to other developers for their own use. Penn Central felt this was not enough to be considered [just compensation](https://en

…