5 ms·

Go I hate riding the DC Metro everyday. Maybe it's brutalism at its best, but it's simply a poor design for a metro system. Contrast with something like Hong Ko

Go I hate riding the DC Metro everyday. Maybe it's brutalism at its best, but it's simply a poor design for a metro system. Contrast with something like Hong Kong's MTR [1]: brightly lit, different colored walls so you can visually distinguish stations, and a glass wall between passengers and trains to prevent falls/suicides. DC Metro may be grand, but it's just not smart. As for the rest of DC's brutalist architecture, this piece sums up a lot of my feelings: https://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-7-most-heinously-ugly-government-buildings-in-washington https://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-7-most-heinously-u... [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/MTR_North_Point_Station_Platform.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/MTR_Nort...

lobster_johnson 10y ago
On the other hand, compared to the NYC subway, the DC metro is like stepping into the future. (Roomy! Quiet! Escalators! Handicap-accessible! It's a modern marvel, I say.) I'd take the brutalism of the DC metro over NYC any day.
- rayiner 10y ago
  To be fair, the DC metro was built more than 70 years after the New York subway.
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    There are much older subways (London, Paris and Madrid come to mind) that are as large and have managed to stay modern, albeit with slightly fewer stations (but longer networks). The NYC is subway is old, but it's not like they haven't had any time to work on it. From what I've read, it's mostly attributable to mismanagement at the MTA — misdirected funds, union squabbles, lack of political will, lack of imagination, outright corruption. NYC is admittedly extremely time-consuming (and therefore expensive) to dig, but all the things that could have modernized the subway and made more it convenient and accessible wouldn't require digging more tunnels. The other systemic problems — lack of modern signaling, lack of parallel tunnels — are harder and more expensive to solve, especially without disrupting commuters.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      The D.C. Metro is equally badly managed, if not worse. The only reason it's better in some ways,[1] is because it started with a 70-year technology advantage. [1] And it's worse in many ways too, such as the lack of express tracks.
    - RockyMcNuts 10y ago
      ummh... have you ever been on any of those subways? Paris is a marvel for its density and well-planned routes. But some of the lines are more like underground light rail compared to e.g. the Lexington line, which on its own carries like 1/3 of the passengers of Paris or London. The London Tube trains I've been on felt like a subway for midgets compared to the 10-foot wide BMT trains. They stop running at night. One of the only times I've missed a flight was due to a London Tube delay. The new Chinese subways really put the US to shame, quiet, double glass doors, video screens everywhere, cell phones work everywhere, very cheap, very dense and very crowded. The NY subway is pretty reliable and fast. Apps like Moovit and Citymapper make it pretty easy to get where you want as quickly as possible. Train Time coverage and wifi coverage could be better, the latter is improving. It could be nicer but all I can say is if you think the New York subway is bad now, you should have tried it in the 70s. Edit: I'd add that an Oyster-type payment system would be nice. Also, a couple of MTA alumni have led systems in London, Hong Kong, Toronto, other cities, so NY is probably not at the very bottom in best practices. Bottom line is you can get anywhere quickly and reliably at all hours, if not always in luxurious style, and you don't need a car to live here. So I'll take it, until your driverless taxi can deal with NY traffic and get there faster.
      - jgalt212 10y ago
        > The London Tube trains I've been on felt like a subway for midgets compared to the 10-foot wide BMT trains. Indeed, taking luggage on the tube during rush hour is a truly painful experience.
        pm215 10y ago
        Taking luggage on any mass transit system during rush hour is likely to be a painful experience...
- dajohnson89 10y ago
  Honestly, do you use it on a regular basis?
sixo 10y ago
I think DC-style brutalistic buildings could look fantastic... if they were covered in vegetation. That'd be so cool.
- wyclif 10y ago
  I am also a huge fan of Logan's Run
Terr_ 10y ago
The glass partitions were put in sometime after 2000, but the heavy emphasis on color-schemes I remember from the early 1990s.
moron4hire 10y ago
There is nothing wrong with the design of the DC Metro. It's problems are 100% issues of mismanagement.
et-al 10y ago
Is that an issue with the architecture of the DC Metro, or just the design of its "accessories?" Glass walls to prevent people from falling into the tracks weren't a thing when most subways were constructed in America. It's possible to retrofit the DC Metro to keep its (arguably) beautiful ceilings [0], while still making it safe and navigable for commuters. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/WMATA_Metro_Center_crossvault_2009.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/WMATA_Me...
tomohawk 10y ago
You'll feel even better knowing that most of those buildings are owned by REITs and that the government actually leases them.
thearn4 10y ago
That reminds me way too much of my undergrad alma mater, Cleveland State University. Back when I went it was almost entirely made up of drab (maybe Soviet inspired?) concrete block buildings like this from the 60s-70s. We called it "concrete state university". It reflected the depressed look of the rest of early 2000s downtown Cleveland pretty well. A majority commuter school at the time, little attention was paid to campus life. On the plus side, the campus and the whole area actually looks a lot nicer now. Also, after it's all said and done I have to say I actually got a pretty decent education too (at the very least it was a great deal for the small state school tuition price). Maybe aesthetics aren't everything.
zumu 10y ago
> DC Metro may be grand, but it's just not smart. As a subway system, no not smart, but (if the rumors are true) the stops were also designed to serve as fallout shelters. In that regard, perhaps it is smartly designed.
chmielewski 10y ago
I also ride WMATA Metro every day. I understand that the architect wanted no lights to be actually visible, hidden behind ceiling ledges and in alcoves, diffusing light. Apparently he's in his eighties now and is outraged that they're spoiling his vision by placing direct, bright lights.

lobster_johnson 10y ago

On the other hand, compared to the NYC subway, the DC metro is like stepping into the future. (Roomy! Quiet! Escalators! Handicap-accessible! It's a modern marvel, I say.) I'd take the brutalism of the DC metro over NYC any day.

rayiner 10y ago
To be fair, the DC metro was built more than 70 years after the New York subway.
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  There are much older subways (London, Paris and Madrid come to mind) that are as large and have managed to stay modern, albeit with slightly fewer stations (but longer networks). The NYC is subway is old, but it's not like they haven't had any time to work on it. From what I've read, it's mostly attributable to mismanagement at the MTA — misdirected funds, union squabbles, lack of political will, lack of imagination, outright corruption. NYC is admittedly extremely time-consuming (and therefore expensive) to dig, but all the things that could have modernized the subway and made more it convenient and accessible wouldn't require digging more tunnels. The other systemic problems — lack of modern signaling, lack of parallel tunnels — are harder and more expensive to solve, especially without disrupting commuters.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    The D.C. Metro is equally badly managed, if not worse. The only reason it's better in some ways,[1] is because it started with a 70-year technology advantage. [1] And it's worse in many ways too, such as the lack of express tracks.
  - RockyMcNuts 10y ago
    ummh... have you ever been on any of those subways? Paris is a marvel for its density and well-planned routes. But some of the lines are more like underground light rail compared to e.g. the Lexington line, which on its own carries like 1/3 of the passengers of Paris or London. The London Tube trains I've been on felt like a subway for midgets compared to the 10-foot wide BMT trains. They stop running at night. One of the only times I've missed a flight was due to a London Tube delay. The new Chinese subways really put the US to shame, quiet, double glass doors, video screens everywhere, cell phones work everywhere, very cheap, very dense and very crowded. The NY subway is pretty reliable and fast. Apps like Moovit and Citymapper make it pretty easy to get where you want as quickly as possible. Train Time coverage and wifi coverage could be better, the latter is improving. It could be nicer but all I can say is if you think the New York subway is bad now, you should have tried it in the 70s. Edit: I'd add that an Oyster-type payment system would be nice. Also, a couple of MTA alumni have led systems in London, Hong Kong, Toronto, other cities, so NY is probably not at the very bottom in best practices. Bottom line is you can get anywhere quickly and reliably at all hours, if not always in luxurious style, and you don't need a car to live here. So I'll take it, until your driverless taxi can deal with NY traffic and get there faster.
    - jgalt212 10y ago
      > The London Tube trains I've been on felt like a subway for midgets compared to the 10-foot wide BMT trains. Indeed, taking luggage on the tube during rush hour is a truly painful experience.
      - pm215 10y ago
        Taking luggage on any mass transit system during rush hour is likely to be a painful experience...
dajohnson89 10y ago
Honestly, do you use it on a regular basis?

sixo 10y ago

I think DC-style brutalistic buildings could look fantastic... if they were covered in vegetation. That'd be so cool.

wyclif 10y ago
I am also a huge fan of Logan's Run

Terr_ 10y ago

The glass partitions were put in sometime after 2000, but the heavy emphasis on color-schemes I remember from the early 1990s.

moron4hire 10y ago

There is nothing wrong with the design of the DC Metro. It's problems are 100% issues of mismanagement.

et-al 10y ago

Is that an issue with the architecture of the DC Metro, or just the design of its "accessories?" Glass walls to prevent people from falling into the tracks weren't a thing when most subways were constructed in America. It's possible to retrofit the DC Metro to keep its (arguably) beautiful ceilings [0], while still making it safe and navigable for commuters. [0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/WMATA_Metro_Center_crossvault_2009.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/WMATA_Me...

tomohawk 10y ago

You'll feel even better knowing that most of those buildings are owned by REITs and that the government actually leases them.

thearn4 10y ago

That reminds me way too much of my undergrad alma mater, Cleveland State University. Back when I went it was almost entirely made up of drab (maybe Soviet inspired?) concrete block buildings like this from the 60s-70s. We called it "concrete state university". It reflected the depressed look of the rest of early 2000s downtown Cleveland pretty well. A majority commuter school at the time, little attention was paid to campus life. On the plus side, the campus and the whole area actually looks a lot nicer now. Also, after it's all said and done I have to say I actually got a pretty decent education too (at the very least it was a great deal for the small state school tuition price). Maybe aesthetics aren't everything.

zumu 10y ago

> DC Metro may be grand, but it's just not smart. As a subway system, no not smart, but (if the rumors are true) the stops were also designed to serve as fallout shelters. In that regard, perhaps it is smartly designed.

chmielewski 10y ago

I also ride WMATA Metro every day. I understand that the architect wanted no lights to be actually visible, hidden behind ceiling ledges and in alcoves, diffusing light. Apparently he's in his eighties now and is outraged that they're spoiling his vision by placing direct, bright lights.