21–30 of 155 posts
Funny that it's so noticeable because of the hostile architecture.
What is hostile about the architecture here? The armrests?
Don't clean stuff... Just hide the dirt!
You can regularly clean well enough to address health and safety and still end up with plenty of marks that are high effort to remove that only really affect appearance, and so designs that reduce the visual impact have been used in high traffic spaces pretty much "forever" as a means to reduce the need for high effort cleaning.
Not really much difference for a wall.
I noticed some other weird design choices in the new tube stations as well. Eg air vents that are very fine and visibly clog up. It’s like they designed it to look shiny for day one but ignored decades of practical experience
I noticed some other weird design choices in the new tube stations as well. Eg air vents that are very fine and visibly clog up. It’s like they designed it to look shiny for day one but ignored decades of practical experience
Modern software development, and especially UI design, in a nutshell.
I noticed some other weird design choices in the new tube stations as well. Eg air vents that are very fine and visibly clog up. It’s like they designed it to look shiny for day one but ignored decades of practical experience
It's very difficult to make thousands of up-front planning decisions perfectly. It'd be even more costly to try to perfect every aspect upfront within the planning stage and it'd be more reasonable to make best attempts but to provide for the ability (and budget) to retrofit bespoke alterations to fix problems that arise at a later date.
I noticed some other weird design choices in the new tube stations as well. Eg air vents that are very fine and visibly clog up. It’s like they designed it to look shiny for day one but ignored decades of practical experience
On my commute they are fitting new cladding to hide a brick wall on an outdoor, not covered, platform. All the studwork is standard timber screwed into the wall. Any water ingress and this will rot quickly. Oh well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is hostile about the architecture here? The armrests?
If the (quite useless) armrests weren't there to prevent the homeless from sleeping on them, people wouldn't be sitting in the exact same spot every time, causing a light smear instead of defined person-like shaped on the wall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very difficult to make thousands of up-front planning decisions perfectly. It'd be even more costly to try to perfect every aspect upfront within the planning stage and it'd be more reasonable to make best attempts but to provide for the ability (and budget) to retrofit bespoke alterations to fix problems that arise at a later date.
But surely it should be simple enough to look at what alterations have been made on other lines already and start off from a basis that is at least as good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is hostile about the architecture here? The armrests?
If the (quite useless) armrests weren't there to prevent the homeless from sleeping on them, people wouldn't be sitting in the exact same spot every time, causing a light smear instead of defined person-like shaped on the wall.
For a start, I would give anyone on the underground about 3 minutes, if they attempted to sleep anywhere, before they were moved on. It's one of the few places where you regularly see staff on the public transport network in London.
I think there is a legitimate argument that these arm rests are actually providing a useful service by delimiting the space for each person. Few people will naturally sit on the spot at the end of a bench seat which is already partially occupied (and other people will discourage it by sitting near the middle). Where as people will take an empty seat which is clearly free and separated from the other people on the bench.