Friday, May 20, 2011

"Dignity and Elegance" or "Theater of Absurdity and Cruelty?"


Photo via Flickr o palsson

Like the Metro system, the architecture of Metro engenders love or hate.

Places, "an interdisciplinary journal of contemporary architecture, landscape and urbanism," has an interesting write up on Metro's chief architect, Harry Weese.

In the article, Weese is said to have wanted to design the system that would allow riders to travel with "dignity and even elegance."

Critics, however, have likened Weese's creation to a "repressive monolith."

One of those critics, Marshall Berman, an American philosopher, was quoted in the article with this description of Metro's architecture:
Walls and ceilings were massive monoliths, with facades unbroken by colors or diverse materials or signs. We passengers were encased in enormous voids shaped by barrel-vaulted ceilings, and by vast blots of blackness at the platform's ends, pressing us toward them like black holes in outer space. Meanwhile, pulling us upward, escalators seemed to surge up from the bowels of the earth. Lighting was not only too dim to read by, it also transformed people of every color into shades. You couldn't get a clear view of the person next to you, or else, getting off a train, you lost your view of the person next to you. ... Before long, I realized that the system was a kind of theater of absurdity and cruelty, whose scenery seemed contrived to create anxiety.
Sounds like he was at least there on a day the escalators were working.

The author of the article further argues that Weese rejected "functional richness for grand, rational spaces."

Of transfer stations he article writes:
two vaults intersect in a bilevel cruciform with no transfer mezzanine, forcing nearly every passenger to squeeze through the same narrow widths of platform at the center. Spatial majesty comes at the price of inefficiency and crowding.
L'Enfant Plaza comes to mind.

The author concludes that Metro's look and feel is impressive to the visitor or infrequent user, but regular use renders it "tedious and stuffy" and "obdurate and overbearing."

What do you think? Is Metro an architectural masterpiece worthy of the #106 spot in the list of America's Favorite Architecture, or is it a pee pee soaked heck hole?

If you want a complete rundown on all that went into Metro's creation, this is a great book.

Other items:
Metro has "saftey stand down" (WTOP)

Comments (35)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I prefer the low soft lighting. It gives the system more of a relaxed and casual atmosphere. Besides, do you really want to see how dirty the stations really are?
Poor lighting in the Metro stations is also a safety factor, as far as I'm concerned. Friendship Heights is probably the darkest one that I go through. If someone is mugged the chances are very good that they couldn't identify the perp due to poor lighting.

If I'm on a train with tinted windows (or more often dirty windows) I can't tell what station I'm in until the door opens, especially if I've been reading and missed the announcement. For that matter, in far too many cars the PA system doesn't work, so even if I'm not reading I have to wait for the doors to open to find out where in the heck I am. It's very frustrating.
A train driver told me that the safety standdown is a supervisor talking in the train conductor's cabin about running red signals. Why would you talk while the conductor is driving? How about real training from the Training Departments?

This Metro and the people in charge are a joke but it is a scary joke.
Soylent Green Line's avatar

Soylent Green Line · 718 weeks ago

"LIghting... transformed people into shades."

Ug. Philosophers.
It's barely functional. It was shortsighted (two track system). It's a failure from an architectural standpoint, much less a functional one.
It's a tomb.
Marshall Berman.. I sure do loves how he talks... LOL!
Back in the '90s when Metro worked well, I loved the architecture. The system felt calming, with sleek, clean lines, simple structures and colors schemes. Now, I look at the same walls, floors, escalators, etc. in the current era of disfunction and feel just the opposite about it -- it feels cold (or hot), stuffy, crowded, broken, and utterly miserable. I think our attitude toward our surroundings comes down to whether our experience in them is a good one.
El Diablo's avatar

El Diablo · 718 weeks ago

With its dank stuffiness and foul employees, METRO's architecture leaves me feeling right at home!
I kind of like the Metro architecture, but that is probably a function of growing up with it. As a kid, it was always an adventure to head into an underground, cocoon-like cave, and rocket through the tunnels to a destination. As an adult, it evokes a certain nostalgia.

I do wish, however, that the lighting was better.
the lighting is terrible and I feel like I'm in a set from "Blade Runner".
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
I usually think "A Clockwork Orange".

With the kids running around with so much of the old ultraviolence these days, maybe the stations should pipe in a little of the Ludwig Van.
hrh king friday 13's avatar

hrh king friday 13 · 718 weeks ago

I can apprecaite the commentary on this, but honestly I just want Metro to work properly and not injur people. New York is no eye candy but it works compared to you know who. Besides, WMATA would love nothing more than for customers to get consumed by a debate on fresh coats of paint rather than talk about what needs to be fixed.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
By definition, brutalist architecture is not meant to be painted, it comes from a French term meaning "raw concrete." Some of the older stations (Farragut North) needed the white paint with time.
MadAsHeck's avatar

MadAsHeck · 718 weeks ago

I don't have a problem with the architecture, and we're stuck with it anyway. But they could easily fix some of the practical issues:

More lights
More signs - since the architecture is basically the same, sometimes you can't tell which stop you're at, and looking out the windows if you're not lined up with a sign you can't tell. More signs on the walls.
More stairs - yes, it's construction, but putting in stairs isn't really that expensive. Then you never have to fix them.
4 replies · active less than 1 minute ago
I agree with putting in more signs. And it's funny too. Metro got these new cars that are SUPPOSED to tell us which station is next. Instead they just tell you which line you are on.
I've had instances where it thinks we're going in the other direction. The next stop might be PG Plaza but the sign says Suitland.
Even better is when you get on at Fort Totten and the sign says Rockville, the entire way
The signs only work on the trains that do not have the 1000 series bellied. Since the older cars don't have this function, only the ability to say what line they are on. When they are combined, the newer cars default to the older functionality. If Metro would stop bellying the trains, the signs could work to their full capacity.
I actually like the architecture of Metro, though I think if there are future underground stations they should be made cheaper and more functional. I've never had a problem reading or seeing faces on the Metro. I'm not sure where this guys is coming from. Metro just seems dark.

On the L'Enfant comment: You'll actually notice that the upper level platform at L'Enfant is actually quite wider than the the platforms at Metro Center or Gallery Place, where the platforms are unnecessarily narrow.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
I agree wholeheartedly.
VeteranRider's avatar

VeteranRider · 718 weeks ago

Part of the problem with the Metro design is something that often affects projects in DC - people get too caught up with creating things to be 'national models' or to be 'worthy of a great nation' so you get grand but dull and repetitive designs. How cool would Metro Center look if it were the only station with the great honeycomb barrel vault design, with the other stations having their own, different look? But no, that would not have been grand enough, so every station had to mighty and imposing.... even later when cost became a huge issue, they only tweaked the basic design, when it could have been made very different.

However, I do appreciate the dark dank metro caverns on a hot summer day - but I agree that more light everywhere would be a huge improvement. At the very least, more lighted signage as was installed in Gallery Place not too long ago.
Metro's architecture is an (unfortuante) product of having been designed in the 1970s. I happen to like it, as it is unique and looks like no other subway in the US (perhaps the world). But yesh, it's dark, and I can get why it's not everyone's cup of tea aesthetically speaking.

Whether we like it or not, it is Done, and we have to live with it. I have NO objection to improving the lighting. Otherwise, I think the architecture is fine.
2 replies · active less than 1 minute ago
UGH! It was designed in the late sixties!
Wait they designed the architecture before they built the system? /sarcasm>
"Metro has a Safety Stand down"??? What??

Do you hear the Airlines or Amtrack having a "Safety Stand Down"? NO!

This is an excuse for metro's Training and Officals at these locations.

You should fire the Training Department heads and stop having Line Supervisors talk to the train drivers while they are driving the Trains. This is unsafe and obsurd!!

Would you talk to a Bus Driver while he was driving passengers around? NO!

The train drivers at metro should be paying attention to the signals and people!

What idiot instructed managers to talk to train drivers while they transport riders?
Here is my vote....
.... or is it a pee pee soaked heck hole?
Color me old, but I rode Metro opening day as a kid. I also remember seeing the big holes created by the cut/cover construction of the downtown stations. Metro Center and the other downtown stations are narrow, because they are confined by preexisting structures that the station was build between. Whole blocks of less "important" buildings got torn down.

Metro Center in narrow, because 12th and G Streets are that wide and that is what the station is located under. That big vault is under the intersection of 12th/G. There are no cross passages, becuase they would have run through basements. That being said, they did not need to pass those design restrictions on to more ideally placed stations. As said above, L'Enfant has a wider design, but maintains the restrictions/ X design, so it is a pain to get down to the blue line from 7th/Maryland in rush hour.
Metro Ryder's avatar

Metro Ryder · 718 weeks ago

I like the architecture, I just wish they would change the burnt out light bulbs! Is metro so broke they can't afford to replace all the burnt out light bulbs or are they too incompetent?
Regular reader, first-time commenter... I recently visited DC (so I'm a tourist, not a regular rider) and I liked the architecture, which surprised me because Brutalist style usually disgusts me. It's simple and functional (which seems to make sense to me - subway stations are places you wait to go elsewhere, not places one would come to hang out in), but there is a sort of elegance in its simplicity. Compared to NYC, I found the DC stations much less stuffy and gritty, and a lot less noisy (which is probably mostly due to the trains being used, but I think the DC stations handle the echo effect much better).

One thing I will say for NYC is that there is a little more variety in their stations, which is nice. I did like how a lot of the stations had a little something to represent the neighborhood, like dinosaur skeletons for the Natural History Museum stop (again, I admit my views as a tourist are defining my impressions of the system). It gives a little more sense of identity and recognition for each station, but not so much as to be at the expense of a consistent look for the overall system.

And yeah, I would agree that the lighting of a lot of the DC stations was really dim. Normally I prefer dim lighting to florescent, but really, they shouldn't be that dark. Hell, maybe they could experiment with the colors a bit...keep the platform lights a soft white (for reading and being able to recognize facial features) but then tinker with the lights for those big arching ceilings. I bet they would look really cool with some soft reds, purples and blues, like those color-changing lights (only they wouldn't change). I know that sounds really corny, especially in light of all of Metro's other problems, but what the hey, I'll have my fun...
Archstudent's avatar

Archstudent · 718 weeks ago

I'll say this: Metro probably has the most attractive, grand stations (especially downtown transfers) of any subway system I've ever been on. Spend a week riding the New York subway and you'll have a newfound appreciation for Metro.
Stephen Kosciesza's avatar

Stephen Kosciesza · 717 weeks ago

Maybe about a year ago, I read an article about the architect (Italian). Arrogant, self-important sonofasomething! He was complaining that Metro has spoiled his architecture by adding--are you ready for this?--SIGNS! He actually said, Metro should go in one night after closing, and quietly remove all the signs.

In other words, his grandiose monuments are not to be sullied by making them functional!

I put it to him that directional and informational signs--in my opinion, quite inadequate in Metro--are a NECESSARY part of a transit system, and if the man designed a system that won't accommodate them, THEN HE DESIGNED A BAD SYSTEM AND HE IS A POOR ARCHITECT.

Too many "architects" design things that look impressive on paper and in 3D models, win international awards, and are abysmal for the people who actually have to use it (another case in point, the new arts building at American U.). And I think part of the reason the signage is inadequate in Metro is because the system was not designed to accommodate them.

The man put the question, if we built a church, would we fill it with signs? Well, even a church often needs a few discrete signs. But I certainly hope the man never designs a church; it would be a sacrilege. It wouldn't be a House of God; it would be a monument to himself.

Post a new comment

Comments by

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Site Meter