urbanfan89
Active Member
The Toronto system is remarkable for being unremarkable.
|
|
|
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
jn_12
Senior Member
I got it for Christmas and while it's very interesting its more about map design than subway development. The pictures are your only way of determining changes in development and it would have been nice to have more depth. I guess really entire books could be (and have been) written about certain cities and their subway development, so it's probably best that this book doesn't give the coles notes version.
Evan
Active Member
Why no fucking Eglington Subway? Who's to blame?
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Should the London Underground be dropped down a notch in the list due to the banning of drinking alcohol on public transit?
Earlscourt_Lad
Active Member
ganjavih
Senior Member
What's to like about Montreal's metro? Bilbao has those cool entrances.
CharmAlarm
Active Member
A pretty lame list if you ask me. Submitted for your consideration, the ever expanding Athens metro:
www.ametro.gr
Click on the union jack for the english version, then click on the "photos, video, maps link" for pics of some amazing stations. Having been there last September I was blown away - granite tiled floors, marble wall tiles..IN EVERY STATION. And spotless - food and drinks are banned. Looks great now, hopefully they have the funds for upkeep in years to come.
www.ametro.gr
Click on the union jack for the english version, then click on the "photos, video, maps link" for pics of some amazing stations. Having been there last September I was blown away - granite tiled floors, marble wall tiles..IN EVERY STATION. And spotless - food and drinks are banned. Looks great now, hopefully they have the funds for upkeep in years to come.
wyliepoon
Senior Member
I've never been a fan of the Bilbao Metro, even though it's a Foster design. The tube stations don't look too impressive. The glass entrances can be easily copied, and they are (I've seen them in Macau, China used as entrances to pedestrian tunnels).
I've seen one of those too here in Scarborough. The pedestrian stairs leading from street level on McCowan Rd to the Progress Ave overpass is covered in glass in a similar way to the entrance.
I've seen one of those too here in Scarborough. The pedestrian stairs leading from street level on McCowan Rd to the Progress Ave overpass is covered in glass in a similar way to the entrance.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Tokyo, Moscow, New York, London, and Paris were obvious choices, especially London and Moscow. Shanghai and Berlin are decent systems. I don't like the Chicago subway where their subway cars being shorter and lighter seem to bounce around worse than a streetcar usually does but the elevated portions make it unique but not necessarily impressive. I'm not too impressed with either Hong Kong or Bilbao. I am most surprised that Washington DC is not on the list and agree Seoul is more impressive than some on the list.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
The only glaring omission is Washington. It completely changed the way we think about subway design. Berlin's also a bit of a strange choice. It's a decent system, but not really all that exceptional.
junctionist
Senior Member
Bilbao has a fresher system but Montreal also put a lot of emphasis on unique architecture and public art as well. They worked with local architects and artists, which strongly connected it to the culture above ground. Many stations are terrific modernist places, and the art always adds interest. From the photos I've seen of Bilbao's system it doesn't seem to have any public art installed. I think Montreal set a precedent for design standards for countries outside of the Soviet sphere.
nfitz
Superstar
Washington's stations seem very repetitive. Downtown, once you've seen one, you've seen most of them. And in the suburbs many just look like train platforms. I don't see much remarkable about them, particularly given how recent they are - they wouldn't look out of place in Montreal (well, the first time ...). Am I missing something?
Archivist
Senior Member
For this to make any sense at all, you'd have to decide what you're measuring, in terms of "impressiveness". Are you measuring the aesthetic qualities of metro systems? If so, the Moscow, Montreal, Bilbao, Washington would all gain at the expense of places like Tokyo, Toronto, and Paris. If you are measuring how well they perform the job of getting people around, then surely Tokyo would be somewhere near the top, while some of the prettier metros would decline. Even if you do aesthetics, you'd have to state your bias, whether you liked old, and perhaps even grimy stations that hint at subway life some time ago, which would surely vault New York up the list (and Buenos Aires, too, where if you're lucky you'll get into an all-wooden car from the 1930's, still in service) - or whether you were after new and sleek, in which case Bilbao etc. would bump up the list.
I find often that people simply don't say what they are measuring, so you have these arguments that make no sense, like "You can't even compare Bilbao to Tokyo because they don't carry enough people!".
In the context of North America, Toronto impressive in how many people it shifts around daily, but aesthetically it is nothing special. Either way, it would not make the tops of any worldwide lists. That's OK, gets me where I'm going.
I find often that people simply don't say what they are measuring, so you have these arguments that make no sense, like "You can't even compare Bilbao to Tokyo because they don't carry enough people!".
In the context of North America, Toronto impressive in how many people it shifts around daily, but aesthetically it is nothing special. Either way, it would not make the tops of any worldwide lists. That's OK, gets me where I'm going.
PaulG
New Member
Didn't Toronto get points for historical value? because the system is so similar to what it was decades ago, riding it is like going back in time 
adma
Superstar
Well, sure, if they still had the Gloucester cars and the Vitrolite...