The history of architectural design and the New York City subways is a tortured one. The system’s nicest station was also its first, and it’s been all downhill since then. Maybe that’s why New Yorkers have such a love-hate relationship with the subway system that powers the city’s economy and why straphangers are so dismissive of their underground atmospheres.
When the first subway stop opened at City Hall, it was an architectural marvel. With sweeping Guastavino arches, the Heins & LaFarge-designed station eventually landed on the National Register of Historic Places, but no other station in the system looks like it for one reason: cost. It was far too expensive for the city to build such ornate complexes at every stop, and instead, the IRT builders adapted a cheaper mosaic-based tiling. Today, many of those stations are in need of repair and, as a result of their depths, suffer from water damage. The tiling and mosaics, though, are historic reminders of the early days of construction.
Over the years, subsequent builders maintained tiling to a point. The IND stations used a complicated color pattern to mark various stations, but eventually, pragmatic concerns over cost and so-called modern designs turned new subway stops into giant nothings. The Archer Ave. extension stations are unforgettable, but at least they’re not bright orange like the 1970s reworking of Bowling Green. The “experimental” redesign at 49th Street also dates from the 1970s. It is not a proud moment in subway history.
Finally, in the modern era, stations are simply bland. The new South Ferry terminal is a sterile white room, and the Second Ave. Subway stations, based on early renderings, look to be more of the same. While I’d say that a few billion dollars doesn’t go that far when it comes to design, the MTA will point to the Second Ave. stations as examples of current design. They stations are wide, spacious, airy and ADA compliant. Beauty is in the ey of the beholder.
But what of the architectural community? Recently, Mark Lamster, writing at The Design Observer Group’s Observer Room blog pondered the lack of attention paid to transit design. While public pedestrian plazas and bike lanes have received the bulk of the attention, we continue to ignore the way the subway system looks. He writes:
Progressive members of the design community love cycling, and I think not just because it is a healthful and environmentally sustainable mode of transportation. Designers, I suspect, are attracted to bikes because designers love making objects—it is what they are trained to do—and the bike is an object that is simple enough that anyone can tailor it to their own specifications…
I wish designers cared as much about mass transit as they did about their bikes. We don’t get very many articles in the design press about our decayed subway system, nor does there seem to be much of a galvanized movement within the design community to do anything about it…Transportation Alternatives, a wonderful organization, bills itself as an “advocate for bicycling, walking and public transit,” which seems bizarrely out of order to me. When the design (and architecture) press covers mass transit here, it’s often to wax nostalgic about Massimo Vignelli’s map of the system—wonderful, I admit.
New York is never going to be Amsterdam. Commuting by bicycle may work for some people, and the more the better, but for the overwhelming majority it’s not going to be a viable option most of the time. New York is a city of public transit, and that’s where the vast majority of our attention should be directed. It is the single most important urban design issue facing the city and its residents. By far. More than 5.1 million rides are taken on the subway on an average weekday. Bus service adds another 2.2 million. Service cutbacks loom. Last week I renewed a Metrocard for a month. The fee was $104. The fee for renewing my driver’s license for ten years? $80. Our priorities need to change.
To me, the issue of design is one of attention. The public faces of the MTA are a bunch of stations that look like they were designed seventy years ago and were never modernized. They’re dank and dark and falling apart. Most design elements that were once appealing have faded, and the nicest looking station rehabs — such as at Franklin St. in Tribeca — aren’t at particularly high-traffic spots.
So should we care then about station design and appearance? Does an interestingly designed station that is well maintained attract more riders? Would such a station also make New Yorkers more supportive of their transit system? I’d have to believe so. Transit design should be on the table. Not every map needs to be a jumble of words. Not every new station has to look as bland as a hospital.
Leave a Reply