Dublin Airport Metro to have unconnected terminus?

Don’t know if many of you have been on the Washington DC subway…..lots of bare concrete on certain lines, I wouldn’t call it ugly though!

It doesn’t take a huge investment to make a station something more than a depressing concrete canister of frazzled humanity. Mass transit, left to its own devices, moves people from points A to B, but can feel numbing, frustrating, and soulless. I actually have an extreme distaste for metro/underground stations that are either brutalist bomb shelters or supposedly sleek and über-modern. Some of the most inspiring examples of stations I’ve seen are in the NYC subway, where bright mosaics, bronze sculptures, and stained glass add a unique feel to each individual station.

Most of the NYC installations were added to stations well after the fact, once the MTA realized how totally dreary and bleak their underground stations were looking. Arts for Transit was started in the mid-80’s and has since commissioned about 170 works of permanent public art from a variety of artists, known and unknown. Well worth checking out. And it’s worth noting that each new commissioned work typically eats up about 0.5 to 1 percent of a station’s rehabilitation budget, so it’s not exactly draining the bank.

The renders we’ve seen for O’Connell St and the like are just filling space (granted, in an insultingly bland way) right now, but I hope it doesn’t set a precedent. If we want mass transit to be useful, it has to also be appealing. Yes, by all means, have good security, have good infrastructure. But without the humanizing element of art and design in a train station, it not only makes for a more dismal commute, but it also dulls our senses and diminishes our capacity for curiosity. No thanks.

you have all been tadoized!!!
Irish stone would be better for some stations…:confused:
I have not had the best workmanship experience in concrete in ireland!!!!
There are some ok examples…

The big problem is the escalators…

You guys can argue all you want but I think 3 stations should not have there shape/location/entrances dictated by engineers and so called transport planners.

They should be dictated by landscape architects, architects and designers and the public…

The rest of the stations can have standard shapes.

I hope we don’t have to walk past a massive food court every morning what a tease…

The interconnector people could also be accused of copying a well known architect but we wont go there….

here is a little taste of some metros…

Im not saying they are all great but they give you some idea…

RPA intends to award a 3-year fixed term
contract to a company who will develop, manage, market and sell a range of
merchandise for Luas, Dublin’s Luas Light Rail System. This may include,
but is not limited to the following: children’s toys; model tram sets;
stuffed toys; games; clothing, t-shirts, baseball caps etc.; die cast
model trams; mugs; mouse maps.

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/search_show.aspx?ID=NOV094524

speaking of mickey mouse!!!!!

hahaha

full text notice…

I thought I saw a pussy cat I did I did I did…

@Cute Panda wrote:

The purpose of mass transit is to move people from points A to wherever they want to go in a fast and reliable manner. They do not exist to provide an aesthetic experience. Once the thing does the job who give a toss.

This has got to be one of the most depressing sentiments I have ever read. All the more depressing because it’s probably close to what an awful lot of people in this country think on the subject of public transport or even architecture and aesthetics generally.

Try this:

The purpose of public housing is to keep the rain off people’s heads while they eat and sleep. It does not exist to provide an aesthetic experience. Once the thing does the job who gives a toss.

Agree entirely Andrew. I think I’ve said this elsewhere, but mass transit has the potential to define a city, culturally, and architecturally, and can do as much, arguably more, to express a city or nation than any monument contrived specifically to achieve that aim. A train station can achieve iconic status – Grand Central NY, St. Pancras while many networks become synonymous with their host cities – Paris Metro, the Tube, NY Subway.

We were “reliably” informed by the Garden gnome masquerading as Minister for Transport in 2005 that Stephen’s Green would be our “Grand Central”. Instead it will be a bare uninspiring shell. If the key interchanges where the masses of commuters, and masses of tourists use every day does nothing to lift them just a little, then it fails. Mass transit is not merely a method for shuttling folks around the urban environment like cattle. Cute Panda, who gives a toss? The ones who desire a city above the mediocrity that most Dubs have been culturally programmed to accept.

@alonso wrote:

but many thousands will pass through these buildings 4 times a day, and millions of different people will use them every year. Are you saying aesthetics are irrelevant to such structures?

No. I’m saying that silly comparisons shouldn’t be made to advance an argument.

@adhoc wrote:

What nonsensical and aesthetical hysteria? And a poor comparison to boot. With train frequencies of up to 4 minutes you won’t be spending a lifetime in the Metro station, unlike public housing.

well I’ll put this to you 6 minutes to get to the platform 4 minutes waiting ( is it a metro or a luas im confused ? Thats 10 minutes twice a day

= 20 minutes a day

more than 3 days of your life a year

say 10 million people a year

30 million days a year

1100 human lives a year assuming life expectancy of 75 years

if you house is worth 500,000 and 2 people live in it

1100 divide by 2

550 x 500,000

275,000,000 million euro…

im not mad!! just taking the piss

but im guessing you have a 1990’s mobile phone with no screen because its only to make calls and it weighs like a brick…

http://www.mic-ro.com/metro/metrocity.html?city=187

the rpa may be 90 years behind london!!!!

@adhoc wrote:

No. I’m saying that silly comparisons shouldn’t be made to advance an argument.

Why on earth is it a silly comparison? It was drawing a reasonable conclusion from an argument that suggested we shouldn’t give a toss about how our built environment looks as long as it “does the job”. Major transport infrastructure is part of our built environment, as is housing. People may not be spending their entire lives in metro stations, but as has been pointed out, there’s a cumulative amount of usage by millions of people. Over the course of many lifetimes.
Transport projects, like housing, are part of the urban fabric and I’m sorry, but how they look IS important.

I’m not sure what this means:

What nonsensical and aesthetical hysteria?

@Rory W wrote:

I get the Dart every day and it isn’t the built environment of the station that affects users but rather whether the train works or not.

Ask the person who is using the Dart or the Luas and they’ll be more concerned about the quality of service the same will apply to the Metro. If it was proposed to spend €1.125 billion on a metro station (same as St Pancras)I would question the sanity of those involved.

In terms of design I’d like to see something which is well laid out for making the metro experience quick, comfortable and safe. All this talk of ‘Grand Central’ is rubbish (never trust a minister – they don’t think before the mouth is engaged). Keep it simple and you can have beauty in function.

And ignore those fucking renders – jesus you’d think it was set in stone at this stage

I use the DART every day. It is usually on time, but the queue to get out the door at Blackrock station is INSANE. Often means I am late.