Union Street Ads it Up

I did notice that the Time Square Shuttle station is coated with advertisements. They change frequently and cover the walls, pillars and ever inch they can cram then into . Given that that part of the station is not that attractive, some of the ads make it look brighter and cleaner. And I like the fully "skinned" shuttle trains that are coated in adverts on the inside.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 5:14 PM

I'm sure every tagger in Park Slope will be all over those ads.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 5:36 PM

Great, more ads. Just what this city needs. Meh.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 5:41 PM

A somewhat related question. Why is Union Street relatively clean, while the nearby 9th Street "R" stop is filthy (dirty platform, garbage on tracks)?

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 5:52 PM

This is a no-brainer. With all the people streaming through the subway station 24-hours a day, it's the most obvious revenue stream, only I can imagine that they're probably not charging enough for the ads, knowing the MTA. The city also gives free advertising on the mass transit system to television and film production studios as an incentive to shoot here because it creates jobs, and television and movie-related tourism is a huge draw, also creating jobs and bringing money into the city. Subway advertising is a great, underutalized asset here. Not that I'm a huge fan of advertising, but it's silly that there isn't more ad space in the subway system. A total waste. How do you think Brownstoner pays for itself? (Hint: Look to the right)

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 7:18 PM

Another good idea that kills two birds with one stone (brings revenues and soothes bored frustrated commuters waiting for trains) would be TV's hanging from the ceilings on the platforms. A major news network could pay for exclusive rights to certain stations. Nobody should add more noise to the din of NYC, so the TV's should be subtitled in lieu of sound.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 8:01 PM

None noticed in Brooklyn, but at the Park Place/Chambers St. station lower manhattan they have added a bunch.

Fine with me if it keeps fares down.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 8:20 PM

tvs are a good idea, but i can totally see them getting vandalized or stolen, or those activists artists spraypainting hip-looking stencils over them to make a statement about the televion/ consummerism culture being pushed on us.

Posted by: guest at October 25, 2007 10:12 PM

TV's in the subway? Do we need more TV screens everywhere? They're ugly and a nuisance. And isn't something wrong with the tax structure if the MTA is "cash-strapped" at a boom time in the city like this? Advertising is not the right answer. I don't want to live in a world where every direction I see another ad.

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 12:29 AM

Frames for ads appeared in the 9th Street station this morning.

And yes, as a previous poster asked, why is the 9th Street station so repulsively filthy? The tracks always have a disgusting brown canal of garbage-filled water between them.

As for TVs in the stations - no, absolutely not. What's next, direct to retina advertising?

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 10:44 AM

yeah only ignorant people who believe whole societies/ economies of 8.4 million people should operate like a commune of 24 people would gripe so much about ads. Let's be realistic. You think the bloggers at Brownstoner get a free place to live and free food because they contribute to society by providing a real estate blog? No, look to your right, idiots. Otherwise, you'd have to pay to read this, and since no one wants to pay for anything, it just wouldn't exist. Same thing for the subway ads. They keep fares down.

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 10:46 AM

That's a facetious argument. This website is free. We pay to ride the subway and should not have to have more ads thrust in front of us. Do they really keep the fares down? Really? Any evidence to back that assertion?

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 10:58 AM

Same frames have been installed at the Ninth St. station one stop up from Union. Already noticed tagging activity.

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 12:50 PM

9th st. R & M station is really dirty - perhaps because there's a busy transfer to the F and also maybe because the incoming manhattan-bound (and outgoing brooklyn-bound) tracks are on a serious incline descending into the station. That would explain the water that often collects there. Also, there is no attendant kiosk on the Brooklyn-bound R platform at 9th st.

I actually like seeing these ads go up - these stations, along with prospect ave, 25th st., etc., have been disheveled for years so maybe this means that advertisers will help prod the MTA to spruce up their look a little bit.

It also means one other very notable thing: People with money are moving into the neighborhoods that these stations are servicing.

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 1:33 PM

"It also means one other very notable thing: People with money are moving into the neighborhoods that these stations are servicing."

If that were true, then the 7th Avenue Station should be a palace, instead of the nasty crap-hole that it is.

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 2:04 PM

The 9th st. R & M station is really dirty simply because THE MTA NEVER CLEANS IT. The tracks flood because they don't remove the garbage that blocks the drains.

Th ads will do nothing to spruce up the space. We will simply have a filthy station with ads. Woohoo.

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 2:07 PM

2:04 and 2:07,

Maybe you should both go have a nice drink and dinner somewhere tonight, and start taking car services and cabs everywhere if the subway bugs you that much.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 4:28 PM

4:28,

Perhaps you should raise your standards.

Posted by: guest at October 26, 2007 6:11 PM