Comments on: MTA unveils designs for ostentatious Second Ave. entrances

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:41:36 +0000

I agree with the commenters who note that homogeneity isn’t necessarily a good thing, but I also think that the neighborhood aspects of these station designs need to be considered. We’re not talking about the entrances at, say, the Citicorp building on the East Side where it may make sense to draw attention the entry plaza below street level. We’re talking about entrances that are going up at 96th, 86th and 72nd Streets on 2nd Ave. This is a mixed commercial/residential street with fairly narrow sidewalks and a neighborhood-y feel to it. Sticking one of these monstrosities in the middle of a block seems ridiculous.

By: Todd

Todd — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:30:29 +0000

Canopies that turn an entrance into a greenhouse aren’t exactly perfect for temperature controlled entrances. In all seriousness though, I don’t think they have the money to think about style at this point. Regardless of how much it will or won’t cost, it’s still going to cost. The simpler, the better.

By: Transit Advocate

Transit Advocate — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:03:06 +0000

Two points on entrances. First, entrances with escalators need canopies to keep rain, sleet and snow off of the equipment. That’s why Bowling Green is getting a canopy and why WMATA has added canopies.

Second, if you don’t like the entrance designs, the place to make your objections known is Community Boards 8 and 11 on the East Side which will be reviewing the designs with NYC Transit.

By: mg

mg — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:47:03 +0000

Todd: I can see your point. But it’s nice also having a system that doesn’t look completely bare-bones and budget, especially the first new line in, oh, 70 years. Plus the canopies do serve a purpose–first, the stations will be a bit deeper than the older lines so there will be escalators leading down to all of them. Canopies help protect the escalators from the elements. In addition, the stations will have A/C or a form of A/C called air tempering. There needs to be some sort of cover to slow the escape of chilled air, which requires a lot of energy to produce. So why not make the canopies look interesting or at least different. They’re building them anyway. And I can assure you that the cost of them will be a drop in the bucket compared to running a single day of train service or an inch of tunneling for the new line.

By: Todd

Todd — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:43:44 +0000

When they mention how they’re way over budget in a year (and again in another year and again a year after that…) I’m going to remember this post. The MTA doesn’t need style, it needs to run effecient train service.

By: Lillie

Lillie — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:01:02 +0000

I don’t know that it’s necessarily desirable for every single subway entrance to look the same. Is homogeneity ever good? I’d rather have a few cool entranced — which isn’t to say this is necessarily cool-looking. But it doesn’t seem so bad. I wouldn’t use the word “hideous.”

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:12:51 +0000

Well, we all know how much Upper East Siders LOVE ostentatious glass structures. Just ask Norman Foster.

By: mg

mg — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:51:58 +0000

The new Bowling Green entrances look similar. These entraces remind me more of the Boston T’s new entrances (like South Station) than D.C. although I think the MTA ones are classier looking. I like ‘em. They also NEED canopies to help prevent flooding and keep the tempered air in.

By: Harlan

Harlan — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:38:47 +0000

Eh? They’re not that bad. The natural light will be a big plus in the new stations. And there are plenty of old entrances that are equally ostentatious. The 72nd and Broadway station comes to mind.

By: The SUBWAYblogger

The SUBWAYblogger — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:01:23 +0000

Ohh I totally agree. They’re huge!! I think they look kinda cool. Reminds me of the World Trade Center station.

However, I am completely against them if they cost “extra” to build. All we need is a simple entry. When it comes to the subway, I think we should focus less on form, and more on function.

Pretty is nice, but trains that run on time are much nicer.