Gothamist: Subway Station Style

A.C.

Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:22:50 -0500

Agreed: London, Boston then NY. FACT CHECK!

Dan Berkman

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:13:22 -0500

The work being done at Times Square, particularly the connections to the NQRW(not the platforms though,those suck) probably makes it the nicest station. There are some nice elements at other stations. The entrance to the 53rd Street EV station on 53rd is a really cool glass and steel canopy. The MTA obviously doesn't have the funds, but what architect(myself included) wouldn't want a crack at remaking a couple of stations. I'd totally do the work for a song. I think the bid/contract process is really screwed up because the work takes basically forever and is rarely "finished"(there is ONE new missing floor tile at 86th street and it's been that way for months). I don't know if it's just crappy oversight or what, but for some reason they just can't get anything done. Also, the fact that they don't actually "gut" the stations, but rather just tile over existing tile and such makes it that much harder to totally rework stations. Can you imgaine removing the upteen levels of paint and tile from a station. I wouldn't want that job.

Eliot

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:51:36 -0500

Gosh, I like em all! Especially Smith and 9th. What's wrong with me?

kevin Bracken

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:40:51 -0500

stillwell. done.

Dave H.

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:27:48 -0500

Construction of the Hudson Tubes connecting New Jersey to Manhattan actually began in 1874, but legal, financial, and engineering problems caused the project to take 34 years and the first crossing wasn't until 1908. Makes the WTC re-development seem speedy.

Tom

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:45:31 -0500

Recently moved here from Chicago, and the Chicago subways are horrible compared to those in NYC. Most of Chicago's were built in the 1940s and they are purely functional. Very few even have tile -- just dirty white paint in a perpetual state of peeling. It's all woefully underfunded, that's for sure.

12

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:45:30 -0500

We all know the best subways look like this: http://www.joesnyc.streetnine.com/archives/5_train_manhattan_panorama-may_04_2005_21.html

dF

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:39:56 -0500

Delancey F or Houston 1

Jeremy

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:39:23 -0500

I live near the 190th Street stop pictured in your photo, and I don't understand it: One day I saw MTA employees tearing off the art posters that had been hanging in each one of those nooks. I thought, Maybe they're going to replace them. But no. Nothing. Just what you saw. I don't understand why they couldn't have just left the posters up if they weren't going to replace them. They were those MTA-sponsored prints of subway trains orbiting the ESB.

perty

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:19:38 -0500

alice in wonderland, people!! i forget which stop that is in manhattan

Anne

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:06:59 -0500

If you're like me, and barely see the stations for the trains, there's a nice exhibit in the lobby of the UBS building at 1285 Ave of the Americas featuring the MTA Arts for Transit. Runs until Sept. 9.

Will

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:46:17 -0500

Boston had the first subway in the US, opening in 1897.

Jean

Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:30:06 -0500

Stephen, you're right...the New York City subway system officially opened in 1904...later than London(1863) and Paris (1900). As for favorite stops, I like the Wall street stop on the 4/5 line. I think it's something about the dark blue tiles. I am also partial to the 8th avenue stop on the L, with it miniature statues and spacious platforms.

Lady X

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:22:39 -0500

I think the subways are pretty when they are dirty and covered in bathroom tiles. Maybe I suck or something .

stephen

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:19:55 -0500

the new york subway is not the second oldest system in the world - that i know of london and paris have older ones. london's openned sometime in the 19th century, something crazy like the 1860's. paris's metro openned in 1900. i'd guess that new york'd be next, but i'm not sure.

Rosie

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:02:41 -0500

I am partial to the Franklin Street stop on the 1. It has a minimalist feel, making it an unlikely choice, but the wall tiles, for once, don't remind me of a shower wall.

Kevin Walsh

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:19:24 -0500

The new Stillwell Avenue terminal at Coney is nice, and I usually don't like the new stuff... www.forgotten-ny.com

Erin

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:07:21 -0500

It's not clean, really, but I love the weird lighting and the hugeness of the 168th St. 1 station. And I the 81st Street/Museum of Natural History stop is pretty darn clean, and it has dinosaur mosaics.

iceberg

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:36:28 -0500

"and with terrible government funding" This is the one time I agree with Gothamist's socio-economic view on government funding- the pernicious and terrible evil it is. Oh wait, it was meant in an interventionist plea for more waste in government? Oh how naive I am.

Greg S

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:31:48 -0500

What about the obvious choice? Stillwell Ave? open, airy, new. granted, it's not your typical underground sweathole, but i like it.

Greg Schiefelbein

Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:30:36 -0500

What about the obvious choice? Stillwell Ave? open, airy, new. granted, it's not your typical underground sweathole, but i like it.