|
|
| Archer Avenue at 20 (717730) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
|
| (717730) | |
Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Wed Dec 10 00:17:44 2008 The 20th anniversary of the Archer Avenue line has arrived. The official dedication (see plaque) was 20 years ago today, 12/10/88. Regularly scheduled service followed the next day on December 11.The IND 57 Street station (1968), I have to say looks better than any of the Archer station depite being twice the age. |
|
|
| (717779) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Wed Dec 10 02:36:17 2008, in response to Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R42 4787 on Wed Dec 10 00:17:44 2008. The less said about the Archer Avenue stations, especially Parsons/Archer, the better.They are a disgrace to the system, poorly designed and even more poorly maintained, dark, dank, smelly, rat-infested. For stations that relatively new to be in such bad shape speaks volumes about MTA and/or TA mismanagement. |
|
|
| (717780) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 02:38:21 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by gbs on Wed Dec 10 02:36:17 2008. The architecture was very nicely done. The quality of construction was lacking and provisions for drainage could have been better. And then of course there are the vandals who attack the glass and the cocrete over and over again. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (717828) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Dec 10 08:02:04 2008, in response to Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R42 4787 on Wed Dec 10 00:17:44 2008. IMHO the 14th, 23rd, 42nd and 47-50th St. stations on the 6th Ave. line still look pretty damn good. |
|
|
| (717831) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Dec 10 08:06:49 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 02:38:21 2008. No the Architect messed up big time with the crew areas. Like putting 1 bathroom for both line so E crews have to come down stairs to use it. There should have been a Bathroom up on the E line are well. The Lunch room look like a dungeon, full of rats and Miskito all year round. There are many other things that is wrong with the behind the sence, that the riders do not get to see. |
|
|
| (717850) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Wed Dec 10 08:58:15 2008, in response to Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R42 4787 on Wed Dec 10 00:17:44 2008. I still have my original-issue glossy newspaper MTA flyer announcing the service. I forget whether I got it from the Daily News or the SI Advance. BTW, don't laugh- the SI Advance often carried MTA materials related to service in distant locations. |
|
|
| (717853) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 09:01:31 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Dec 10 08:06:49 2008. I agree regarding crew spaces. But the overall architecture (ie passenger areas)were nicely designed. Nothing wrong with that at all. |
|
|
| (717858) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 09:05:53 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by MainR3664 on Wed Dec 10 08:58:15 2008. I saw the brochure that was handed out. |
|
|
| (717862) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Dec 10 09:16:43 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 09:05:53 2008. I have few tokens that was sold that day. |
|
|
| (717872) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 09:42:50 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by gbs on Wed Dec 10 02:36:17 2008. That's mostly, and sadly, correct. |
|
|
| (717886) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by fytton on Wed Dec 10 10:09:15 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 02:38:21 2008. 'The architecture was very nicely done.'But the track layout was not, so the terminal's capacity to turn trains is an inadequate tph. |
|
|
| (717889) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 10:13:23 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 09:01:31 2008. Oh really? The indiscriminate use of acoustic material in the ceilings at Suthphin Bvld and Jamaica-Van Wyck - that does nothing but attract track dust - is one BIG blunder. And there's the matter of that Leak - which nobody seems to know how to fix. And the overuse of DARK BROWN at Parsons - what WERE they thinking?-w- |
|
|
| (717890) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 10:18:05 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by fytton on Wed Dec 10 10:09:15 2008. The architecture, aside from whatever aesthetic considerations, was, and is also an abject failure. The station circulates passengers very poorly. The station's layout puts lower level passengers through the middle level. There aren't enough staircases and elevators, particularly at the northern (Sutphin Blvd) end. The station circulates air very poorly too, which is a particularly acute problem when the humidity is high.So it's really an all-around failure. |
|
|
| (717892) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 10:20:43 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Dec 10 08:02:04 2008. And 34th Street would be with them if they hadn't tampered with it. Whatever possessed them to tear down the original tile? They should put it back, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.BTW 34th Street is dressed up as a RED family station these days - the word should go out - IT'S YELLOW. wayne |
|
|
| (717894) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 10:21:38 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 10:18:05 2008. That's the complaint re: Sutphin BlvdThe same goes for Jamaica Center itself as well; it circulates air and passengers poorly. And it's the most abysmally performing 2-track terminal in the system. It can't even handle 15 tph. |
|
|
| (717898) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 10:40:20 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by fytton on Wed Dec 10 10:09:15 2008. ITrue, though it was never intended to function as a terminal. |
|
|
| (717900) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 10:41:07 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 10:13:23 2008. "And the overuse of DARK BROWN at Parsons - what WERE they thinking"They were thinking it looks nice - and it does. |
|
|
| (717914) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Wed Dec 10 11:03:54 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 10:20:43 2008. Hopefully when they renovate 34th Street-6th Avenue, they would put it back to its original look. |
|
|
| (717917) | |
some Sutphin Blvd pictures Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 11:09:22 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 09:42:50 2008. Here is a recent pic by D Pirmann, Aug 2008, Sutphin Blvd: Sutphin Blvd again, by F Matuska, Jun 2007:  Ditto:  |
|
|
| (717919) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 10 11:10:35 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by MainR3664 on Wed Dec 10 08:58:15 2008. I have one as well. I'll scan and post it later. |
|
|
| (717920) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 10 11:11:44 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by 33rd Street on Wed Dec 10 11:03:54 2008. 34th was renovated. It will look like it does for the forseeable future. |
|
|
| (717922) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 10 11:15:12 2008, in response to Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R42 4787 on Wed Dec 10 00:17:44 2008. I still remember the signage at Union Tpke denoting the original service plan. It wasn't the E which was to service it, but the N and G. Weekdays N, weekends G, nights shuttle to B'wood-Van Wyck. Can you imagine the outcry had this been instituted instead of using the E? |
|
|
| (717929) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Dec 10 11:23:17 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 10:13:23 2008. Jamaica-Van Wyck, Sutphin and Parsons/Archer all have the worst ceiling mold I've ever seen in ANY subway station in NYC. I wonder if the porosity of the materials used in the stations' construction is a factor in this. The stalactites hanging over the tracks at Jamaica-Van Wyck are particularly noticeable if you ride the RFW at that station. |
|
|
| (717947) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 11:41:19 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Dec 10 11:23:17 2008. That stuff you see hanging down is the "sound absorbing material" which is stuffed into the acoustic panels to absorb noise. As for Sutphin - you'd think they'd be able to get up there and powerwash the ceiling, but you CAN'T, with that "stuff" behind it. You have to give it a sponge bath, and nobody seems to want to do that.wayne |
|
|
| (717948) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Wed Dec 10 11:43:02 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 10:41:07 2008. The design of the 63rd Street and Archer Avenue stations was an attempt, however misguided, to bring a sense of spaciousness into the subway, and they are true 'period pieces,' reflecting the design trends of the 1960s as much as the original IRT reflected design trends of the early 1900s.I think the unfortunate trend toward orange glazed tiles began with the late-1960s renovation of the BMT 49th Street station, which as I recall, was funded largely with Federal dollars as a demonstration project. In addition to the new wall treatment, the station was equipped with acoustical blocks and panels to reduce noise, a good idea that was not widely adopted throughout the system At the time the color was a startling change from the original white tile motif and was much more interesting than beige or green block tiles that the TA had been using in new/renovated/extended stations since the 50s. The people making design decisions for the TA/MTA seemed to have all said, "Oooh, Color!" and so orange and brown apparently became the new standard. This was also the time when station columns began to be repainted in bright colors rather than the standard dark green or black. Shortly after the 49th Street renovation, the orange and brown tile motifs appeared again in the partial renovation of 42nd Street/Sixth Avenue and the newly-built connection to the 7 line. This work has since been removed and replaced with the classic white tiles. Around the same time, Bowling Green was renovated with similar orange wall tiles. The idea to give most of the new stations high ceilings meant minimizing their mezzanine space, which was a big mistake that has made circulation such a problem. I am sure the thinking was influenced at the time by the planned design of the Washington Metro and the BART system, without considering New York's much higher passenger loads. If the Second Ave Subway had been built in the 70s as planned, we would likely be seeing orange up and down the East Side too. While I don't love the color scheme of the Archer or 63rd Street stations, I can appreciate them examples of mid-century design. And if they were merely maintained properly, they would not be the eyesores they have become. |
|
|
| (717953) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Dec 10 11:49:18 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 11:41:19 2008. THAT's the "soundproofing"? Dayum! You'd think that when these stations were designed, let alone built, they would have known what NOT to do. Did they even study this material to ascertain its behavior over time? I mean, it's just BAD. If it's hanging off the ceiling like that, imagine what we are breathing into our lungs as dust in those stations... |
|
|
| (717980) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Dec 10 13:28:23 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 11:41:19 2008. Call the Stooges - the greatest plumbers that ever plumbed a plumb! |
|
|
| (717982) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 13:31:00 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 11:41:19 2008. It's moreover really ineffective soundproofing at Sutphin Blvd. Even with the bus traffic, taxis, and street noise, you can still hear the trains. |
|
|
| (718038) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 16:34:28 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 10 13:31:00 2008. Not really. If you stand right at the entrance to the station, yes; otherwise, no. |
|
|
| (718043) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 16:36:37 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Wed Dec 10 11:43:02 2008. Well, art is in the eye of the beholder, so anyone can like or not like a given scheme.I agree with your comments about maintenance. |
|
|
| (718116) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Wed Dec 10 18:51:18 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Wed Dec 10 11:43:02 2008. Read Kevin Walsh's article on the modern 1960s-80s station design for more details. |
|
|
| (718117) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 19:19:51 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R42 4787 on Wed Dec 10 18:51:18 2008. Very nice article! Good photos and descriptions of design philosophy.Small error in the article: The 63rd St Connector was open for business in 2001, not 2002. |
|
|
| (718370) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 23:46:19 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 10 11:11:44 2008. Solution: a little paint and trim. Leave the current materials in place.- Paint the pillars the same "yellow ochre" you see at stations like 14th/8th, 145th/St Nich, Nostrand. - the maroon parts of the plaques go BROWN (take down, enamel and replace) - the orange tiles go GOLD (cut them out and replace them). - the numerals - change to BLACK on a YELLOW background (take down, paint and replace) wayne. |
|
|
| (718466) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 07:36:40 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 02:38:21 2008. The vandals attack the 80 year old stations too, and many of them have held up much better, so that's not an excuse. And those "80 year" old stations weren't designed for "vandalism". In 1988, just leaving the most vandal infested two decades in subway history, they knew very well that anything designed or built should be more "vandal resistant"....especially in 1988 when we weren't nearly even out of the woods with combating vandalism. |
|
|
| (718467) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 07:38:34 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Wed Dec 10 11:43:02 2008. You are absolutely correct. |
|
|
| (718468) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 07:40:52 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 16:36:37 2008. Yes, it's in the eye of the beholder, but more so, a sign of the times it was built. And it's no secret that most stuff designed in the 60's and 70's, and even into the 80's was not nearly close to "the golden age" of good design. It's safe to bet that anyone for example buying a house or renting an apartment that was designed or remodeled in the 1970's would surely want to rip most of those renovations out....unless you like living with orange shag rug, dark paneling, or brown tiles in your bathroom. The same is true with the unfortunate 1970's +- renovations in the subway. |
|
|
| (718470) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 07:43:34 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 11:41:19 2008. it's unfortunate that they didn't even think of the cleaning or maintenance that would be required when designing those unfortunate stations. Take any 1920's station, and you can power wash the $hit out of it....do that to a 1988 Archer station, and you would probably blow it apart. |
|
|
| (718471) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 07:44:52 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 10 16:34:28 2008. You can here the trains outside too, and you don't have to be at the entrance. However, I think the sound proofing was meant more to reduce the noice within the station too, not just outside of it. |
|
|
| (718485) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by FLASH GORDON on Thu Dec 11 08:41:29 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Dec 10 08:06:49 2008. Line was never finished and still does not get to 168 street.People in Queens got cheated on this project. FLASH GORDON |
|
|
| (718492) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Dec 11 09:08:19 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 10:20:43 2008. Those onionheads! |
|
|
| (718496) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Dec 11 09:26:26 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Dec 10 23:46:19 2008. All good ideas. But first they need to learn to clean the station properly, it's filthy. You could grow potatoes in the dirt on the beams and "artwork" at the north end of the IND platform. |
|
|
| (718507) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 09:59:01 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by MainR3664 on Wed Dec 10 08:58:15 2008. You mean this one?:)  Jeezz, I can't believe I was a teenager when I first read through this brochure.... |
|
|
| (718509) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 11 10:01:10 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 07:44:52 2008. Loudest noise in the station is usually screeching braking sounds (mostly on application, but a bit on release on too). The acoustics of the stations mostly help to transmit sound anyway. |
|
|
| (718512) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Dec 11 10:03:09 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 09:59:01 2008. Oh that's hilarious!This is my new wallpaper! |
|
|
| (718514) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 10:09:04 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Dec 10 11:15:12 2008. Yup. I have a rollsign from the R46's from when they took them out to replace them with the digital signs.Here's all the routes that are on my sign....and the N and G to Jamaica Center are a few of them. Also interesting, are the "G or N Archer shuttles"..... There is also a straight "Shuttle" with no letter, but for some reason, I don't have that in the photos here. I took these photos at least 5 years ago....     
|
|
|
| (718518) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Dec 11 10:26:30 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 09:59:01 2008. Yeah, that's it. I have two of them. And to think, I was alive for nearly 4 fewer years at that time than the time that's passed between then and now. Pass the prune juice, Mabel. |
|
|
| (718523) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Dec 11 10:54:19 2008, in response to Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R42 4787 on Wed Dec 10 00:17:44 2008. And how it looks at 20 is an absolute joke. But don't take my word for it.Look at Sutphin/Archer...what a dump. |
|
|
| (718525) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Dec 11 10:55:27 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by gbs on Wed Dec 10 02:36:17 2008. That probably has to go back to whoever was running the MTA at the time...it may have been Ravitch who let the contracts...and now he's about to mess things up AGAIN. |
|
|
| (718526) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Thu Dec 11 10:56:49 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Dec 11 09:26:26 2008. Yes I've seen that filth. It's been there for years. Some of it may be out of reach of the cleaning folk.I have a better idea for the orange "squares": cut those rows out of the tile and replace them with sections of two-tone yellow/gold IND style tile like the station originally had. They have at least one tyler that is good with a Makita saw - look at the surgery performed at Broadway Junction! wayne |
|
|
| (718527) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Thu Dec 11 10:57:04 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Dec 11 10:09:04 2008. Did those R46s only have signs for Jamaica Yard lines (of course, the R and N were swapped to allow the R to use Jamaica)? |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
