Final Paper

Underground to Anywhere: Subterranean Modernist Space
The London Underground from 1800 – 1944
Patrycja Jankowski
210427078
April 2016
York University
ENVS 6124: Urban and Regional Planning
Stefan Kipfer

2
The London Underground first opened in 1863 and was considered a modern
achievement. Trains were first steam powered and then electrified as expansion
continued and demand grew. Men who wanted to invest into a new method of
travel built the Underground in a technological race. Several lines of the
Underground were owned and operated by separate investors but worked
together under one name. Private investment was the primary means of
commissioning the Underground; American entrepreneur Yerkes financed most
of the Underground’s creation. ‘The Tube’ as the Underground is more
colloquially known, created a new space in London. The space was not topical it
was under the city; a passage for people, goods, and ideas. It was a futuristic
space created by modernists who were inspired by Futurism and the short-lived
Vorticism artistic movement. This is reflected in the Underground’s Tube Map
created by Beck in 1933. The angular lines bear little resemblance to the physical
metropolis of London, creating a modernist conception of space.
The London Underground serves 1.1 billion people a year today and is
generally known worldwide as a brand. The roundel created by Frank Pick who
was responsible for commissioning artists and architects created the esthetic
advertisements in the Underground adopted. These choices were reflective of the
artistic movements that were synonymous with mans obsession to harness
modern technology, power, and the City itself. The roundel creates a sense of
understanding and comfort because it connects one to the network; a network
that makes sense, even when the City itself does not. To others the roundel

3
reinforces corporate connotations of a heavily mediated space creating a new
brand of consumer-capitalism.1
Innovation
The creation of the Underground began from the notable congestion
London experienced; travelling through the city took a lengthy amount of time
that the first need of public transit was created. The first creations of public transit
in London included the OMNIbus, it was an idea borrowed from Paris as was
observed by its creator: George Shillibeer. It was popular as he quickly
encountered competition and was eventually run out of business. The fare was a
shilling to sit inside and less so if one chose to sit outside on top of the bus.
These buses were not allowed on main routes as they were quickly voted off of
streets that housed the more affluent residents of London, primarily the West.
The OMNIbus was for everyone as it derived from its French influence. The
original Omnibus stopped in front of a shop which was owned by a Monsieur
Omnes who sold things under the slogan: ‘Omnes Omnibus’ meaning: ‘all for all’,
it is not recorded what he sold however.2
The other form of transportation to address the congestion problem in
London was using the River Thames. In 1815 the Thames used a steamboat
service between Greenwich and the City, in addition to this initiative, four newly

1 Ashford, D. (2010). Blueprints for Babylon: Modernist Mapping of the London
2 Martin, A. (2012). Underground, Overground: A passenger's history of the Tube.
London: Profile. p. 20

4
built bridges in London began tolling a larger fare (half a shilling to cross). By
1850 however these efforts did not provide relief, as the Thames was the sewer
receptacle for London and the source of drinking water. In the summer, crossing
a pedestrian bridge was done so covering ones mouth and jogging to minimalize
the time spent over the Thames otherwise known as: ‘The Great Stink’.3
The need for a better system was apparent, man was losing against
nature, and the population of London was growing rapidly, by 1851 the census
captured 2.3 million residents in addition to the flow of commuters using regional
rail to work in London.4
Omnibuses could not be the answer to London’s
congestion problem and more radical ideas were explored. A group of
commissioners was appointed to explore rail projects suggested by parliament,
one such idea was conceived by Robert Stephenson. To connect the London and
Birmingham railway to Savoy Wharf would require tunneling under Gower Street
and Covent Garden to achieve the most direct route. This was met by large
opposition by residents who were worried about large heavy rail disturbing the
core of London. However, the commissioners heard another scheme by Charles
Pearson who had an idea to connect the heart of the City by rail. His idea was to
create an arcade from Farringdon to King’s Cross. The slum dwellers living there
would be removed and replaced by attractive arcades that were open to the road;
these arcades would contain shops, homes, and have glass ceilings. His idea
derived from Parisian arcades that were the ‘points of transition between inside

3 Halliday, S. (2001). Underground to everywhere: London's underground railway in the
life of the capital. Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton. pp. xi
4 Ibid. pp. 1

5
and outside as well as private and public’5
; Pearson wanted his arcade to be a
place of passage. This untried idea required investment that did not gain traction
even with Pearson’s attempts to write letters to fifteen thousand residents
regarding the creation of the Metropolitan Rail. The removal of the poor from land
that was highly valued was one topic that was fought over because their removal
to lower priced land was easy and the commercial man should not tolerate that
the poor live on such valuable land. The new underground space already began
to pose issues of equity, what type of people the underground space would
service and belong to. To Pearson, he was freeing the poor man: “the poor man
is chained to a spot; he does not have the leisure or money to travel a distance.
The rail would set this man free.”6
The price of new technology meant that land
values would be become higher and therefore the poor could not live in these
areas. Soon it was decided that Pearson’s plan that connected King’s Cross and
Farringdon – a terminus – was the beginning of the blueprint for London’s
Underground, it was “to take all through traffic off the streets.”7
International media heavily criticized the project; The Times described
building trains underground for passenger travel as “an insult to common sense”
writing: “that people would never prefer to be driven amid palpable darkness

5
Jobst, M. (2012). The problematic object of the London Underground. Arq
Architectural Research Quarterly, 16(02), 105-107. doi:10.1017/s1359135512000425
pp.106
London: Profile. pp. 22
7
Halliday, S. (2001). Underground to everywhere: London's underground railway in the
life of the capital. Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton. pp. 11

6
through the foul subsoil of London.”8
This paper will later discuss how the “foul
subsoil of London”, becomes one of the most desirable ways to travel the City.
Cut and cover method was used to build the Metropolitan line, and followed road
patterns because it was cheaper than purchasing homes that were in the way.
Thousands queued to ride the first underground train; its innovation drawing
crowds and it was a large success. The Underground was a marry of competing
rail companies beginning with the Metropolitan Railway and the Metropolitan
District Railway company, today named the Metropolitan Line and the District
Line respectively.
Yerkes, an American banker and stockbroker, applied his talents to create
Chicago’s famous loop railway, was asked by Robert Perks to aid the ailing
District Line. Perks had substantial shareholding in the Line. The District was
falling behind its competitor the Metropolitan Line as it was debating
electrification. Yerkes’ business methodology was to “Buy up old junk, fix it up a
little and unload it upon other fellows…”9
This would work in the District’s favour,
when Yerkes saw the need for electrification to remain competitive, the
shareholders backed the project. With Yerkes leading the District, he would
attempt to amalgamate the Metropolitan and District to agree on one method of
electrification. The Metropolitan was offended at these attempts as Yerkes was
American and it was believed that his influence would remove British power and
innovation from the new underground space that was being created.

8 Ibid. pp. 14
life of the capital. Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton. pp. 66.

7
Futurism and Vorticism
The branding of underground modernist space made the Underground
acceptable, the opening of the first Underground lines was followed by the
Futurism and Vorticism movement and this aided the acceptance of underground
travel. Futurism was a movement that emphasized man versus machine, man
able to control the machine, and glorified power and speed. Vorticism dismissed
narratives and structures in favour of image and velocity.10
The thousands of
miles of railway tracks built between 1837 and 1845 to create a network is
conducive to this movement as its establishment was as large as the creation of
the Internet; the Internet being a network of information and rail a physical
network.11
The Underground created a separation of man from the outside world; one
walks down underground and climbs into a train car that moves them to a
destination. The darkness that The Times writes about is the achievement of
underground travel: passengers lose the sense of distance travelled and this
changes the experience of the city. People accept this travel as they cannot
rationalize the City above ground.
Futurism is strict and as such seeks to organize a disorganized London.
The modernist mainstream influenced by the vorticist artistic movement sought

10 Pike, D. L. (2002). Modernist Space and the Transformation of Underground London.
In Imagined Londons (pp. 105). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
London: Profile.pp. 15

8
“to control the chaotic, ungraspable reality of the modern city through color-
coding straight lines and diagonal cuts”12
– referring to the modernist mapping
method created by Beck in 1933 when larger portions of the Underground were
created. Texts by Le Corbusier at this time were translated by vorticist Frederick
Etchells, he translated Vers Une Architecture and Urbanisme, concluding the
thesis translated to: The City of To-morrow and Its Planning (1929). Through
Etchells’ translation, the text conveyed the city as a machine that could only be
controlled by strict order; one method of this was the strict control of the
Underground and the new space it created underneath a disorganized city.
Future cities needed to address speed and organization as a necessity, Etchells
twisted the words of Le Corbusier and translated the description of Piccadilly
Circus Tube Station to illustrate when mechanized forces lack organization.
The second mechanical achievement occurred when deep tunneling was
possible in the early 20th
century, and electric tube trains phased out the steam
engine. Finally the train could move in completely enclosed tunnels, no longer
was an open arcade needed to allow for steam to escape and tunnels could be
dug much deeper. The innovation of deep underground tunneling created the
current colloquial name of ‘The Tube’. This would be the second time that
London sets the standards of transportation underground for the world to follow.13

12 Ashford, D. (2010). Blueprints for Babylon: Modernist Mapping of the London
Underground 1913–1939. Modernism/modernity, 17(4), 735-764.
doi:10.1353/mod.2010.0047 pp.744
13 Barker, T. (1990). Tube Centenary: 100 Years of Underground Electric Railways
Exhibition [Review of exhibit The London Transport Museum]. London Journal, 15(2),
pp. 160.

9
For Futurists electricity powering the Underground was another method that man
controlled machine and this had transformative potential. The Tube promoted
man’s achievements, when passengers would travel by tube, one felt comfortable
and safe from nature, and the only thing visible out of the windows was the iron
and work of man’s creations. As London grew, sprawl began to grow out of
control according to Pike14
and the image that London projected of itself was the
Underground, a unity that urban modernity could not define.
Vorticist artist Kauffer created posters advertising the Underground as a
means of navigating London, commissioned by Pike. The poster by Kauffer:
Winter Sales are best reached Underground (1924) [Fig. 1] contains minimal
shapes representative of two females shielding themselves from the rain, and in
the middle is the entrance to the Underground. This poster captures the image of
movement through nature to the Underground as a desirable mode of travel.
Another poster made by Kauffer entitled: The Nerve Centre of London’s
Underground (1931) [Fig. 2] celebrates the harnessing of electric power of the
Underground image through colour and visual representation of a strong arm
grabbing lighting as it shoots into the word: ‘underground’ in all capital letters.
These two posters are examples of what the Underground represented to
progress and future. Artists are reflective of the environment around them, similar
to Toulouse–Lautrec who painted the bars, brothels, and the new nightlife of
Paris. The success and acceptance of Kauffer’s posters mobilized other

In Imagined Londons (pp. 101-120). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

10
commercial art in the thirties in the Vorticist style and this paved the way to the
creation and acceptance of Beck’s tube map.
The Tube as Modernist Space
Previous maps of the Underground were representative of London as a
figurative and illustrative map of London with landmarks and roads, one example
of this is the Underground map created by Reginald Percy Gossop in 1926
[Fig.3]. An illustrative London that appears chaotic, it contains a winding and
turbulent Underground map overlaying it. An even more illustrative map [Fig.4] by
Charles Burton draws London with the Thames and focusing on how to reach the
river, it does not use colours like Gossop’s example. The map [Fig. 5] by F.H.
Stingemore in 1928, is the first attempt of rationalizing underground space. It
draws coloured lines over the city but unlike Beck’s map, it still uses elements
such as parks and curving roads to represent the city. Beck’s map removes all
recognizable features of London and rationalizes the city. The lines on the maps
of the Underground previous to Beck were curved, man still being dictated by
nature and the City above; Underground lines followed road patterns.
Beck is famously known for creating the modern Tube map in 1933 and
most versions of the Underground map after this resemble the similar modern
style. It is brightly coloured with angular lines and shapes and is a modernist
representation of London as it visually reduces the size and chaos of London
[Fig. 6]. London is growing exponentially from 1913 to 1939. When Beck’s map is

11
produced and distributed, the colours, straight lines, and modernist
representation of the space under London blankets a comfort on Londoners, the
authentic distance is not mapped. It is a representation of space and distance
and is a method of rationalizing an irrational space as the roundel of the
Underground promotes, displayed and glowing at every station. The comfort that
the modern Underground map provides to residents of London and to tourists in
the present day is reflective of this acceptance of modernizing the chaos of the
city.
Maps are created as spatial representations because what is important is
mapped according to systems and priorities; therefore it is argued that maps only
show partial views of the urban.15
During the Victorian era, particular attention
was spent on social mapping as this visually represented crime and poverty
within spatial relations of the Victorian “body”. Maps were important to identify
unhealthy areas of the City as well, if one area of the City organism was infected,
it would likely spread infecting the rest of the “body”. Although at first used as a
segregating tool, maps evolved to show the circulatory system of a city, Beck’s
map attacked social difference. The flow of goods and people is a primary tool in
urban planning of the past century; metaphorically the city being a model of an
organic unified body, and the metropolis as a cancerous overgrowth. According
to H. Llewelyn Smith, London is a consumer of bone and sinew of the country

15 Gilbert. P.K. (2002). The Victorian Social Body and Urban Cartography. In Imagined
Londons (pp. 11- 30). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

12
creating a metaphor of London fighting the country to become the City. 16
The
social reformist Charles Booth, observed working class life in London during the
late 19th
century; he was in support of the Underground as it expanded, arguing
that it would not promote centralization but rather encourage small towns to
spring up on the periphery and then be consumed into the City. Over time
countless small towns have now become London suburbs, connected by the
Underground.
Similarly to Kauffer and the vorticist posters of the Underground, Beck
uses a modernist representation of space that dissolves the distinction of
mapping and artistic media. The daunting task of memorizing ones travel through
the City became a daydream of riding the Tube. The Underground became a
powerful tool of city growth to London, as was once argued: if London exceeded
past the limits of the Tube was it still London? Underground London before
Beck’s map was perceived as a negative space of disease and crime, Beck’s
map flattened the segregation between high and low. It was not just excavated
space under a metropolis, it was a replacement of that reality.17
Modernist space is defined by Henri Lefebvre as ‘abstract space’ “the
conception of space as a coherent, homogeneous whole that can consequently
be bought and exchanged in the same manner as any other commodity.”18

16 Ibid. p 27.
18 Ibid. pp. 107.

13
Passengers purchase their fare not only to ride to their destination but also to
participate in their control over the city.
The map created by Beck abstracts the City and through this method
exerts control over the underground space. This was similarly done when
Napoleon III presented a map of Paris to Haussmann, where Napoleon III had
drawn in different bright colours: red, green, blue, yellow, depending on the
urgency of the project, of the routes he proposed to take. These lines were
arbitrarily drawn over Paris as a way of controlling the chaotic reality of the
modern city by colour-coding, straight lines, and diagonal cuts19
. This is similar to
Beck’s achievements of rationalizing the modern city of London, by drawing the
underground-undefined space as a rational drawing with straight lines, colours,
and connections for the consumer to understand the space beneath London.
Futurism and The Underground
The new space created by the Underground had to be marketed properly
to the people of London as an ideal space; at this time trains, above ground
travel and public transit was more common. The Underground was the first of its
kind.
Albert Stanley, later known as Lord Ashfield, was an Englishman who
immigrated to the USA, and worked up through the Detroit Street Railway to
become the manager of New Jersey Tramways. He returned to England in 1907

19 Ibid. pp. 104 – 105.

14
when the Underground was struggling after the death of the American Yerkes
and there was a continual power conflict between American leadership in the
Underground and British nationalism. He was appointed by American
stakeholders to keep and eye on George Gibb, a chairman of the Piccadilly Line
after Gibb suggested the amalgamation of the Piccadilly, Bakerloo, and
Hampstead Lines; this move would have reduced any shares the American’s had
in the Underground. Through his leadership, the Underground Group owned the
monopoly of underground railways and many of the buses.20
In 1907 he called
together a series of meetings with the managers of the other underground rail
lines to discuss promotion of the Underground to increase ridership. It was in
these meetings that the name of the: ‘Underground’, ‘Tube’, or ‘Electric’ were
discussed, all three potential names reflective of the mechanical achievements of
the London Underground. The decision was to keep ‘Underground’ and establish
new lettering to replace the previous ‘grotesque’ typeface was done to be bold,
clear, and modern.21
The U and the D being larger at either ends of the word:
‘Underground’ that suggests the progression from one tunnel to another.22
A new
map was created (not Beck’s map) and distributed to homes in London, calling
for submissions to a contest for the best advertising slogan for the Underground.
The winning slogan was: “Underground to Anywhere. Quickest Way.
Cheapest Fare.” The involvement of the London public to create the slogan was

life of the capital. Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton. pp. 83
21 Ibid. pp. 133
London: Profile. p. 146

15
a promotional method designed by Ashfield and it worked well as a fourteen-
year-old boy won the contest. Asking the London public to create the brand for
the Underground was an easy method to reaffirm British nationalism into the
Underground. The slogan is reflective of highlighting the modern achievements of
the Underground, it was fast, cheap, and it could take you anywhere. In addition
to new designs and slogans, Ashfield tackled the obstacles of improving service
to Londoners.
The Underground was an engineering feat when it first opened in 1863, as
well as when deep tunneling began in the 1900’s once electricity was available to
power the network. Modern maps and vorticistic advertisements created the
Underground as the way to travel, and rationalized this new space under the city.
It created a different place within the City; when first recommended by Pearson,
the underground train was described as a way to merge the building and its
surrounding milieu, the Crystal Palace as an attractive space. This was soon
realized as two difference spaces as they resist unification. The area of the
station itself provides entrance to the railway car, which has its own architectural
interior; one steps in and is enclosed in the space of the car on a journey in the
City.23
With a new modern map created by Henry Beck in 1933 the Underground
would rely on posters to advertise this new modernist space during the 1930-40s.
These posters would highlight the technical dynamics of the Underground

23 Jobst, M. (2012). The problematic object of the London Underground. Arq
Architectural Research Quarterly, 16(02), 105-107. doi:10.1017/s1359135512000425 pp.
107.

16
because this is what Futurists valued, using the words ‘Power’ and ‘Speed’ to do
so. Other posters commissioned by Frank Pick at this time focused on the
clientele of the Underground, depicting them as high-end users who travelled to
events in the City by Underground. Figure 7 to 10 depict the different types of
posters that Pick encouraged; he did not limit the artist’s style and encouraged
original and modern art as if the Underground could be a gallery.
Both Pick and Ashfield advertised the London Undergound as an
alternative to walking London, by climbing down into an underground modern
space, with Futuristic art advertising its services. Over time this reliability on the
Underground has created London today, which has reached beyond its initial City
limits absorbing small towns on its periphery. This locks people into a daily rail
commute, a criticism from Punch, in reaction to the art commissioned by Pick
wrote: “Man is born free and is everywhere in trains.”24
The poor man being tied
to a single spot in the City is what Charles Pearson sought to solve with the
creation of the Underground in 1863. The Underground was meant to free the
poor man from his confinement to one area of the city, to give him the freedom to
travel anywhere in the City. The commuter who once travelled by steam rail from
outside of London was once considered a ‘clerk’; this small town, now absorbed
by London creates the ‘executive’ commuter who commutes in by electric rail
car.25
The opposite can now be said because of the marketing of the

London: Profile.
pp. 165.
25 Ibid. pp. 166.

17
Underground’s modernist space was successful in the inception of a ‘commute
by rail’ lifestyle that Londoners participate in daily. Although being constructed
through the 19th
and 20th
century the Underground is still a modern method of
travel and is considered as a standard when comparing other underground rail
networks. The modern creation meant to free Londoners has now confined them
again to endless train travel.
The Underground as Utopia
Pick also turned his commissions not only to art but station exterior and
interior design. He asked artists and architects to create stations that would
become “an inviting doorway in an architectural setting that cannot be missed by
the casual pedestrian.”26
Pick commissioned Charles Holden to create stations
that would achieve a modern representation of Underground travel; as Pick once
wrote in a correspondence: “We are going to build our stations upon the Morden
extension railway [The Northern Line in the South] to the most modern pattern.
We are going to discard entirely all ornament. We are going to build in reinforced
concrete. The station will be simply a hole in the wall…We are going to represent
the Design and Industries Association gone mad.”27
Removing ornament and
decoration in favour of simple shapes made of concrete was what Pick
considered to be modern as he and Holden observed abroad.

27 Ibid. pp. 134.

18
Pick and Holden would travel to North America and Europe to study
architecture and bring these ideas to future station designs. Their travels through
Germany, Scandinavia, and Holland were documented in a paper entitled: A
Note on Contemporary Architecture in Northern Europe. They took note of the
different materials and analyzed the architecture of these countries, specifically
Gothic, Roman, and Greek periods and noted the reuse of materials and
techniques. Borrowing from these countries Pick was inspired to bring a modern
method of designing stations, drawing inspiration from the Bauhaus as many of
Holden’s designs from the 1930s contain geometrical circles and rectangles. Of
the eight stations that Pick and Holden designed five achieved being listed
buildings.28
There are resemblances of borrowed architecture from other
European cities; one example of this is Arnos Grove station and the Stockholm
library [Figure 11 and 12]. This diffusion29
received praise for its innovation,
because Arnos Grove Station integrated ticket sales in the circular design. It was
not only the exterior station design that was borrowed, it included the interior
design of stations. Underground engineers visited Moscow’s grander
Pushkinskaya station when it opened in the 1930s and as a result Gants Hill
Station’s concourse level borrows the arches from this recognizable station on
the Moscow Metro. One can see this comparison in Figure 13 and 14.

28 A listed building is one that has achieved some architectural or historical interest and
is preserved from future development.
Halliday, S. (2001). Underground to everywhere: London's underground railway in the
29 Ward, S. V. (1999). The international diffusion of planning: A review and a Canadian
case study. International Planning Studies, 4(1), 53-77.
doi:10.1080/13563479908721726 pp. 57.

19
Pick’s commission of these stations created the lack of unity that Jobst
writes about from the exterior to the interior of the station. He writes that the
stations were designed as an entry-point only and it is more a function of the
urban space than when one is in the Underground network. The Underground is
a different space than its above ground counterpart. When one enters the station
they are entering a network that connects users to the City and buildings
expanded in the system, but the Underground will always remain distinct from the
space in a City.30
The Underground has now been marketed as the “Underground to
Everywhere” depicting its high-end users traveling to events in the cities such as
a show in Figure 15. The Underground also advertises a warm, bright space
below the City that is cold and rainy, (Figure 16) as a home away from home.
Where nature is cruel, man can find refugee in the spaces he has create. Along
with Beck’s map and Pick’s poster commissions, the Underground is not only an
engineering feat, but also embraces modernist architecture in its station design,
and Futurist art as a means of advertising to users seeking an attractive new
method of travel. These modernist initiatives were done to gain an understanding
of a City and to control it.
This utopian space created underground is an opportunity where the rich
and poor interact, of social classes mixing. Social mixing in the Underground
creates a synonymous experience of the City. Other rail car travel previous to the

30 Jobst, M. (2012). The problematic object of the London Underground. Arq
Architectural Research Quarterly, 16(02), 105-107. doi:10.1017/s1359135512000425 pp.
107.

20
Underground segregated first, second, and third class; although this was once
used on the Underground, it was stopped by March 193431
and the focus was
now to create better service over the entire network, for example the worlds first
station escalator was installed in Earl’s Court and improving travel times. The
underground space created a method to pass through the social diversity of
London; passengers sitting in cars are unaware of the space they travel through
above ground. Beck’s map removed the distance that passengers travel and
replaces miles with minutes underground, creating a new way that one
experiences the City.
Conclusions
The Underground is revered to be one of the worlds leading subway
systems as its history and its growth over time is an achievement of technology
that the world would follow. London in a technology race attracted engineers,
investors, artists, and architects to create a network that would attract users to be
apart of the modern city. Modern travel through a city changed with the
introduction of the Underground. It was unlike other experiences of the City; it
celebrated man’s power and control over the city, where previously man was
subject to the wrath of nature and confusion of the city.
Beck drew over London with straight and angular lines, removing the
turmoil of London’s road network; in addition to this, his map removed distance in


21
miles to users and replaced it with minutes underground from station to station;
this map blanketed the chaos above. The creation of a utopian space below
ground where the Underground could take you to anywhere in London is a
product of modernism that sought to understand a city that is ailing the problems
of the previous century such as waste, disorder, and overcrowding. Planning was
a reaction to the evils of the 19th
century; the modernist transformation of
subterranean space was a conceptual replacement of the reality above it.32
This
spatial hierarchy was inline with the technology advances of the time; electric
light versus gas light, steel and concrete emerging out of modernism. Le
Corbusier in Paris did similar rationalization; he believed modern architecture
would create an organized solution that would raise the quality of life for the poor.
Lefebvre notes that the time between the two world wars was not only the rise of
abstract space but also the first moments of space and its awareness.33
The time between 1800 and 1944 in London was transformative of the City
because of the formation and acceptance of subterranean travel. Pearson, who
sought to free the poor man from where he was confined, succeeded in
commissioning the first underground train. The innovation would lead to the
interest of architects to design this underground space that would be pushed
further underground by engineers using electricity and enclosing the space below
completely by deep tunneling. The artists and architects created the appeal to

33 Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, OX, UK: Blackwell, pp 18–21.

22
enter the underground space and make it commonplace to travel by underground
rail through advertisements. One of the final blows of modernism would come
from Beck designing a rational map of an irrational system of tunnels. Combined
efforts of men who would commission the Underground are reflective of man’s
desire to physically understand London by the creation of subterranean space.
The artists and designers would create the visual appeal of the Underground that
would fit into the urban fabric and give Londoners a method to understand a
growing irrational city.
Works Cited
Ashford, D. (2010). Blueprints for Babylon: Modernist Mapping of the London
Underground 1913–1939. Modernism/modernity, 17(4), 735-764.
doi:10.1353/mod.2010.0047
Barker, T. (1990). Tube Centenary: 100 Years of Underground Electric Railways
Exhibition [Review of exhibit The London Transport Museum]. London Journal,
15(2).
Bessant, G. T. (2004). King's Cross underground station, London: An overview.
Proceedings of the ICE - Transport, 157(4), 211-220.
doi:10.1680/tran.2004.157.4.211
Caygill, H. (1998). Walter Benjamin: The colour of experience. London:
Routledge.
Field, G. (2002). Nights Underground in Darkest London: The Blitz, 1940–1941.
International Labor and Working-Class History Int. Lab. & Work. Hist., 62.
doi:10.1017/s0147547902000194
Gatersleben, B., Clark, C., Reeve, A., & Uzzell, D. (2007). The impact of a new
transport link on residential communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
27(2), 145-153. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.01.002

23
Gilbert. P.K. (2002). The Victorian Social Body and Urban Cartography. In
Imagined Londons (pp. 11- 30). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Green, M. A. (2012). Mapping Inequality in London: A Different Approach. The
Cartographic Journal, 49(3), 247-255. doi:10.1179/1743277412y.0000000018
Halliday, S. (2001). Underground to everywhere: London's underground railway
in the life of the capital. Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton.
Jobst, M. (2012). The problematic object of the London Underground. Arq
Architectural Research Quarterly, 16(02), 105-107.
doi:10.1017/s1359135512000425
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, OX, UK: Blackwell.
Martin, A. (2012). Underground, Overground: A passenger's history of the Tube.
London: Profile.
Pike, D. L. (2002). Modernist Space and the Transformation of Underground
London. In Imagined Londons (pp. 101 – 119). Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Travers, T. (2009). Transport infrastructure in London. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 25(3), 451-468. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grp029
Ward, S. V. (1999). The international diffusion of planning: A review and a
Canadian case study. International Planning Studies, 4(1), 53-77.
doi:10.1080/13563479908721726

24
Appendix
Figure 1. Winter Sales are best reached by Underground (1924) by Kauffer
Figure 2. The Nerve Centre of London’s Underground (1931) by Kauffer

25
Figure 3. Reginald Percy Gossop’s Underground Map (1926)
Figure 4. All Ways to the River (1932) by Charles Burton

26
Figure 5. F.H. Stingemore’s Map (1928)

27
Figure 6. Harry Beck’s Map of the Underground (1933)
Figure 7. Reads: “When in doubt take the UNDERGROUND. Whether you think
of time. Whether you think of weather. Whether you think of cost. Safety or
Comfort or any other thing UNDERGROUND IS THE BEST SOLUTION.”
By John Hassall

28
Figure 8. One of the many posters depicting leisure activities in London.
Figure 9. Modernist depiction of the Underground and everyday life, this poster
including the roundel in the artwork.

29
Figure 10. Comfortable travel on the Underground. By Mark Laurence
Figure 11. Arnos Grove Station
Figure 12. Stockholm Public Library

30
Figure 13. Gants Hill Station Concourse
Figure 14. Moscow’s Pushkinskaya Station Concourse

31
Figure 15. Underground users attend a higher class of show.
Figure 16. Another common slogan used to advertise the Underground as warm,
bright, and comfortable. By Verney L. Danvers

Final Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (6)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Final Paper

Similar to Final Paper (20)

Final Paper