« vienna: even perfect integration isn't perfect |
| berlin, seen through a bus-wrap »
In November 1973, a new subway station opened whose walls looked like this:
Posted on 09/03/2009 in Architecture, Prague, Rail Transit, San Francisco | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Only that the Muzeum station looks better.
Didn't George Lucas film THX-1138 in the BART subway?
Aaron M. Renn |
09/03/2009 at 15:51
Dveřa se zaviraji!
Cap'n Transit |
09/03/2009 at 16:53
Communist modernism is ugly and cheap. Capitalist modernism spends hundreds of millions of dollars paying top architects to design ugly stations.
And yes, based on the pictures you show, the Prague station looks better.
Alon Levy |
09/03/2009 at 16:53
How much of the cost is differential is related to the wealth differential? I know that its much more expensive to build a subway line in Manhattan the Bejing. I was shocked at how little it costs to build mass transit in South America.
But a lot of those difference are probably because a lot of the construction costs are incurred by natives of the respective countries where labor costs are dramatically different.
Was communist modernism ugly and cheap compared to Capitalist modernism because the communists were just much poorer?
Second was the design/construction better in SF? Did a larger upfront expenditure result in lower subsequent maintence costs? Or were the additional costs superflous? Was the Czech line used more
09/04/2009 at 01:54
My intent was to note the similarity of the aesthetic, not to compare cost-related issues such as quality of construction, durability etc.
In general, Eastern Bloc countries, like developing world countries, had lower resources but also lower construction and operation costs due to much cheaper labour.
Another important comparison, I think, is that the BART system was designed with a high level of concern about look and feel. The Prague system, aimed at less discretionary riders, presumably cared less about this, but as a matter of civic image, if nothing else, they clearly cared some.
Jarrett at HumanTransit.org |
09/04/2009 at 04:17
Not really. And in both cases, glass curtain walls are supposed to represent a transparency, democracy, and openness that doesn't actually exist.
It's particularly telling in Berlin, where the profiles of Alexanderplatz in the east and Zoo Station in the west are remarkably similar. The only readily apparent difference is the level of economic activity.
J.D. Hammond |
09/04/2009 at 07:37
Capitalist modernism = expensive socialist labor (public sector unions and their vast political influence machines)
Socialist modernism = cheap socialist labor (wage equality regardless of type of work or position, "to each according to his needs", etc).
09/04/2009 at 07:42
Ironically, you could go to China and find cheap non-socialized labor, but you'd probably see the same aesthetic. A lot of modernist minimal or brutalist aesthetics are vague semiotic containers you can fill with pretty much any set of feel-good justifications.
J.D. Hammond |
09/04/2009 at 08:04
Modernism is modernism, it doesn't care who is paying. The original modernist architects had socialist ideals. It's not so surprising to see modernism in a Western public works project. What's really telling is how readily modernist designs were adopted for corporate headquarters and the like.
09/04/2009 at 12:35
Ironic, because BART's oldest stations feel very depressing and claustrophobic being inside them.
OK, that's not a fair comparison since I am in L.A. and we really went overboard in the design of our subway stations. I'm not expecting BART to rise up to that standard.
But go to any of the Market Street stations and you'll see generally dark and dingy platforms, hear the ominous rumblings of Muni Metro trains on another deck (the noise sounds reminiscent of an avalanche) and the Speak & Spell annunciation of the next trains coming, and feel boxed in with the low ceilings.
09/05/2009 at 05:09
The comments to this entry are closed.