# Going Underground:  Subways in your Country



## Poetic Device

Etcetera said:
			
		

> It sounds so funny!
> To say the truth, I agree with the original article in Reader's Digest.
> The sad thing about Moscow is that a large part of its present inhabitants aren't Muscovites as such - they just moved to the city several years ago. So, you shouldn't try to make any observations on the Muscovites from what you can see in the underground, for example.
> BTW, people do read in Moscow underground. But it's mostly cheap literature like Dan Brown, detectives, love stories, and all that stuff.


 
"Here comes de dork!"
What is the Moscow underground? I have never heard of it before.

*Mod Note:*  This thread was split from the "Survey Ranks Cities According to Civility" thread.


----------



## Etcetera

OK, Poetic Device, Tony has already give you a clue to it. 
But maybe 'the Moscow subway' would be more easy to understand for an American? I just prefer to call it 'the underground', because it corresponds pretty well with one of the informal names for the metro - подземка (podzemka).


----------



## Seana

Hi Poetic Device,
I am bit older and I heard about it and more over I  have seen it. It is really amazing.
It is said that Moscow underground is one brilliantly designed in world.
11 lines and 168 stations, richly ornamented  with the  best materials from entire Russia, every of them is different.
Every day nine million persons is going down with escalator, deep, even 30 metres into the bottom.


----------



## Etcetera

> I am bit older and I heard about it and more over I  have seen it. It is really amazing.
> It is said that Moscow underground is one brilliantly designed in world.
> 11 lines and 168 stations, richly ornamented  with the  best materials from entire Russia, every of them is different.
> Every day nine million persons is going down with escalator, deep, even 30 metres into the bottom.


No, no, no, no!
The Moscow underground isn't that beautiful, amazing, and so on. 
Just a waste of time, money, and materials, it is. I've never been able to understand WHY it was necessary to make the stations (BTW, only the central ones are that posh) looking like palaces. 
As for the depth, well, most stations in Moscow aren't so deep. The St. Petersburg underground is much deeper. In fact, it's one of the deepest in the world. Click here! 
The Park Pobedy station, which is said to be the deepest in the world, is located in Moscow, though.


----------



## Poetic Device

I don't know.  I just looked at pictures of that thing and I have to say (compared to NYC because that is all that I know)  they are absolutely beautiful!


----------



## Seana

Oh Etcetera  aren't you really able to find any admiration for the power of these ornaments, they survived for the years like great palaces.
As you just noticed Moscow metro in rush hours appears the biggest reading room of world. In my opinion reading rooms should be the beautiful and aesthetic places. Look at these pictures.I like them.


----------



## Etcetera

I don't see the point of building something palace-like where convenience and practicability are more necessary. 
As for the pictures - I've seen them long ago. They're beautiful without doubt! But they don't show what the _real_ stations are like. 
I wouldn't be so sharp had the Moscow undeground had at least money to keep all this 'beauty' in order. But...


----------



## geve

Erm... The Moscovite underground looks beautiful indeed, but how is that related to civility?  

And I wouldn't say that an intensive reading practice is a guarantee that someone or a group of people is going to show civility!


----------



## Etcetera

geve said:
			
		

> Erm... The Moscovite underground looks beautiful indeed, but how is that related to civility?
> 
> And I wouldn't say that an intensive reading practice is a guarantee that someone or a group of people is going to show civility!


It isn't, indeed!
To our efficient moderators: maybe we could start a new topic about underground? I've searched the Cultural Discussions forum, and it seems to be a new subject.


----------



## Seana

Keeping all monuments in proper order is really costly but we are obliged to do it for the next generation. In my opinion practical architecture has the very short life cycle and it is associated for me with this horrible 'graffiti'


----------



## Etcetera

I don't consider the so-called Stalinian Empire style in architechture so remarkable. Actually, it's something awful. And absolutely unsuitable in designing metro stations!


----------



## Seana

Etcetera said:
			
		

> I don't consider the so-called Stalinian Empire style in architechture so remarkable. Actually, it's something awful. And absolutely unsuitable in designing metro stations!


 
You are right but look many styles in the past time were also luscious, mixed, many times with trivial topics. They seem to be trashy for our modern people but after many years/centuries they are more refined and elegant.
After all this Stalinian Empire style was just 'historical epoch' for many years and we all should the obligaton to care of all its monuments. It was gorgeous work of many tallented engineers and artist.
And how nice they are portraying the hard human work. I am not sarcastic, honestly.


----------



## Etcetera

Then, we just have too different opinions on the subject. It happens.


----------



## Seana

Etcetera I have admitted that you are right but would you take into consideration that the Moscow underground is really so unique. 

I want to give a picture of our very normal and practical in Warsaw. metro w Warszawie
And as  curiosity very funny graffiti in The Tube - London Undergrund


----------



## Etcetera

Seana said:
			
		

> Etcetera I have admitted that you are right but would you take into consideration that the Moscow underground is really so unique.
> I want to give a picture of our very normal and practical in Warsaw. metro w Warszawie
> And as  curiosity very funny graffiti in The Tube - London Undergrund


Not so unique, in fact. 
Some stations in the St. Petersburg underground look almost the same. Luckily, the first of them was built in 1955, when the Stalinian Empire was much less popular with architects. 
In fact, my 'ideal' underground is Metropolitana Torino. I believe High-Tech is the best style for building metro stations.


----------



## moirag

I was in Moscow in 1982 - a time when tourism wasn't considered a major priority ( at least, it seemed that way to me). Many monuments were run-down, but the underground was well- maintained. I thought it was really good. There are probably loads of interesting things in Russia and what was the USSR, but at that time it was one of the few things we were allowed to see independently. I realise perfectly that I'm talking with Russians who consider me the equivalent of their grandmother....


----------



## Etcetera

The Underground is considered one of the major sightseeings of Moscow. I sometimes see groups of tourists on its stations and in trains. 


> There are probably loads of interesting things in Russia and what was the USSR, but at that time it was one of the few things we were allowed to see independently.


 Independently?.. Would you please explain to me what you mean?
I seem to have a blond moment.


----------



## Thomas1

I tried to find some counterarguments against Seana's description of our Warsaw underground system, even though she gave a picture of one regular station and there are more stations that look much better, I must admit it, our tube doesn't look so impressive as the Moscow's. I haven't been to Moscow but the photographs make it look like palace interiors (do they look similarly outside?). No doubt that lots of turists sightsee it!
On the other hand, it seems to me like our underground is much more cost-effective than Moscow's. I bet maintaining of such _palaces_ costs far more than a ususal-looking and practical-oriented stations.


----------



## Etcetera

Hi Thomas!
The pictures Seana has posted here look great indeed, but you may have noticed that they weren't just pictures of what you could see, and the photographer spent some time working with those photos in Photoshop or some program like that. 
In fact, the real stations might look rather impressive indeed, if they were... cleaner! And less crowded.
As for how the stations look outside - well, they look rather ordinary. Old stations (like Alexandrovsky Sad) sometimes occupy separate buildings, but most of the stations, especially in the city's centre, are built into other buildings.
And right you are, maintaining of the Moscow Underground costs a lot.


----------



## ireney

Well I do realise that a metro is supposed to be just practical. Of course that would mean no design whatsoever.

So the first thing to think about is whether having any design is worth while. 

(my thoughts on white)

you bet! So many people spend some of their time in these stations it IS worthwhile to make them less dreary

After agreeing on this the next thing to consider is whether the specific metro stations' designs (the ones in the photos for instance) are nice enough or not for keeping.

yeap

Third thing on the line is whether it is worth spending money to preserve something that has no practical value but is of value for either aesthetic or historical reasons.

Yeap

Fourth in line comes the question of whether we consider these decorations have an 'outstanding' value on either an aesthetic or the historical basis.

Yes to both if you ask me (which you do; you are actually going through the trouble of reading what I write in white)

Lastly we have to consider whether it is worthwhile for a specific country to try to preserve something that is nice etc etc.

I know that Russian economy is not the most flourishing in the world right now. What I don't know is whether the economy is in bad enough shape for people to decide that they should let something lke that of the "once lost it's lost for ever", crumble.If the economy cannot really afford it then it should go. If not it will be such a waste!


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:
			
		

> Well I do realise that a metro is supposed to be just practical. Of course that would mean no design whatsoever.



How can something have "no design"? Even the simplest functional item has 'design'.


----------



## ireney

Maxiogee my brain has reached its boiling point these past few days so I admit that my perfect (*ahem*) use of the English language has deteriorated 'a bit'.

I mean an architectural design, a design that does not only aim for what is more cost-efficient and practical but takes into consideration the aesthetic aspect of the building. Is that any better? (it must be, somewhat, but I bet it's not 'good' either; however, this explanation and my firmly held belief that the 'foreros' of this site have a fairly well developed deduction ability, make me believe that I need to add nothing more on this matter  )

There!


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:
			
		

> I mean an architectural design, a design that does not only aim for what is more cost-efficient and practical but takes into consideration the aesthetic aspect of the building. Is that any better? (it must be, somewhat, but I bet it's not 'good' either; however, this explanation and my firmly held belief that the 'foreros' of this site have a fairly well developed deduction ability, make me believe that I need to add nothing more on this matter  ) There!



I knew that, but my point was that, frequently, "pretty" design costs no more than "functional" - it requires a little more thought on the part of the designer, that's all.
The stations in question might not appeal to everyone's sense of architectural style, but they are surely better than bland purely functional creations.


----------



## Seana

I think we should not compare technology and styles of objects from two different centuries. The first tube line Moscow metro was completed in 1935. Showed by Etcetera Turin's metro line in 2006. Progress of technique and material technology during last one hundred years is amazing.
According to the experts, constructors and architects this construction solutions and design of this marble monument of architecture for those times was a masterpiece. Monumental enveloped with numerous secrets alike Russia. It is exciting and crushing at the same time.
I must say that watching work various of masters in the galleries I am not always appealed by their styles.
However it is usually admired their artistry, a colours, a technique etc and it should be said that in the case of the Moscow metro the ones are really without fault. 
Our conversation took a direction to the trend of styles in architecture and the art. In my humble opinion we should respect every style because every of them is only simple consequence of previous, the word culture isn't suspended in vacuo space. 
Yeah and more over as is said *" De gustibus non est disputandum. "*


----------

