Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiHi
People still go to Wrigley even though they don't have a $50m station. I believe the same would hold true for the United Center. More people aren't going to use the Cermak stop just because they wrapped it in an overpriced metal tube. They use it because that's where the convention center is. They just want a train stop. I get that it's a chance for a 'showcase' station but I don't really recall the last time they've built a non-showcase station. Even the Morgan stop was $38m and that certainly didn't need to be a showcase station.
Just seems like constantly one-uping the last station with the next is just a bit of a waste of VERY scarce resources.
|
I disagree. Good design should absolutely be included when the city is considering a 100-year investment like this. We all have to live with this station long after the bills are paid off and Rahm Emanuel is a distant memory. A cramped, utilitarian station like the ones from the 90s on the Green Line would cost nearly as much (because transit be expensive, yo) and would not be a point of pride for the community or an anchor of redevelopment.
It may seem like a palace because our expectations are so low, but this is pretty much the standard in Chicago's peer cities globally. Check out the London Transit Thread, or the Paris Transit Thread. In those cities, even stations in fringe, low-income neighborhoods are being renovated with this caliber of design. There are tangible benefits, too - the wide open spaces and transparent materials like glass improve sightlines, which reduces crime and makes riders feel safer. Higher quality materials can be more durable and resistant to vandalism, corrosion, etc.
Also, as I pointed out - if this station is ever gonna be successful at luring United Center crowds onto the CTA, it has to be this big. Otherwise event day crowds will overwhelm the station and spill onto narrow sidewalks.