MOMA vs. Met

My first visit to the MOMA was a seminal experience and I would still recommend it for people that are going to be in NYC only once but as time goes by I find that when I have to choose I pick the Met. 
The ideal viewing experience for art is at a rich person's home sitting on a long sofa with some food. The room nicely heated, the wall coverings and lighting pleasurable and the art's dimensions in proportion to the room.
In the Met at times you are in a rich person's room (transplanted from some 16th century villa) with wood floors, a carved ceiling, antique chairs and the art in its original context. This is calming and natural, it feels less like inspecting art and more like tourism. There are other varieties of rooms. The Japanese garden with its soft light, trees, weathered rocks and running water. The American sculpture garden where you can eat while looking at sculptures, a bank facade, fountains, and the entrance to the Tiffany home. Also the long Egyptian room with the pyramid, medieval room with the gigantic gate, etc and even on a weekend you can often have these spaces to yourself.
The MOMA, like McDonald's, is designed to be uncomfortable in order to increase turnover. With a $100 million renovation the MOMA can't use plastic seats but it puts them in a fraction of the rooms near comparatively minor works. It's a sort of anti-curation where the works are overwhelmed by the white lights and huge walls. They are either reflexively grouped or have no relation (the sculpture garden). There also seems to a curious prominence given to works such as all black paintings, paintings of stripes, and exploded cartoons which causes many people to laugh the art off, move on quickly, and take other works less seriously. To my mind, even if taken seriously these works are hard to get lost in.
There are other touches. The rooms are excessively cold and vents seem to be positioned over the existing seating. The art on display at the cafeteria is minor *. The guards have a special aggressiveness (perhaps abetted by management.) I have back problems and sometimes use a folding seat but they prevented me (this was not a problem at the Met.).
You can see the way these things affect people at the MOMA people are noisier, ruder take more pictures, and move more quickly. At the Met you will see people quietly clustered around the introductory text of the show and the people who skip it carefully avoiding getting into the line of sight.

*I haven't seen the new cafeteria.
Notes:
Here's more definitive, better written criticism of the curatrion.

Hipster

"Hipster" originally referred to poor, black, jazz performers. It later grew to encompass blacks and whites who were dedicated to jazz and beat poetry.* They thrust themselves out of the main culture, lived in fallen-down neighborhoods and were working with new art forms.
The current use is the opposite of the former meanings. There are now "trust fund hipsters" who are making neighborhoods too expensive. If they lack money they use what is derisively called "hipster PDA's" (note pads). Most importantly it means uncool- "[someone] who derives his identity largely through his association with a subculture which has been deemed hip". The following of counter-culture music has become another example of trying to fit in.
It now reflects only on the speaker, meaning "there are people who either dress better or attend cooler events than me, and I'm better than them because that is all they care about. And that makes them uncool." The speakers also seem to be wanting recognition of their use of a "cool" word. The unremarkable "hipster PDA" is frequently mentioned in magazines and websites (22,000 Google hits). Is there anything so special about using a notepad to record events?

*Even historically "hipster's" picture is somewhat confused. A hipster "wore a beret, dressed completely in black, smoked mentholated Kool cigarettes, wore sunglasses even after sundown". This is not a good description for many of the famous ones- Lenny Bruce, Miles Davis, Ginsberg, and Kerouac.