
The DNA of a London Underground Station - alexbilbie
http://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/the-dna-of-a-london-underground-station/
======
RLN
Those pictures really looked a lot like the newer stations such as Canada
Water to me. All concrete, glass and cold lighting. Undoubtedly they work and
are functional but we end up with these cold, cavernous halls which serve just
to get you out of them as quickly as possible. The Underground I love is the
one that feels a bit lived in and isn't clinically perfect. I like that
different stations can bring different eras and have a completely different
feel to them. Such as Tottenham Court Road [1] with its lovely mosaics. Now
it's just a bit more bland. All over the Underground is a lot of history and
design that was probably never meant to last over 100 years [2] but it did. I
don't think these new designs are going to be pretty in 100 years.

Maybe I'm harking for a design philosophy that never really existed. And I
like the old District line trains so what do I know!

[1] [http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/...](http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/Julie-Gibson-Paolozzi.jpg)

[2]
[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dILlxEDvx20/UkwfeIhKOyI/AAAAAAAAAu...](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dILlxEDvx20/UkwfeIhKOyI/AAAAAAAAAuA/ob1IE6VUnGk/s1600/EdgewareRdStation.jpg)

~~~
david-given
I particularly like the new Westminster station --- you get off the train,
leave the platform, and you're at the bottom of this huge vertical space, full
of support girders and zigzagging diagonal escalators. You ascend through
this, with new views becoming visible at every turn, and eventually the
ceiling comes into view overhead, looming over you before the escalator passes
through it...

It reminded me intensely of some of the Portal 2 levels.

~~~
theoh
I'm not sure this will reach an audience here, but both Canada Water and
Westminster were commissioned by Roland Paoletti as part of the Jubilee Line
Extension. Overall, I think it's a success (a different architect was chosen
for each station).

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10460471/Roland-P...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10460471/Roland-
Paoletti-Obituary.html)

------
bostik
The design document can be found at [http://content.tfl.gov.uk/station-design-
idiom-2.pdf](http://content.tfl.gov.uk/station-design-idiom-2.pdf) (link
lifted from first comment in the article).

I find it disturbing that the first major item is "capacity", but then the
design parts do not even care to note how the given idiom will work towards
that end. Discoverability helps, by making it less likely for individuals to
get lost and thus take up valuable commuter real estate, but without
sufficient peak _throughput_ it makes very little difference.

Not to mention that if station design does not accommodate for need to widen
the tunnels in the future, they are not really aiming for future-proof. The
only good measure for capacity is how many commuters can be moved through, and
there is an upper bound to how many trains per platform you can fit in an
hour. Once that limit is reached, the only way to further increase capacity is
to get more people in per train. Hence: make trains longer (and extend
platforms), or make them wider (which requires to expand the tunnels).

As for personal taste... I like Canada Water station. It's utilitarian, can
sustain a lot of commuter traffic going both ways and doesn't even look that
ugly. Sure, it has a weird bottleneck on the street level because all
commuters need to take a long circular route to reach the escalators but all
parts _within_ the station are spacious and wide.

Not to say that the station couldn't look nicer, of course...

~~~
Symbiote
> Hence: make trains longer (and extend platforms), or make them wider (which
> requires to expand the tunnels).

Neither of these are possible with any realistic budget, and the year-long
line closures for the latter would be intolerable.

It's much cheaper to build a new line — for example, Crossrail and Crossrail
2.

~~~
bostik
I think the first actually does happen already, if only at a smaller scale.

I know overground has some stations where the last car can't fit on the
platform. (Circle line might have couple of these too, if I remember
correctly.) And I've noticed that a couple of fairly central stations have
been closed for more than a year due to construction works.

So extending platforms a couple of stations at a time should be possible - one
fully closed and another with just one end blocked off. It would take ages and
insane amounts of money to do that for the entire line, you're right about
that. But maybe just for the stations where it would provide the biggest
benefit?

~~~
Symbiote
It massively shows down alighting time, the "dwell time" is already a big
factor in how many tube trains can be run. It's also very confusing to
passengers. For both reasons, TfL would be extremely reluctant to introduce it
at a central London station.

And, there are building foundations and other tunnels in the way in many
cases, so it wouldn't be a temporary inconvenience.

------
druml
Not a relevant comment for the article, but when I saw the title I was
expecting a DNA sequencing experiment.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Likewise. I was expecting an analysis of all the DNA floating around in the
tunnels.

------
zhte415
The map of lines and station architectural styles
[http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/stationdesigntypes.j...](http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/stationdesigntypes.jpg)
really does pin down some of the very stark differences the different lines
have. It doesn't provide examples, but an image search for each of the station
names for each style really can illustrate the different if you're not
familiar with the tube. The trains themselves also play a big role in this.

I love this diversity. And dislike the suggestion of standardisation the
article suggests. There appears to be inconsistency between what the article
states as solutions and the 'problem' of modern design and construction.

Near the start of the article it states: >It’s a statement that an observer of
TfL’s recent station builds and rebuilds would find difficult to dispute.
Indeed in recent years it has become almost impossible to picture a new
Underground station as being anything other than glass, brushed steel and
concrete. A clean and efficient style, certainly, but hardly an inspiring one.

By this inconsistent with the answers offered:

The photo 'A station passage at Idiom Park.' has a very generic cylindrical
passage... with stairs leading off at an odd angle. No character or indication
of history or line, or individualisation (unless an oppressive blue is unique
to Idiom Park). And disability incompatible.

The photo 'Escalators at Idiom Park' includes iconic steel and plate
escalators I can imagine speeding at a pace leading to a... generic steel and
concrete chasm mentioned in the lead above as undesirable.

The image 'Platform level at Idiom Park' flat out reminds me of the old
Charring Cross Jubilee line. It could well be Charring Cross Jubille Line,
with blue lighting. I'm surprised I have this reaction, as it is simply cut-
away girding, blue lighting, which the lead again suggests isn't the way
forward (and a lack of safety doors).

> The tube means so much more to Londoners than getting from A to B. We are a
> part of the city and what we want to make sure is that we are doing our best
> to make sure that life in London is getting better as well. A result of that
> is a real focus on design. I guess what we recognise is that great design
> doesn’t happen by accident.

The tube is a testament to, and a record of, design through the past century-
and-a-half. More often than not, this was not by committee, as these designs
seem to be.

What would be worth improving would be disabled access and cleanliness (which
the article does mention), and affordability.

Is the article a parody of itself?

~~~
chiph
> And disability incompatible.

Presumably there is another passage with a lift/elevator for people in
wheelchairs, or for parents with prams.

What attracted my attention was the handrail. Trains arrive and empty of
passengers in "bursts". The handrail would confine them to a smaller portion
of the passage, leaving the rest unused. I can see problems similar to the
confined entrances of football stadiums, with dangerous overcrowding.

~~~
zhte415
This is a real feature of the underground I strangely miss. A crowd of people
walking along a small tunnel around 12 meters side and meeting a crowd of
people walking in the opposing direction. There is no pause, no slowing down,
no acknowledgement, it just happens, like ghosts passing through each other,
no one makes contact.

