Let's get real. Grand Central shouldn't be imposing any aesthetic restrictions on what Apple does with that space. What they should be doing is begging Apple to rework the whole terminal any damn way they please. The stores Apple has designed puts the dead-feeling Grand Central space to shame. (Yeah, yeah, it's a landmark - but let's face it, that space feels DEAD. Way, way overrated. Ceiling's beautiful, great windows, but it just does not work. The old Penn Station - THAT worked.)

Of course, that won't happen, because that would make sense. You can't expect the same kind of bureaucrats who deemed the old Penn Station expendable to do the right thing.

Some cheesy halfassed franchise should get that space. It's what they deserve.

No way is that restaurant space 15,000 square feet. And most of it is very narrow. If Apple wanted to use that as exhibition and demonstration space, it might work. But it doesn't work for retail. It's also open space (no walls facing the terminal) and they wouldn't be permitted to put up any because the building is interior landmarked.

Furthermore, while people have accepted restaurants in that space, other types of retail have not been permitted in the main room of the terminal. I think there would be major objections to doing so. So I don't see this happening. The only space that makes sense for Apple is the Market, but that's about the size of an Apple mall store - it's not that large and it seems to be successful.

It's puzzling to me why GCT is trying to get rid of Metrazur. An open restaurant makes more sense in that space than hardgoods.

As for the previous poster, I can't imagine what he's smoking. Maybe he goes to GCT at 1am in the morning, but I don't think any reasonable person would think of that terminal as "dead space". It was beautifully restored and is one of the most active places in the city. If it weren't, why would Apple want to be there?

Grand Central is a must stop whenever I have friends and family visiting New York City wishing to take in some of its landmark buildings and culturally important places. Although Grand Central is not really a tourist shopping destination the way the 5th Ave store is, the terminal is constantly filled with travelers, commuters and tourist. If Apple wins the bid I am sure they will respect this landmark for what it is and turn 2 underused areas of the great hall into something deserving of the place.

You must be kidding. Grand Central is a landmark for a reason. Yes they should accomodate Apple in every way possible for Apple to put up shop. But to say that Apple should redo the entire Terminal. No.

The only way that area at Grand Central would turn into dead space would be for Microsoft to lease it for one of their "stores."

Grand Central was nearly torn down, just like Penn Station was. If it had been razed, would that have proved it was worthless? Ah. Then neither is calling it 'a landmark' proof of its merits.

Saying 'it's a landmark' means nothing. Let me correct that - it means LESS than nothing (aside from what it says about someone who repeats that tired wheeze as a rationalization). Steve Jobs had to fight for a decade to tear down his 'landmark' house. That doesn't mean Jobs was 'kidding', boyo. It means Jobs doesn't let someone else's opinion dictate a situation for him.

I suppose the irony of that is lost on you. Well, others may appreciate it.

The Eiffel Tower was popularly known as a disaster for many years. No one had a clue where to dump the Statue of Liberty. On the other hand, the public (and especially 'landmark commissions') is notorious for growing pathetically attached to monstrosities merely because they've been around a while. (Ask any public planner or most any architect if this is not so.) Popular opinion has little or no bearing on the actual merits of a building, and 'landmark status' is an inbred joke.

Yes, Grand Central got a very expensive restoration. And Joan Rivers got some very expensive facelifts.

I'll take Apple's 5th Avenue cube over Grand Central terminal any day. Or for that matter, NY's Javitz Center is a much grander and much more modern public space - reminiscent of the old Penn Station, in fact. There are many public spaces that are FAR superior to Grand Central.


The Port Authority on Eighth Avenue 'is one of the most active places in the city'. That has absolutely nothing to do with the aesthetic merits of the space (which is dull and institutional). Why does Apple want to be in GC? Gee, it might be because a lot of people with money HAVE TO (not 'choose to') go there to get to work or home.

Grand Central is a 'well-restored' BARN.

Nice.
So if Apple builds a store there, will that be like a boob-job?

My remark about it being an active space was not in regards to its aesthetic merits (which it does have) but in response to your comment that it was "dead space".

I don't know if you're simply trying to be a troll, but I don't know of a single respected architectural critic who thinks that GCT is a "barn". It's generally considered to be one of the country's "great spaces". But you'd probably prefer the aesthetics of a shopping mall.

While Apple's aesthetic works quite well for a computer store and their glass entrances or ceiling are quite nice, to state that Apple should "renovate" GCT is a joke. Do you really think that the Apple aesthetic of bright florescent cabinet lighting, Parsons tables and concrete floors is an aesthetic that should replace that existing in Grand Central today? If so, you've been living in suburbia too long. Why don't we have Apple renovate the Metropolitan Museum of Art as well.

Mr. Snitch, you seem like one of those guys that likes to be in the right while trying to insult one's intelligence. I know you're type. I won't write you back here or in any future communication. Oh, and Mr. Snitch, you come off like a tool.