How singularly unimaginative!

Harry Beck would be astounded as well as dismayed!

What on earth do you mean? It wasn't meant to be imaginative per se, it was meant to be another color. I think the kids had some great ideas. When everyone has guessed, I will give the results, as well as some of the other great ideas of the kids, which were very cute. I just didn't think Wordcrafters would choose some of them.

I meant the names that the Chicago Transport Authority has given to its transit lines are unimaginitive.

Think of the evocative names of London's underground lines - The Metropolitan (which gave its name to underground systems throughout the world); The Jubilee; the Bakerloo - somehow simple colour names seem a very pallid alternative.

Why would Harry Beck be unimpressed? He only drew the map of the underground. The names of the lines already existed, having evolved from the names of the original railway companies.

I must admit that whilst I travelled on th 'L' I can't remember what they were called, so they weren't memorable in the way that London's are! For some reason too, on the few occasions I've been there I've always attracted some nutters, despite my Chicago-born companion's assurance that it wasn't usual!

quote:

Why would Harry Beck be unimpressed? He only drew the map of the underground. The names of the lines already existed, having evolved from the names of the original railway companies.

I agree, most of the lines were already in existence and named when he designed his seminal map (surely not an "only"). That doesn't alter the fact that they are mostly more imaginative and more memorable than the names that Chicgo has chosen (or for that matter that Paris has chosen)

But he was surely an enthusiast for the system and it is for that reason I would imagine he'd be unimpressed

Somehow I hadn't anticipated this being a post about how anti-creative Chicago is, though I suppose the names of their transit lines could be more imaginitive. I'd suggest a visit to Chicago, as it has much about it that is imaginitive and creative; Millennium Park and Chicago's architecture are great examples.

Anyway, the color was PINK. I am at a conference now, but when I am home, I will let you know some of the really cute ideas the kids had, like electric lime. Some wonder if the city of big shoulders is really ready for the PINK line.

quote:

Somehow I hadn't anticipated this being a post about how anti-creative Chicago is, though I suppose the names of their transit lines could be more imaginitive.

That's all I was saying - that the names for the lines were unimaginative - I said nothing about architecture.

Of course you weren't...and I didn't say you were. I only said that there are some very imaginative things about Chicago.

Other suggestions for colors from the kids:

Chicago sunset
teal wheel
reddish afternoon
sparkly silver

Here was what one headline said:

"Chicago's the city of broad shoulders. A town full of Ditka-loving Grabowskis. So of course, when the CTA sought a color for the new "L", only one hue would do. It's Pink!"

Then, "In a city known for its deep-dish pizza and Chicago Bear-loving beer guzzlers, associating Chicago with pink is as strange as spotting a flamingo in Grant Park."

I think we'll have fun with that pink.

quote:

Ditka-loving Grabowskis

What are they?

quote:

Ditka-loving Grabowskis

Oh, Richard, you really need to bone up on your Shakespeare.

Seriously, Mike Ditka was a rough and tumble football player and then later a coach for the Chicago Bears. Ditka used to refer to his team as the "Grabowskis," that is, a bunch of hard-working, tough guys who play for the love of the game and its fans, and not the pay. The name Grabowski just brings up the image of a hard-working, blue collar worker, of which Chicago has many.

you really need to bone up on your Shakespeare.

I thought it was Brush Up Your Shakespeare from Kiss Me, Kate. (Did you know the film of this Cole Porter musical was originally released in 3D?

The girls today in society
Go for classical poetry,
So to win their hearts one must quote with ease
Aeschylus and Euripides.
But the poet of them all
Who will start 'em simply ravin'
Is the poet people call
The bard of Stratford-on-Avon.

Brush up your Shakespeare,
Start quoting him now.
Brush up your Shakespeare
And the women you will wow.
Just declaim a few lines from "Othella"
And they think you're a heckuva fella.
If your blonde won't respond when you flatter 'er
Tell her what Tony told Cleopaterer,
And if still, to be shocked, she pretends well,
Just remind her that "All's Well That Ends Well."
Brush up your Shakespeare
And they'll all kowtow.

quote:

Seriously, Mike Ditka was a rough and tumble football player

My ignorance of American Football is possibly even greater than my ignorance of proper football - so I wouldn't recognise a Grabowski if it arrived wrapped in a buxom serving wench.

Actually, Grabowski doesn't have anything to do with football. It is used in football to illustrate a hard worker, just as it is used to describe an average Chicagoan. I'd say it's a cultural term, not a football term.

Yes, Zmj, I know the film. I should have brushed up on it before posting this.

Actually, I much prefer the way the Parisian Métro is designed to the London Underground: it's far easier to fathom. Calling the lines by colours is better than giving them names - it's one less thing to learn! Although I know the names of the Tube lines I use most often, if someone tells me to get the, say, East London line, I'd first have to look it up on the little key at the bottom of the map before doing anything else - whereas if they'd said 'take the orange line' I could look it straight up on the main map.

Another thing that irritates me at times is the "North/South/East/Westbound" signs on the platform, which assume a prior knowledge of London's geography that a lot of people don't have. And even then, as most lines don't go straight East-West etc one can get caught out. The other day Karl and I were heading back to Marylebone, which we knew was west of where we were. However, the sign on the platforms for the line we had to get said "North and South". This stumped us for a second as we couldn't remember off-hand whether we were currently north or south of the station (we'd taken a different route there so it wasn't just a case of retracing our steps). We had to check the station list on the signs to find the platform we needed, which obviously didn't take long but was an extra irritant. Turns out we were going north-west, but the signs can't cope with that. Far better is the Parisian way of defining train direction: use the terminus (the literal end of the line: I know not all Tube trains go to the end). Then all you have to get in your head is "I'm going in the direction of Châtillon Montrouge" and ALL the platform signs for that line will have that information. No more trying to work out where you are in exact relation to where you're going: easy enough for someone who uses the system regularly, but a little more time-consuming for occasional visitors.

quote:

Another thing that irritates me at times is the "North/South/East/Westbound" signs on the platform, which assume a prior knowledge of London's geography that a lot of people don't have.

And does not "Directions Châtillon Montrouge" presume a knowledge of Parisian geography in the same way?

And many of the London tube lines do give you an indication of where they are - obviously the East London Line is in East London; the Bakerloo goes from Baker Street to Waterloo; the Victoria goes to Victoria; the Circle goes round in a circle. Plus, of course, Harry Beck's wonderful schematic map makes the whole thing so much easier to understand than does the map of the Paris Metro (the name stolen from London's Metropolitan Railway, of course) whose map wriggles across the page like a demented spider trail.

We'll just have to agree to disagree Richard .

Yes, you need to look at the map to find out which is the terminus for the direction you're going in, as you would with the Tube, but once you've done that, every station will have that terminus on its signs. The line won't be heading 'north' at one station and 'west' at another.

I actually find the Métro map far easier to understand than the Tube map.

quote:

I actually find the Métro map far easier to understand than the Tube map.

I think you must be the only one if it's the old diagramatic map you're speaking of (which was the one I meant)! When Harry Beck produced his seminal schematic map, based on the principle that, in a tunnel, there are no noticeable curves, it was an immediate success - so much so that (with the notable exception until recently of the Paris Metro) every route map of any importance now follows Harry Beck's system.

Apart from the clarity engendered by the change of all angles to 90 or 120 degrees, the massive enlargement of the central area of the map makes for much greater clarity than is the case with a scale map which, if its central area is to be clear, must take up a massive amount of space. Even the Paris Metro (a much smaller system than the London Underground) suffered from this lack of clarity due to its retention of scale on its diagramatic map. Even when the schematic map was introduced it was not so good as Harry Beck's, retaining as it did some curves, to the detriment of clarity. The latest version is better but I think it still lacks the elegance and simplicity of the Tube map. Judge for yourself http://paris.ds-osac.org/page.cfm?pageID=1378

I accept your comment about the "eastbound/westbound/north/south" system, though - but I don't know whether the "directions" system offers too many advantages and does introduce the danger that those unfamiliar with the system (who will be the only ones that need the data) might confuse "directions" with destination.

Incidentally, Harry Beck did design a schematic map for the Metro back in 1951, but the French, being the French, decided "Non!" and so carried on for years with their drunken spider map, an example of which can be found here http://www.egadd.org/parismetro1937.jpg. You can see the story here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4794122.stm

Lol, no, RE - I was talking about the Métro map that's used now, which is the only one I've ever seen in use. I have seen a copy of the old one but had forgotten about it until you posted that link. That one would indeed drive me mad.

If I understand you correctly, the direction vs destination thing isn't such an issue in Paris, as - at least when I lived there - most of the trains do actually travel the entire length of the line from one end to the other, so the direction/station the train is travelling in/to is also its ultimate destination.

I found the BBC link you gave intriguing and I'm curious as to what Beck's design for the Métro was, and how it differs from the one they have now - the BBC site didn't have a link to it, as far as I could see.

quote:

If I understand you correctly, the direction vs destination thing isn't such an issue in Paris

Indeed. The London Underground covers a much greater area than does the Metro with the Metropolitan going over 20 miles from the city itself (although, of course, you'd not know that from Harry Beck's map). To get an idea of how large the London Underground is, take a look at the geaographically accurate map here http://solo2.abac.com/themole/geo_tubemap.gif

Harry Beck's Metro map is far, far better than RATP's map - even their latest one. But of course, it's not French and the French, as we know, are amongst the most chauvinistic people in the world. Even the word "chaivinistic" is French, I believe. In no way were they going to accept a design from their traditional enemy, the English.

Take a look at Harry Beck's 1951 map, drawn when the Metro map was still in its drunken spider stage, and see if you don't agree - http://www.flickr.com/photos/anniemole/112851481/

Incidentally, I see that OEDILF has defined "Harry Beck".

Thanks for the link to Beck's map - unfortunately it's too small for me to get a decent look at it so I can't make a proper comparison. Maybe I'll just have to go and see it exhibited!

I must say though that I've never had a problem with French people - individuals have mostly been super friendly to me when I've been there. Making friends takes time when you live in Paris, but I know that's typical of many capital cities (friends who've moved to London have said the same). Mind you, I do speak French, and I think French people like it if you make the effort to learn even a bit of their language when you're in their country. So many native English speakers let the rest of us down by not even learning the most basic words and phrases such as 'merci' and 'Parlez-vous anglais?' I had a really grumpy taxi driver once who, when he realised I was English and was making the effort to speak his language, suddenly cheered up and became my personal tour guide, telling me all about Limoges as we headed towards our destination .

quote:

I must say though that I've never had a problem with French people - individuals have mostly been super friendly to me when I've been there.

I didn't mean to suggest that they were necessarily unfriendly - just chauvinistic. Mind you, I far prefer Belgium - the beer is streets ahead ;-)