[mladenkovacevic]

It's certainly not as ostentatious as the major stations in that article but the ceiling height, apparent quality of materials used (marble on the columns, slate floor, not completely horrendous tile on the subway walls) and the abundance of light make for a functional and safe-feeling environment.

Compare that to the first east-bound station on the Toronto subway line (one of the few stations with sometimes-usable bathrooms). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Ki...

[pavel_lishin]

That looks a lot like the penultimate stop on the E line in Queens in NYC at first glance.

[cat199]

Also looks alot like the 60-80's soviet influenced (designed?) czech stations in prague..

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Praha%2C...

Apparently really people just got cheaper, or were always cheap..

That said, from a national economic perspective, it is much cheaper to build a mass transit system with ornate stations than it is to provide everyone with automobiles, so a rubel saved is a rubel earned in this case..

[mladenkovacevic]

Nope, just a major subway-bus transfer in the Toronto west-end. Materials used look like leftovers from a 1970s apartment complex construction site. I think even the worst NYC stations have at least some interesting tile or signage preserved from when the original station was built giving it some character even if it's not well-lit or feels too claustrophobic.