|
|
| Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway (287445) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 6 |
||
|
| (290533) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Mon Jul 31 13:07:49 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 31 12:20:20 2006. You're on record as being crazy, then. Suit yourself. |
|
|
| (290549) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jul 31 13:33:13 2006, in response to Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jul 28 15:42:28 2006. Wow... resize your browser so you can see the full width of the Hoyt photo, but only a quarter to a third of the height. Then scroll up and down quickly. Trippy! |
|
|
| (290575) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 31 14:01:00 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by tydev417 on Thu Jul 27 22:14:30 2006. Bowling Green has those orange tiles because that northbound platform is completely new, it didn't exist before 1978. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (290578) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 31 14:02:12 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 31 14:01:00 2006. And I would disagree that Bowling Green should be given a 1904-style appearance. The current station is unique. The BMT 1970 cinderblock tile is identical everywhere its used. Keeping it in just one station is enough. |
|
|
| (290588) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Jul 31 14:17:58 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 31 12:20:20 2006. You mean the 1968-planned SAS, right? The 1949-planned SAS probably woould have been opened around 1968, and looked like Grand and 57th as you said. A 1968 planned line if it was finished in the mid 70's may have looked like 49th or Bowling Green. Now THAT would have been nice! Perhaps we could have seen the rainbow of colors in that style as I always imagined.Archer/63rd are the next style after that. While the shells may have been built in the 70's, they probably weren't tiled until the 80's. |
|
|
| (290664) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 31 15:19:57 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Eric B on Mon Jul 31 14:17:58 2006. Don't forget that the Broadway and 4th Ave line's renovations were also done in the late 60's or early 70's, that's why I suggested that they may also have been done like that. That is the next step after stations like Grant Ave (That opened in the late 50's) and 57th ST, but before 49th and Bowling Green. I still say the SAS of the 68 plan would have looked like the 4th Ave line or former Broadway. |
|
|
| (290671) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 31 15:25:43 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 31 12:20:20 2006. The Archer and 63rd St stations are 80's stations. They weren't tiled until the late 80's.The SAS of the 70's, would have looked like Broadway did and 4th Ave does. I don't think Eric is correct either saying they would look like Grant because that is a 50's design. That design was dead by the 70's. |
|
|
| (290706) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 31 16:05:23 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Fred G on Sun Jul 30 21:06:18 2006. Mmmmm, steamed hams. |
|
|
| (290708) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 31 16:07:58 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 31 16:05:23 2006. Haha! Meriden's answer to the Cheese Steak.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (290709) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 31 16:08:05 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by R30A on Fri Jul 28 18:21:30 2006. It even has the indentations, where they have the cases for trophies and clubs and such.Although Stuyvesant was built in 1992, way after the end of the cinderblock tile era in the subway. |
|
|
| (290759) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 31 17:11:23 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jul 28 11:21:57 2006. Bowling Green was necessary. |
|
|
| (290782) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jul 31 17:56:36 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 31 15:19:57 2006. If the SAS had been built in the 1930s or even 1940s like it was supposed to, it would have looked like either the original IND or the stations between ENY and Euclid depending on when they were actually completed. I have seen contract drawings of the IND Fulton St Line S/O ENY and if the war had not interrupted construction, the tile between ENY and Euclid would have been identical to the older portions of the IND. |
|
|
| (290830) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 31 19:20:24 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Eric B on Mon Jul 31 14:17:58 2006. Yes, the 1949 plan had 4 tracks and had a complicated junction with the BMT and 6th Ave line at Chrystie St. The 1968 plan was the 2 track line, much like the current one. |
|
|
| (290832) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 31 19:24:58 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 31 15:25:43 2006. Bowling Green and 49th St. were done in 1974/75. That would have been the look stations on the 1968 line would have sported. The stations opened in the 1980's may have been tiled in that decade, but their look is decidedly 1970's in appearance. And who can blame them, since no new station had been opened for 20 years prior to them. |
|
|
| (290864) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 31 20:29:50 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by randyo on Mon Jul 31 17:56:36 2006. Agreed, on the SAS of the 30's or 40's had it been built then. I was thinking more along the lines of the 1968 plan for the SAS though. |
|
|
| (290926) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Jul 31 21:48:39 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 31 15:25:43 2006. I didn't say "Grant", I said "Grand". Grant actually is the link between the IND style and the 59th lower level and platform extensions style. Grant still had the glossy frieze band, rather than the square band tiles with the same lumpy texture as the rest of the tiles; and the tiles were the same shape as Euclid, though they were the same green used in the following phase.In the 60's, the went from the green back to white or tan with a colored band, as at Grand; and 57th, the final 60's station, dropped the band altogether. Depending on when exactly the '49 SAS plan was tiled, it would have either been like this, or, if a few years later, then perhaps like the Bway retiling. |
|
|
| (290929) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Jul 31 21:51:24 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 31 19:24:58 2006. Those are the newest stations. If that's a 70's look, and not the current look, then what is an 80's, 90's and current look?(I would think the late 70's look IS still the current look. Reminded me of newer systems like DC, etc, which were done in the 70's. I do not know where design has progressed to past this). |
|
|
| (290933) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 31 21:57:25 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Eric B on Mon Jul 31 21:51:24 2006. Hoyt, 137th, Archer, and 63rd St are 80's look. 90's look is the retro look, as is the 2000's in the case of renovations. We can't say what "new" stations in the 90's or 2000's would look like, as there are no new stations to have a look for. |
|
|
| (291015) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Jul 31 23:29:29 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jul 30 02:00:29 2006. Sometimes, your exacting nature can be a real pain. Nearly as bad a pain as RonInKansasCity. |
|
|
| (291017) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Jul 31 23:30:39 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by ryogaridestheMTA on Sun Jul 30 19:19:38 2006. Besides, since the SAS is gonna feed into 63-Lex, why not keep the new looking pattern going?If SAS looks like Lex/63, I will be mad. |
|
|
| (291019) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Jul 31 23:31:17 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Jul 30 02:12:54 2006. My bad. I totally forgot about 110. |
|
|
| (291027) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Jul 31 23:43:51 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 31 21:57:25 2006. 90's look is the retro look,Postmodern. |
|
|
| (291038) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Jul 31 23:50:00 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 30 08:31:26 2006. Astor Still looks great today. |
|
|
| (291040) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Jul 31 23:55:15 2006, in response to Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jul 28 15:42:28 2006. Cool post man. Although, I think the best example of bas relief you have is actually the one in the picture showing Bleeker's tiled columns. That is one station I hope gets a full restoration. I doubt it though, considering what happened to the great bas reliefs at 14th (at least you can still see them).You also missed something else the 90's brought: entirely new designs. Canal St BMT is the only one I can think of, and it's one of my favorite mosaics for that reason. That's what I was talking about when I meant that restoring stations to their old look was so BLAH to me. I like to see new things rather then restoring old which looks just like everything else. |
|
|
| (291062) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Aug 1 00:19:32 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by J trainloco on Mon Jul 31 23:31:17 2006. You are hereby forgiven.I wonder which is the worst of those local stations. Maybe 103? They really need to fix up that station. It still has tiles pointing to long-closed exits at 102 and, I think, 104. Rather than remove or cover them over, they should reopen the exits! That station currently has a whopping one staircase to the street. |
|
|
| (291067) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Aug 1 00:34:24 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by David of Broadway on Tue Aug 1 00:19:32 2006. 103 did had a 104th exit, funny how NYCT strategically covered the 102 and 104 directional signs with EXIT on them. |
|
|
| (291069) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Aug 1 00:36:13 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Aug 1 00:34:24 2006. Also 102. Do you know when they closed?And 96 had an exit at 95 that's also been closed for a long time. (It's retained its exit at 97, which is much more spacious than the terribly cramped one at 96.) |
|
|
| (291072) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Aug 1 00:41:04 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by David of Broadway on Tue Aug 1 00:36:13 2006. I honestly don't know when.I would like to know about the northbound booth at 110, including a cross-under to the southbound platform. That was sealed a long time ago. And 72nd street somehow had it's 70th street exit magically reappear a few years ago, wasn't this exit closed for some time? |
|
|
| (291076) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Aug 1 00:54:37 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Aug 1 00:41:04 2006. Yes, it was closed for a long time.Why does 110 need a crossunder when it also has a crossover? |
|
|
| (291078) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 1 00:56:19 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by David of Broadway on Tue Aug 1 00:54:37 2006. You could make each a one way passage. 8-) |
|
|
| (291128) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 1 04:25:59 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by J trainloco on Mon Jul 31 23:55:15 2006. The bas reliefs at 14th wound up like they did because they were on abandoned unused side platforms. the Ones on Bleecker won't see the same fate, as they are on normal platforms, and will be restored. IINM, they are even landmarked. |
|
|
| (291129) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 1 04:27:14 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Eric B on Mon Jul 31 21:48:39 2006. Okay, sorry, my bad, I read "Grant" into that for some reason. |
|
|
| (291130) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 1 04:28:34 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by J trainloco on Mon Jul 31 23:30:39 2006. Don't worry, it's not the 80's anymore. (Although I like 63rd St stations). |
|
|
| (291345) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Tue Aug 1 13:25:55 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 31 21:57:25 2006. I would think they would have just been continuations of what you call the "80's look". There's no rule that says a "look" has to change every decade, so we just have a "modern look" for the foreseeable future. (especially since they have broken out of the standardized "look" of plain tiles with trim as you had until the 70's, where you had competely different designs for every new station of renovation). |
|
|
| (291349) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 1 13:32:27 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Eric B on Tue Aug 1 13:25:55 2006. I would think they would have just been continuations of what you call the "80's look"Orange is out. There's no way they would be using orange in the quanity that they used it in the 70's and 80's. |
|
|
| (291359) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Tue Aug 1 13:57:38 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 1 13:32:27 2006. They'll probably be brown instead, like 21st St. and grey, like Roosevelt Is. and drawings of SAS seem to be point to that as well. |
|
|
| (291371) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Tue Aug 1 14:19:59 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jul 27 18:34:13 2006. I agree. It is a at least in part a question of architectural and artistic integrity, not just transitory aesthetic tastes. |
|
|
| (291375) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Tue Aug 1 14:27:08 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jul 27 18:34:13 2006. Interestingly enough, the five elements of historic preservation in the article you cite wouldn't necessarily apply to the stations in question:The building which is a work of art: the product of a distinct and outstanding creative mind. [Esthetic value] The building which... possesses in a pronounced form the characteristic virtues of the school of design which produced it. [Contextual value] The building which, of no great artistic merit, is either of significant antiquity or a composition of fragmentary beauties welded together in the course of time. [Picturesque value] The building which has been the scene of great events or the labours of great men. [Associative value] The building whose only virtue is that in a bleak tract of modernity it alone gives depth of time. [Memorial value] But it's clear the foregoing criteria were meant to apply to individual structures. I would argue that the design integrity (and quality) of the original stations as a composition -- that is, as a group -- deserve protection, even if a given station does not stand out when compared with another. This is the same theory under which historic districts, rather than specific buildings, are landmarked and preserved. |
|
|
| (291379) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by TeaBiscuit18thAveDude on Tue Aug 1 14:45:01 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Brighton Private on Tue Aug 1 14:27:08 2006. Such as TriBeCa (which is partially considered a historic district [mainly by Hudson Street].) You can tell it's a historic district by the brownish-colored streetpole signs (which have the district's name on the top, and street name on the bottom.)The building which has been the scene of great events or the labours of great men. [Associative value] Good example (albeit, it ISN'T a historic landmark) would be Yankee Stadium. |
|
|
| (291401) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Tue Aug 1 15:53:44 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by TeaBiscuit18thAveDude on Tue Aug 1 14:45:01 2006. Had the original Yankee Stadium been left more or less intact, instead of the debased version we were left with after the 1973-76 renovation, it might well have received landmark status.The distinction between the subway stations as a composition and the concept of buildings as a composition is that the stations are not visually connected. The eye does not take them in at once. |
|
|
| (291445) | |
Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 1 17:55:00 2006, in response to Re: Evolution of Subway Tile Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by Eric B on Tue Aug 1 13:25:55 2006. Bowling Green and 49th set the standard for "modern" in the mid 1970's, probably inspiring the look for Archer Ave and 63rd St. Those stations, tiles and all, were done by 1983/4. |
|
|
| (291522) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Aug 1 21:02:40 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 1 04:28:34 2006. I like 63rd stations too, but SAS better not look like that! |
|
|
| (291528) | |
Re: 49th Street-Broadway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 1 21:09:22 2006, in response to Re: 49th Street-Broadway, posted by J trainloco on Tue Aug 1 21:02:40 2006. To many dark colors like brown, and definitely too much orange. Dark colors like that are SO 80's. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 6 |
||
