That's hard to properly categorize. Even then, if you make something look nice for an era, it has a good chance to at the very least be a good stylistic representation of that era. If we look at the Montreal Metro for example, the original sections were entirely built with big brutalist architecture that absolutely screams the 70s, and even though its not "modern" and its hard to say if it aged well, its definitely a relic that just screams the 70s and its something many people appreciate it for.“Warm and modern”.should not be the goal. Tastes change. Nothing stays modern very long.
Let’s try “Timeless and maintainable”. And maybe “upgradeable”.
I like the spaciousness and use of natural light, but imagine a decade of grime and dust on louvers and perforated panels. And a couple generations’ of upgrade to technology, signage, lighting..
How often will all that glass get washed?
Those “sterile” fifties and sixties subway stations were warm and modern when they opened… but with decades of leaking roofs, relocated turnstiles and barriers, retrofitted cabling, new security systems, and new styles of signage that don’t synch to the original design,….. when I look at station renders I try to imagine what the janitor and the next decade’s electricians see. Garbage receptacles? Safet alarm panels?
If you look elsewhere around the world, like Moscow, you see the same thing. Sections of the Metro opened in the 40s and 50s have this classical and royal style of architecture that screams the stalinist era it was built in, meanwhile the modern metro is extremely glossy and modern.
Image #1: Electrozavodskaya Station on Line 3 - Opened May 15 1944
Image #2: Electrozavodskaya Station on Line 15 - Opened Dec 31 2020
(Same Station, platforms built in completely different time periods)