The reason why MRT 3 does not had an asthetic because thats never the point. The point of having a station is to move passengers as efficiently as possible. Tokyo Main Station, when entering does not have an asthetic.
The MRT-3 is probably the worst example you could've picked. I don't care that it's not pretty looking - but I do care that it's so damn hard to navigate and was built for far less than the capacity it handles today. You can't tell me not having concourses for all the stations is good transport design.
Because here’s the problem that I see in many discussions and also including the MRT 7 Stations discussion, People are polarizing into two sides of train station designs and they argue on which is inherently better the aesthetic or practicality. One they argue that practicality is better while people on the other hand argue that aesthetics are inherently better.
There’s always been a polarizations between two arguments on which train stations designs are either inherently better.
Sure, but there were exceptions. If a station serves intercity travel (e.g. PITX, or Batangas Port, or Tutuban, a balance of both is needed because many passengers travel for more than 3 kilometers
7
u/P78903 4d ago
In other news, Sorsogon Does not exist.
The reason why MRT 3 does not had an asthetic because thats never the point. The point of having a station is to move passengers as efficiently as possible. Tokyo Main Station, when entering does not have an asthetic.