Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision on compensation for regulatory takings.

This law was passed after New York citizens grew concerned over the loss of culturally significant structures such as Pennsylvania Station, demolished in 1963.

Early designs by William Zeckendorf and I. M. Pei included an ambitious 80-story, 4,800,000-square-foot (450,000 m2) tower that would be over 500 feet (150 m) taller than the Empire State Building.

[5] None of the early designs ever made it past the sketch phase and, for the time being, all plans to replace Grand Central Terminal were abandoned.

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 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.

[8] Upon reviewing the submitted designs for Grand Central Terminal, the Landmarks Preservation Commission rejected the plans on September 20, 1968.

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.

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.

[10] Since this would have been impossible (Chief Judge Breitel later, in an extrajudicial statement, likened it to a search for the Holy Grail), and since the Court of Appeals conceded that such a task presented "impenetrable densities" and would require Penn Central to separate the inseparable, Penn Central sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court on a different legal theory.

Unlike the governmental acts in Goldblatt, Miller, Causby, Griggs, and Hadacheck, the New York City law does not interfere in any way with the present uses of the Terminal.

Its designation as a landmark not only permits but contemplates that appellants may continue to use the property precisely as it has been used for the past 65 years: as a railroad terminal containing office space and concessions.