The map of lines and station architectural styles <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cdn.londonreconnections.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;stationdesigntypes.jpg" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cdn.londonreconnections.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;stationdesigntypes.j...</a> really does pin down some of the very stark differences the different lines have.  It doesn&#x27;t provide examples, but an image search for each of the station names for each style really can illustrate the different if you&#x27;re not familiar with the tube.  The trains themselves also play a big role in this.<p>I love this diversity.  And dislike the suggestion of standardisation the article suggests.  There appears to be inconsistency between what the article states as solutions and the &#x27;problem&#x27; of modern design and construction.<p>Near the start of the article it states:
&gt;It’s a statement that an observer of TfL’s recent station builds and rebuilds would find difficult to dispute. Indeed in recent years it has become almost impossible to picture a new Underground station as being anything other than glass, brushed steel and concrete. A clean and efficient style, certainly, but hardly an inspiring one.<p>By this inconsistent with the answers offered:<p>The photo &#x27;A station passage at Idiom Park.&#x27; has a very generic cylindrical passage... with stairs leading off at an odd angle.  No character or indication of history or line, or individualisation (unless an oppressive blue is unique to Idiom Park).  And disability incompatible.<p>The photo &#x27;Escalators at Idiom Park&#x27; includes iconic steel and plate escalators I can imagine speeding at a pace leading to a... generic steel and concrete chasm mentioned in the lead above as undesirable.<p>The image &#x27;Platform level at Idiom Park&#x27; flat out reminds me of the old Charring Cross Jubilee line.  It could well be Charring Cross Jubille Line, with blue lighting.  I&#x27;m surprised I have this reaction, as it is simply cut-away girding, blue lighting, which the lead again suggests isn&#x27;t the way forward (and a lack of safety doors).<p>&gt; The tube means so much more to Londoners than getting from A to B. We are a part of the city and what we want to make sure is that we are doing our best to make sure that life in London is getting better as well. A result of that is a real focus on design. I guess what we recognise is that great design doesn’t happen by accident.<p>The tube is a testament to, and a record of, design through the past century-and-a-half.  More often than not, this was not by committee, as these designs seem to be.<p>What would be worth improving would be disabled access and cleanliness (which the article does mention), and affordability.<p>Is the article a parody of itself?