ttcsubwayfan Posted February 16, 2013 Share #951 Posted February 16, 2013 I may catch some flack for this opinion but if you ask me natural daylight has no business coming into a fully underground station in the first place. It just doesn't look right, IMO. I also fail to understand why people call Jamaica Center station ugly. What exactly makes it so? It looks better than 97% of the stations in the subway (think Chambers/Nassau), so I'm really confused. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overclocked Posted February 16, 2013 Share #952 Posted February 16, 2013 I may catch some flack for this opinion but if you ask me natural daylight has no business coming into a fully underground station in the first place. It just doesn't look right, IMO. I also fail to understand why people call Jamaica Center station ugly. What exactly makes it so? It looks better than 97% of the stations in the subway (think Chambers/Nassau), so I'm really confused. I beg to differ, natural light is the best light source available on this planet, I'd take it any day of the year unlike this cold, blue tinted fluorescent garbage there is in the subways, same goes for LEDs. Incandescent light is the closest man made source to resemble sun light, too bad it consumes too much power in order to illuminate as much as newer lights do and thus why it was removed from the subways. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted February 16, 2013 Share #953 Posted February 16, 2013 I may catch some flack for this opinion but if you ask me natural daylight has no business coming into a fully underground station in the first place. It just doesn't look right, IMO. I also fail to understand why people call Jamaica Center station ugly. What exactly makes it so? It looks better than 97% of the stations in the subway (think Chambers/Nassau), so I'm really confused. I beg to differ, natural light is the best light source available on this planet, I'd take it any day of the year unlike this cold, blue tinted fluorescent garbage there is in the subways, same goes for LEDs. Incandescent light is the closest man made source to resemble sun light, too bad it consumes too much power in order to illuminate as much as newer lights do and thus why it was removed from the subways. I habe to agree with this. it saves on energy, easier on the eyes, and can make itna little bit more pleasant. Now there's a plan floating around having the old Essex Trolley Terminal turned into a "low-line" with fiber optics bringing in sunlight from above. Would this be bad even if it was implicated to actual stations? just a thought. Natural sunlight can energize a human and even alter one's mood in a positive way. Sent from my BlackBerry PlayBook using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted February 16, 2013 Share #954 Posted February 16, 2013 I beg to differ, natural light is the best light source available on this planet, I'd take it any day of the year unlike this cold, blue tinted fluorescent garbage there is in the subways, same goes for LEDs. Incandescent light is the closest man made source to resemble sun light, too bad it consumes too much power in order to illuminate as much as newer lights do and thus why it was removed from the subways. Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Mine probably stems from the fact that unlike most of civilization I prefer cloudy days over sunny days. Maybe it's just the photos and the fact that older photos have a horrible greyish tint to them, but the Van Wyck station looks quite bad. Personally I like the station in its current form - if they could do away with the black ceilings and have something brighter, then it'd be perfect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupojohn Posted February 16, 2013 Share #955 Posted February 16, 2013 I noticed it said that the will extend to Brooklyn(maybe). Getting a bit ahead of themselves? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overclocked Posted February 16, 2013 Share #956 Posted February 16, 2013 I noticed it said that the will extend to Brooklyn(maybe). Getting a bit ahead of themselves?Even having an idea of train existence is getting ahead of "themselves" 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted February 16, 2013 Share #957 Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) I noticed it said that the will extend to Brooklyn(maybe). Getting a bit ahead of themselves? That's what I'm saying. A whole century ahead of themselves, in change. I don't even think it will even be the MTA as a public benefits corporation that will ever realize this impossible goal of connecting the subway to the IND Fulton Street line according to some past proposals made let alone SAS Phase 4 coming into effect in itself, really. Edited February 16, 2013 by realizm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drag0nflamez Posted February 17, 2013 Share #958 Posted February 17, 2013 I may catch some flack for this opinion but if you ask me natural daylight has no business coming into a fully underground station in the first place. It just doesn't look right, IMO. I also fail to understand why people call Jamaica Center station ugly. What exactly makes it so? It looks better than 97% of the stations in the subway (think Chambers/Nassau), so I'm really confused. It makes a station look much more pleasant, instead of fluorescent tubes everywhere combined with dark colours and columns everywhere. It's what makes a lot of stations look unpleasant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted February 17, 2013 Share #959 Posted February 17, 2013 Re Jamaica-Van Wyck skylights: If I recall correctly, the windows were covered over due to vandalism. I could be wrong, but that's usually the reason behind these sorts of things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted February 17, 2013 Share #960 Posted February 17, 2013 :insert 'this is why we can't have nice things' comment here: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted February 18, 2013 Share #961 Posted February 18, 2013 Not to pick on anyone, but I find it odd that a TTC fan would have a problem with natural light in an underground station. Toronto does such very well in a few locations! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itmaybeokay Posted February 18, 2013 Share #962 Posted February 18, 2013 I beg to differ, natural light is the best light source available on this planet, I'd take it any day of the year unlike this cold, blue tinted fluorescent garbage there is in the subways, same goes for LEDs. Incandescent light is the closest man made source to resemble sun light, too bad it consumes too much power in order to illuminate as much as newer lights do and thus why it was removed from the subways. Actually, Incandescent light, - while I agree it's much better than fluorescent - is pretty far from daylight. Daylight has a color temperature of around 5000k. Incandescent is about 3400k. Fluorescent light can actually be the same color temp as daylight, and there are some LEDs that even reproduce daylight pretty close to the natural CRI. But this is all coming from my experience as a cinematographer. As a, uh, human, Incandescent is generally the second most pleasant light, behind daylight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted February 18, 2013 Share #963 Posted February 18, 2013 Not to pick on anyone, but I find it odd that a TTC fan would have a problem with natural light in an underground station. Toronto does such very well in a few locations! Actually, the only station where such holds true is Downsview (and to be honest, it's not my favorite station). All of the others are half-underground but have no skylights in the underground section. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbr40 Posted March 20, 2013 Share #964 Posted March 20, 2013 i was watching fox 5 news at 10 on march 19, 2013. they said a construction worker is trapped in trench. he is trapped for more then an hour and half already and FDNY EMS and NYPD are all there. They said it around the 92 Street area of Second Avenue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted April 1, 2013 Share #965 Posted April 1, 2013 So Yorkshire Towers at 86th St is suing the MTA over station entrance placement, even after their suit was dismissed two years ago... http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/04/01/again-86th-st-residents-file-suit-over-entrances-again/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtattrain Posted April 1, 2013 Share #966 Posted April 1, 2013 So Yorkshire Towers at 86th St is suing the MTA over station entrance placement, even after their suit was dismissed two years ago... http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/04/01/again-86th-st-residents-file-suit-over-entrances-again/ Ahuh ahuh ahuh... NIMBYs are the greatest things in the world! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted April 25, 2013 Share #967 Posted April 25, 2013 (edited) ^^^^^its the nimbys. They in effect translated from thier legal terminoly in the legal issue they had in the recent past aresaying that the station entrance will bring people from other neighboorhoods, and such. You see where I'm getting at? They are now doing this lawsuit through the hotel. That's their legal strategy in forcing th MTA to comply. They may ending up complying instead of losing out of this unless city officials step in. Which is not going to happen of course because Bloomberg is still in office. Edited April 25, 2013 by realizm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted April 25, 2013 Share #968 Posted April 25, 2013 So Yorkshire Towers at 86th St is suing the MTA over station entrance placement, even after their suit was dismissed two years ago... http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/04/01/again-86th-st-residents-file-suit-over-entrances-again/ An update: apparently the judge hearing this "case" is threatening sanctions against the attorney representing Yorkshire Towers... http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/04/25/judge-threatens-to-sanction-yorkshire-towers-attorney/ 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted April 26, 2013 Share #969 Posted April 26, 2013 An update: apparently the judge hearing this "case" is threatening sanctions against the attorney representing Yorkshire Towers... http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/04/25/judge-threatens-to-sanction-yorkshire-towers-attorney/ As well he should. This is a joke of a lawsuit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted April 26, 2013 Share #970 Posted April 26, 2013 Like I was saying it's a definite direct NIMBY attack. Even Ben Kabek said it in the first article IIRC. He suspects that these NIMBY's do not want strangers in the neighborhoods lurking around the proposed entrance locations. That's the main reason why, which is ridiculous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted April 26, 2013 Share #971 Posted April 26, 2013 Yup, if they don't want the entrance there, then maybe the people that live there should be banned from using that stop. Fair is fair... *Meant to be absurd. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted May 19, 2013 Share #972 Posted May 19, 2013 The via the 2nd Ave line: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtattrain Posted May 19, 2013 Share #973 Posted May 19, 2013 The via the 2nd Ave line: Well, I guess they are keeping the to Astoria then.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted May 19, 2013 Author Share #974 Posted May 19, 2013 Wow! Split service? I thought 2 Avenue needed more service, not to have half the service. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupojohn Posted May 19, 2013 Share #975 Posted May 19, 2013 Wow! Split service? I thought 2 Avenue needed more service, not to have half the service. Probably doing that cause the will be covering the areas the doesn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.