The design document can be found at <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;content.tfl.gov.uk&#x2F;station-design-idiom-2.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;content.tfl.gov.uk&#x2F;station-design-idiom-2.pdf</a>  (link lifted from first comment in the article).<p>I find it disturbing that the first major item is &quot;capacity&quot;, but then the design parts do not even care to note how the given idiom will work towards that end. Discoverability helps, by making it less likely for individuals to get lost and thus take up valuable commuter real estate, but without sufficient peak <i>throughput</i> it makes very little difference.<p>Not to mention that if station design does not accommodate for need to widen the tunnels in the future, they are not really aiming for future-proof. The only good measure for capacity is how many commuters can be moved through, and there is an upper bound to how many trains per platform you can fit in an hour. Once that limit is reached, the only way to further increase capacity is to get more people in per train. Hence: make trains longer (and extend platforms), or make them wider (which requires to expand the tunnels).<p>As for personal taste... I like Canada Water station. It&#x27;s utilitarian, can sustain a lot of commuter traffic going both ways and doesn&#x27;t even look that ugly. Sure, it has a weird bottleneck on the street level because all commuters need to take a long circular route to reach the escalators but all parts <i>within</i> the station are spacious and wide.<p>Not to say that the station couldn&#x27;t look nicer, of course...