data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/76f70/76f70946be8e7b49540b0b63fd7b0beeecd383fb" alt=""
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)
@chrisatyoursix · 718 weeks ago
TFUNK · 718 weeks ago
@chrisatyoursix · 718 weeks ago
krikket · 718 weeks ago
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.
Anon · 718 weeks ago
This Metro and the people in charge are a joke but it is a scary joke.
Soylent Green Line · 718 weeks ago
Ug. Philosophers.
F'n JD · 718 weeks ago
· 718 weeks ago
Anon · 718 weeks ago
KWM · 718 weeks ago
El Diablo · 718 weeks ago
dcn8v · 718 weeks ago
I do wish, however, that the lighting was better.
14thandH · 718 weeks ago
someguy · 718 weeks ago
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 · 718 weeks ago
thedofc · 718 weeks ago
MadAsHeck · 718 weeks ago
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.
"." · 718 weeks ago
HurricaneDC 76p · 718 weeks ago
tengoalyrunr30 80p · 717 weeks ago
Mkelm44 · 717 weeks ago
Max · 718 weeks ago
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.
thedofc · 718 weeks ago
VeteranRider · 718 weeks ago
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.
Glenn · 718 weeks ago
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.
thedofc · 718 weeks ago
Josh · 718 weeks ago
GUEST · 718 weeks ago
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?
mike · 718 weeks ago
.... or is it a pee pee soaked heck hole?
Brian · 718 weeks ago
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 · 718 weeks ago
John · 718 weeks ago
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 · 718 weeks ago
Stephen Kosciesza · 717 weeks ago
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.