T Station Design

M

MBTAddict

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
474
Reaction score
0
I am continually blown away by the variety in station design found in the MBTA subway and light rail system. I feel like every station looks different and each has its pros and cons.

What makes the good ones good and the bad ones bad?

My personal favorite is Arlington Street. In part I like it because it feels like a very urban subway station (read: it reminds me of NYC). Its entrances fit in naturally to the urban form, and on the inside its easy to navigate and the white tile makes it not feel like a cave, which happens to a lot of the other major downtown stations. The new Copley Square is also great, especially the wrought iron headhouse at the Library entrance.

But should all stations have the same design-DNA? I am inclined to say yes, but then I think about a system like DC Metro where all the stations are essentially identical, making it difficult to know where exactly you are in the system.

I think I would trade quick identification for better looking stations. I'd rather be confused about where I am but be in a nice looking place than know instantly where I am but be in a disgusting, dark cave.
 
MBTAddict said:
I am continually blown away by the variety in station design found in the MBTA subway and light rail system. I feel like every station looks different and each has its pros and cons.

What makes the good ones good and the bad ones bad?

My personal favorite is Arlington Street. In part I like it because it feels like a very urban subway station (read: it reminds me of NYC). Its entrances fit in naturally to the urban form, and on the inside its easy to navigate and the white tile makes it not feel like a cave, which happens to a lot of the other major downtown stations. The new Copley Square is also great, especially the wrought iron headhouse at the Library entrance.

But should all stations have the same design-DNA? I am inclined to say yes, but then I think about a system like DC Metro where all the stations are essentially identical, making it difficult to know where exactly you are in the system.

I think I would trade quick identification for better looking stations. I'd rather be confused about where I am but be in a nice looking place than know instantly where I am but be in a disgusting, dark cave.
Click to expand...

T-adict -- the different stations on the T have origins in the different lines, their depths, means of construction commonly used at the time of initially being built or when-renovated

The oldest stations (Park upper, Boylston, Arlington) used tile to let the somewhat squeamish public know that just because you were underground didn't mean it had to be dirty. Later underground Green Line and Red Line stations built in the 1900 - 1930's followed the general model.

When the MBTA aka the T was created in the 1960's -- Cambridge Seven (creators of the T logo and the color coding) settled on the large B/W graphics with simple seating, etc. -- they covered up most of the old tile -- the stuff that you describe as Urban -- they also were responsible for the idea of "art in the station"

Later new or updated stations on the Red Line and Orange Line followed the Green Line 60's updating look and feel with some exceptions on the outdoor stations

Blue Line came via a conversion of the old East Boston trolley tunnel combined with mid 60's era new stations (old Airport) -- now all being redone once again

The recent Green Line ADA compliant rebuilding has restored some of the old in places such as Arlington and Copley


I guess that I like South Station best - because of the complete integration and then probably Prudential and then DTX for the amount of stuff accessible from the station
 
MBTAddict said:
I am continually blown away by the variety in station design found in the MBTA subway and light rail system. I feel like every station looks different and each has its pros and cons.

What makes the good ones good and the bad ones bad?

My personal favorite is Arlington Street. In part I like it because it feels like a very urban subway station (read: it reminds me of NYC). Its entrances fit in naturally to the urban form, and on the inside its easy to navigate and the white tile makes it not feel like a cave, which happens to a lot of the other major downtown stations. The new Copley Square is also great, especially the wrought iron headhouse at the Library entrance.

But should all stations have the same design-DNA? I am inclined to say yes, but then I think about a system like DC Metro where all the stations are essentially identical, making it difficult to know where exactly you are in the system.

I think I would trade quick identification for better looking stations. I'd rather be confused about where I am but be in a nice looking place than know instantly where I am but be in a disgusting, dark cave.
Click to expand...

Nay, nay, pilgrim. Talk to people that use WMATA daily and you'll soon learn why the Harry Weese design-frenzy of DC just doesn't work. They have even added signage and it's still confusing to know where you are. Part of Weese's concept was actually to not have a lot of signage (very minimalist black podiums on the center platforms). The stations are stunning, but beauty is not the sole factor in public transit. Form should always follow function.
 
I hate that all WMATA stations look alike. It's greatly helpful to be able to look out the window and immediately know what station you're at -- not just by signage, but also because you've subconsciously memorized what each station looks like.
 
So is there a system that manages to have stations that are well designed and unique but also undeniably part of the same system?
 
For some reason I like the way North Station is designed, even though during events at the Garden there are a lot people; the station doesn't feel crowded like it can be at Downtown Crossing or Park Street.

I do not like JFK Station. I used hate standing in the lobby waiting to find out the track for the next inbound train.
 
Because the T was built in pieces over the years you get the different station designs. I personally like it as it gives the system character. The funny thing is if you look closely the stations that were built for each different expansion are very similar. The original elevated Orange Line stations were all the same design and when the elevated was replaced with subway the new stations were all very similar; Oak Grove, Malden, Wellington, Sullivan Sq, Community College were all opened in the mid 1970s, all the 1980s Southwest Corridor stations are very similar, and the Red Line stations built for the Alewife and Braintree extensions are very similar. The one thing that separates them are their headhouses which are all very different.
 
shockingboston said:
For some reason I like the way North Station is designed, even though during events at the Garden there are a lot people; the station doesn't feel crowded like it can be at Downtown Crossing or Park Street.

I do not like JFK Station. I used hate standing in the lobby waiting to find out the track for the next inbound train.
Click to expand...

North Station's redesign was phenomenal. It's a brilliantly functional station. The bi-level design works so well. It's really a pity that there was no way to connect it to the North Sta MBCR/Amtrak station.
 
shockingboston said:
For some reason I like the way North Station is designed, even though during events at the Garden there are a lot people; the station doesn't feel crowded like it can be at Downtown Crossing or Park Street.

I do not like JFK Station. I used hate standing in the lobby waiting to find out the track for the next inbound train.
Click to expand...

Both of these stations were expanded from other stations. North Station was done right, JFK was done wrong because it would have required building a new track crossover south of the station and it was cheaper just to have new platforms (which is a terrible compromise).
 
MBTAddict said:
But should all stations have the same design-DNA? I am inclined to say yes, but then I think about a system like DC Metro where all the stations are essentially identical, making it difficult to know where exactly you are in the system.

I think I would trade quick identification for better looking stations. I'd rather be confused about where I am but be in a nice looking place than know instantly where I am but be in a disgusting, dark cave.
Click to expand...

I think distinctiveness is nice. I used to live on the Green Line, and consequently could always know where I was with each station. Now I'm on the Orange Line, and find the stations along the SW corridor to be indistinguishable. I have to pay active attention to where I am if I don't want to miss a stop.
 
the Red Line stations built for the Alewife and Braintree extensions are very similar.
Click to expand...

Harvard, Porter, Davis, and Alewife all look very different from each other when you look at them from inside the train. I've never mistaken any of them for another.

Porter does remind me of the WMATA stations, with its barrel ceiling.
 
And those four Red Line stations are among the most visually interesting on the entire system...
 
MBTAddict said:
So is there a system that manages to have stations that are well designed and unique but also undeniably part of the same system?
Click to expand...

Try one of the original systems in Europe and a few from Asia [in close to my preference order]:

Budapest
Brussels -- includes original art as well as nice technologically
Paris
Warsaw -- some parts are very good -- also like Singapore -- extensive underground pedestrian pathways integrated with the subway and the trolleys and the underground malls
Singapore -- amazingly clean -- and the best system of underground pedestrian paths through the stations that I've ever experienced -- even better than Warsaw
Berlin -- especially the newer stations and the formerly EB that have been redone
London -- a lot of it is Krap, on any given day a lot of it doesn't work -- but it certainly is historic and many of the stations are wonderful especially the Jubilee Line - and despite the astronomical volume of users
Tokyo -- except for the crowding makes it impossible to see anything except people
Moscow -- never have been on it -- but from pictures it looks impressive
 
The Court House Station is the best station in the system in my eyes. Too bad it's wasted on the Silver Line.
 
Beton Brut said:
And those four Red Line stations are among the most visually interesting on the entire system...
Click to expand...

I actually did a presentation about the Alewife RLX a couple semesters ago for my Urban Infrastructure arch elective. Good stuff. Some highlights were the fact that Alewife's garage is missing 2 floors (yet is fully engineered including elevators) and the use of Alewife as a testing ground for Eurostile. I also made some diagrams for depth and relationship to landscape (cut and cover became the bike path, deep-bore ignores city grid).

I ended up talking for 20 minutes with a laser pointer, so the PPT mostly just has pictures. Earlier in the semester, I had done an in-depth study of WMATA. To tie into my earlier studies, I included some examples of striking similarities between RLX stations and Harry Weese's WMATA concepts. Ron had commented on Porter, but Davis also bears a similarity to the earlier WMATA vaulted box with beams concept.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82335327/UI-Sys-Site-AnalysisSM

*Van, during the presentation, I gave you an extensive shoutout for your map that I used to talk about the original plans and future expansions.
 
datadyne007 said:
I actually did a presentation about the Alewife RLX a couple semesters ago for my Urban Infrastructure arch elective. Good stuff. Some highlights were the fact that Alewife's garage is missing 2 floors (yet is fully engineered including elevators) and the use of Alewife as a testing ground for Eurostile. I also made some diagrams for depth and relationship to landscape (cut and cover became the bike path, deep-bore ignores city grid).

I ended up talking for 20 minutes with a laser pointer, so the PPT mostly just has pictures. Earlier in the semester, I had done an in-depth study of WMATA. To tie into my earlier studies, I included some examples of striking similarities between RLX stations and Harry Weese's WMATA concepts. Ron had commented on Porter, but Davis also bears a similarity to the earlier WMATA vaulted box with beams concept.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82335327/UI-Sys-Site-AnalysisSM

*Van, during the presentation, I gave you an extensive shoutout for your map that I used to talk about the original plans and future expansions.
Click to expand...

Data -- when you mentioned that Alewife was always at capacity -- you were apparently quoting old data

Recently on several occasions I have driven to Alewife mid morning and been surprised to find a significant number of open spaces up on the roof.

While I don't have any recent counts -- I think that usage of the garage peaked in the 2007 to 2008 period and then declined during the worst of the Great Recession -- but despite record overall T usage -- the usage of the Alewife garage its still not back to capacity (from my observations)
 
The T could definitely be much better in terms of making stations more elegant historic or modern beautiful. I think Paris, Madrid and Munich are three awesome systems that have a bit of both. Paris and Munich have very different stations whereas Madrid has adopted a common brightly-colored theme for its newer stations.

Paris: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=487228
Madrid: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1064971
Munich: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=546347
 
I love [in no particular order]:

Harvard
Wood Island
North Station
Boylston
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top