- The DC metro stations with this architecture (and several of the federal buildings downtown in a similar brutalist style) are some of my favorite places. Growing up in the area, the Metro was so exciting for field trips. It felt like being a grown up in a different underground world. The dramatic lighting, weird smell, and cave temperature of the underground ones feel so special to me. Built like a cathedral, stripped down to only the practical parts. Even commuting as an adult it feels special, those senses come back every time. I'm glad they have the same dirty hexagonal tiles at every station too!
- I'm surprised they didn't mention the Pentagon metro, which always stood out to me since instead of having side-by-side platforms, they're stacked vertically within the same vault.
I guess it falls under "Waffle" style, though.
- I believe Rosslyn is similarly stacked. My 8 year old self assumed was named after The First Lady
- I believe you're correct! Two such stations with that orientation should warrant a mention.
- both to facilitate flying junctions
- One thing that people might not realize is that the waffle design is meant to remind you of the waffle design of Union Station's ceiling (which in turn was inspired by waffle ceilings in Roman architecture like in the Pantheon) - so it is both brutalist and classical at the same time!
- Fans of the waffle station design will also enjoy the concrete waffle office tower:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=concrete+...
- It's a totally different perspective and experience when inside the metro. I really dislike brutalist architecture, but in the DC metro station you're not just looking at it, you're inhabiting it. And the architecture isn't blocky, the waffle patterns notwithstanding. The ceiling is curved and completely uniform, without any disruption except for the passenger portals to outside. The elevated walkways also have curvature. There generally aren't any horizontal or sharply squared surfaces except for the escalators and benches, a contrast that was presumably very deliberate.
The metro is fairly dark (or was designed to be fairly dark). It feels cave-like. It's brutalist through-and-through, but for that reason it also makes you feel like you're simultaneously in an expansive and ethereal, yet protected and confining space. There's no clash with adjacent architecture (except where modern renovations fsck things up). You're transported, literally and figuratively.
Unfortunately the effect has been adulterated over time. Lightning has changed--variously too dark, too light, or just wrong shading. Arrival time signs (added early 2000s) disrupt the airiness, especially when near escalators or walkways, which were carefully designed spaces that dealt with narrow constraints, but didn't/couldn't have a margin for introduced elements. (Maybe they should've been integrated into the ventilation towers?) Poor maintenance of the ceiling means grime and water damage breaks up the uniformity. It's not quite the same experience as when I first experienced it in the late 1990s.
- I love the article.
For my own reasons I went right away to search for the word "brutalist" which is what the older stations evoke when the cement ages around you.
Not pretty to look at it.
It reminds me of the Apple TV series Silo. It makes you want to escape to the surface to clean the camera.
The new stations on the Silver Line to IAD bring better feelings.
- "Not pretty to look at it."
Au contraire ... Javier ... mon frere ...
- Brutalism is always a target for lazy critiques.
Concrete heavy architecture enables far more interesting geometry due to how you can use various molds and modular construction.
In addition, brutalist(and adjacent) architecture also plays a lot with lighting and sight lines, which IMO makes fore incredibly visually interesting structures.
I think there's a weird cultural thing where the cold war attitudes towards the USSR then influenced opinions on concrete-heavy architecture and created canned "brutalism ugly" memes. This even swings back around with weird obsessions with "classical architecture", which means even less and often results in essential virtue signalling via shallow features glued onto facades.
I think this also extends to various modern/contemporary art. Many people write it off before they even try to absorb it. They'll see a classical oil painting(with mid technique to boot) and go "pretty picture" and see a more modern piece with a lot of technique using shapes, color, and texture to draw attention in different ways and say "i can do that" but they wouldn't know where to start.
Rothko and Rembrant both produced pieces with spectacular use of color and depth, but people write off the former to circle jerk on the latter, especially due to various "trad" virtue signal type behavior.
Anyway, when you're looking at a brutalist building, follow the lines, look closely how the lighting interacts with the shapes, look how the lines interact with the flow of the room. There's so much thought and creativity involved, it deserves better.
- I get the aesthetic of concrete. It is very appealing visually. At the same time brutalism is not functional. In a way, it is anti-human. One can compare it with functional architecture that takes the person into account and will see that visuals only might not be enough for people living or working or studying there.
All of this depends, of course, on what we consider brutalist, but I think we can agree the purest brutalist constructions are not thinking of the human experience.
In a way, it is like marvelling at a torture device, like an iron maiden. It might be visually interesting but I think most people wont love it for good reasons, not out of laziness.
edit: typos
- The metro is pure brutalist, through-and-through, and it's utterly amazing. But you're inhabiting the space; there's little-to-no contrast with foreign elements; and the nature of the structure means everything about brutalism, artistically and functionally, could be exercised to its best effect.
I will say that I've always disliked most of the above ground platforms, for the same reasons I dislike brutalist architecture generally. The underground platforms transport you to its carefully constructed world. The above ground platforms don't and probably never could have the same effect.
As time goes on the metro has been slowly adulterated, but it's still amazing.
- Rode the metro for 7 years. Feel like an idiot that I never noticed the waffle and arch designs had so many variations. Looks like my typical stations were either Waffle or Arch 1. Never know Wheaton and Forest Glen had separate tubes.
- I started riding the Metro in the mid 80s and always loved the THX1138/Logan's Run vibe of the station interiors as well as the plaza's led to them. In areas like L'Enfant Plaza and the suburbs they gave the surroundings a muted techno-oasis vibe. Before downtown DC's mid-90s gentrification-storm stops like Metro Center -- literally named at the time -- with the mix of concrete and pooped-coffee brown metal and very directional, hard shadow-casting lighting you got Eau de Blade Runner with less rain and claustrophobia. The old Third Church of Christ, Scientist delivered similar joy for staring at and photographing. Very hard to forget the shots I took of those venues with my Minolta XJ-7 and Nikon FM-2 as it felt like I was on to something
- The g-word has, unfortunately, led to some changes that have impacted the system's aesthetics over the past few years. Lighting was brightened and switched to white LEDs in many stations, ruining the ambiance. This was echoed on the newer trains, which also feature "hostile architecture" style seating and flooring that doesn't absorb as much of the operational noise as those in the older models did. Finally, WMATA has taken to painting (rather than cleaning) several of the vault stations, covering and disfiguring the bare concrete.
Stations used to feel cozy and chill, and a break from sensory overload above ground. Now walking in and getting on a train just feels a lot more stressful. It's a shame that wooing transplants took precedence over maintaining an architectural wonder. (Sometimes I think they secretly only feel safe when they're stressed.)
- I really disagree about the lighting, as they were installing it the contrast between the bright, navigable newly lit stations and the dim, grimier feeling older ones was stark.
I wish it were a tad warmer hued, but the brightness is great.
- And they have all one thing in common: they're fugly. Saying this as someone who suffers them regularly. Look at images of Moscow Metro stations to see a vastly superior alternative design.
- I kinda like the waffles, actually. The main aesthetic problem IMO is the dim lighting (and litter).
- Been a minute since I’ve commuted daily in DC, but I always found the waffle stations rather lovely as well as iconic; they’re among my favorites from my travels.
- Not sure why you're being downvoted.
Moscow metro is a work of art (the older stations anyway).
The only feelings that NY or DC metros ever evoked from me is "how fast can I get the hell out of there" and move on with my day.
The newest Silver Line in DC is okay. Being mostly open-air saves it.
51 points by quuxplusone 2 days ago | 21 comments