The old Penn Station, mentioned in passing in the article, was apparently incredibly beautiful and aesthetically a rival to Grand Central Station (which itself barely escaped becoming the home of an office tower [0]). For those interested Mashable had a great article that featured some spectacular photographs of the old Penn station [1].<p>[0] <a href="http://gothamist.com/2016/05/25/fred_papert_grand_central.php" rel="nofollow">http://gothamist.com/2016/05/25/fred_papert_grand_central.ph...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://mashable.com/2015/07/20/original-penn-station/#NAhQIG_6TPqT" rel="nofollow">https://mashable.com/2015/07/20/original-penn-station/#NAhQI...</a>
>Today, Americans have grown more cautious; when it comes to old buildings, we now have laws at our disposal that allow us to designate and preserve what we value. Yet the enactment of such laws, at such a late stage, illustrates how the Singer’s fate coincided with another milestone: an end to the idea that American industry might be trusted to build permanent things, without answering to the deeper values of law or community or tradition.<p>Given the state of American cities, I wouldn't say this has worked out. American cities are defined by preservation: of property values and of plentiful free parking. These laws are used to prevent change of any kind. Building a neighbourhood on par with great American neighbourhoods like Beacon Hill and SoHo is basically impossible.
> Today, Americans have grown more cautious; when it comes to old buildings, we now have laws at our disposal that allow us to designate and preserve what we value. Yet the enactment of such laws, at such a late stage, illustrates how the Singer’s fate coincided with another milestone: an end to the idea that American industry might be trusted to build permanent things<p>Ironically if preservation laws were there in 1908 then the Singer building would likely never have been built because it would mean demolishing some old two-story building in the "historic downtown financial district".
In fairness to the powers that dismantled the building, Singer itself was probably on the ropes or well on its way, at least in the sewing machine market. Postwar, the sewing machine market at the low end was flooded with import clones of the classic Singer 15 (see next paragraph), and zigzag machines from abroad were taking a bite out of the higher end of their market[0]. Combine that fact with the fact the needle work industries had left NYC at that point, and it probably made sense to demo the Singer building. All that said, I do wish it was still there to see.<p>I own a Singer 15. In a residential setting, it'll keep doing what it does well for another 200 years with a little care. It isn't an industrial machine, but if you can't do it once on a 15, it's even odds it can't be done at all. All that said, it's a straight-stitch only machine; they aren't technically complex (for a sewing machine). The imports I've seen are also excellent machines.<p>[0] Interesting thread: <a href="https://sewing.patternreview.com/SewingDiscussions/topic/56161" rel="nofollow">https://sewing.patternreview.com/SewingDiscussions/topic/561...</a>
I recommend the book Lost New York by Nathan Silver, to anyone interested in these lost architectural icons of New York City.<p>It was originally written in the midst of the NYC preservation debate of late 1960s, which resulted from the destruction of buildings like the Singer building, the old Met Opera House, and especially Penn Station.
Fun fact: Singer had a profitable high-tech aerospace business <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1983/08/24/business/singer-s-aerospace-success.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/1983/08/24/business/singer-s-aerospa...</a>