GO Transit: Union Station Shed Replacement & Track Upgrades (Zeidler)

[MisterF]

You're right, these things aren't left up to mob rule, nor should they. I've read about the changes being made to the rest of the shed and it should be an improvement. Still, heritage or not, it would have been spectactular if the whole shed were being replaced with the glass roof. I'm happy with the changes though.

 

[DavidH]

You're right, these things aren't left up to mob rule, nor should they. I've read about the changes being made to the rest of the shed and it should be an improvement. Still, heritage or not, it would have been spectactular if the whole shed were being replaced with the glass roof. I'm happy with the changes though.

Depends on how the glass is done. I've been on glass-roof train platforms and they can become unbearable in the summer.

 

[adma]

In an effort at conciliation, If heritage is so important, why not just move the bush shed somewhere else? It's not like anyone appreciates it where it is. Nobody gets off the GO train and marvels at it's beauty and majesty. Why not reassemble it at Downsview and turn it into something for heritage types to faun over, while people who actually use the station get something decent. We could turn it into a farmer's market, heritage types would love that. Organic granola AND buildings nobody else likes! As far as technical challenges, dissembling and reassembling a shed must be pretty easy in comparison to moving these babies 65m up.

Believe it or not, I'm way ahead of you on that one. I've already offered, at least a couple of times in UT, that if keeping in situ was not an option, the Bush sheds (or parts thereof) could be reerected someplace like the Portlands reused as a nifty farmer's market, event space, Biennale-type art venue, whatever.

The difference is, my tone isn't your snide, disgruntled tone. I'm halfway expecting you to start a little Sun-editorial-board-style ranting about those socialists in City Hall as well. Indeed, 40 years ago you probably would have been ranting about those worrywarts who were campaigning on behalf of saving an old cadaverous crock like Union Station.

Look: if you really want to know the "silent majority" perspective, it's probably not vehemently anti-Bush. It's more like indifferent-to-latently-sympathetic--that is, if they were party to a Doors Open-or-otherwise tour of Union Station (or if there was signage on the platforms drawing attention to the sheds), they'd be all eyes and ears and gee-whiz. And such tours are likely to highlight the sheds, rather than brush them off apologetically. Indeed, if anything's likely to be brushed off apologetically because it's too nondescript and/or ugly, it's the most "active" part of Union Station, i.e. the GO concourse zone.

Sure, maybe they're grubby, but maybe this Bush needs a good douche rather than a total wax job.

Besides, why must there, ought there be a "poetic", "soul-stirring" new shed, especially now the concept of such sheds is taking on a tinge of hackneyed wannabe fatigue? Union Station's already got a space of beauty and majesty; and it doesn't absolutely need something new aggressively hogging the attention--maybe today's state of affairs complements the Beaux-Arts dignity better. And most of those GO commuters are probably just as "indifferent" of Union Station, and not just because as GO commuters, they don't have the chance to experience its magnificence the way that VIA travellers do. It's simply because when you're on the fast track to and from work, self-conscious architectural magnificence is overrated. They've got other things on their minds.

And above all, if it were deemed that the Bush sheds were to go, it'd be on straightforward functional, they've had their day, the replacement scheme's superior, grounds. The analogy is with Riverdale Hospital: those arguing for Bridgepoint on behalf of the half-round's replacement are emphasizing its functional obsolescence, poor adaptability, and not fitting present-day healthcare requirements. They're not arguing that it's because it's a so-called ugly piece of 60s c**p which only the heritage lunatic fringe is interested in; besides, that yahoo-mentality approach would undermine their argument. (Indeed, Michael McClelland of ERA, the heritage consultants, would probably be the first to defend such architecture, generically speaking. Which in a perverse way, strengthens his authority to write the half-round off as a "necessary sacrifice".)

 

[drum118]

On GO agenda for Friday

1. Contract RQQ-2008-EN-012
Union Station Train Shed Roof Renewal Approval requested for construction administration services for Union Station in advance of major contract award for rehabilitation of train shed area (2009-2014).

 

[taal]

wow 5 years ... maybe that's the entire project.

 

[Whoaccio]

Believe it or not, I'm way ahead of you on that one. I've already offered, at least a couple of times in UT, that if keeping in situ was not an option, the Bush sheds (or parts thereof) could be reerected someplace like the Portlands reused as a nifty farmer's market, event space, Biennale-type art venue, whatever

Want a cookie? What do you want me to say, congratulations for coming up with a very simple idea? Congratulations. You are the first person to think up the idea of relocating 'heritage' structures to somewhere where they can more successfully be ignored by most people.

The difference is, my tone isn't your snide, disgruntled tone. I'm halfway expecting you to start a little Sun-editorial-board-style ranting about those socialists in City Hall as well. Indeed, 40 years ago you probably would have been ranting about those worrywarts who were campaigning on behalf of saving an old cadaverous crock like Union Station

I've never actually read the Sun, so I don't really know what their editorial board would sound like. Considering up till now you have neglected to teach us proles the magic of the Bush shed and just stuck to defaming anyone who dares disagree with you're opinon, you should at least be more conservative in you're use of the word 'rant.' All you do is rant and call people who disagree with you idiots and reactionaries like we are re-living the 60s and you expect Barry Goldwater to come out of you're modem and tell you that the "bums lost." The 60's are over, it just so happens that not everyone falls into categories of a.)you or b.)reactionary technocrats trying to reverse the tide of social liberalism.

Look: if you really want to know the "silent majority" perspective, it's probably not vehemently anti-Bush. It's more like indifferent-to-latently-sympathetic--that is, if they were party to a Doors Open-or-otherwise tour of Union Station (or if there was signage on the platforms drawing attention to the sheds), they'd be all eyes and ears and gee-whiz. And such tours are likely to highlight the sheds, rather than brush them off apologetically. Indeed, if anything's likely to be brushed off apologetically because it's too nondescript and/or ugly, it's the most "active" part of Union Station, i.e. the GO concourse zone.

Most people view the Bush shed as a fact of life. Obviously it exists and fulfills the job of making sure people don't get wet from the GO Train to the concourse (which, i agree, is "nondescript and/or ugly") and most people can live with this imperfect reality. So, yea, most people aren't loosing any sleep over it. That doesn't mean we should try to stifle attempts to renovate the platform area simply because most people have become so acclimatized to the sheer awfulness of the shed. We aren't discussing the historical legacy of the Bush Shed, we are discussing if we should replace it. If the bulk of people are so uninterested by the sheer mediocrity of the Bush shed, as you imply they are, then that to me suggests we should replace it in due course and as funding allows. At the very least it suggests we shouldn't launch on a preservationist fatwa to preserve something you admit people could care less about.

Besides, why must there, ought there be a "poetic", "soul-stirring" new shed, especially now the concept of such sheds is taking on a tinge of hackneyed wannabe fatigue? Union Station's already got a space of beauty and majesty; and it doesn't absolutely need something new aggressively hogging the attention--maybe today's state of affairs complements the Beaux-Arts dignity better.

Maybe I missed it, but who here was advocating for a "poetic" or "soul-stirring" canopy? Most of us would settle for tolerable to mildly pleasant. Something you can stand under without feeling like you are in Pyongyang. It would be worth pointing out that nobody has really made a proposal for a complete removal, so speculating that it would be some gaudy steel-glass hairball is dishonest. Intentionally maintaining a sub par shed though simply to make Union seem better by comparison is just bad city building though. Union isn't some delicate flower that must be aggrandized by keeping an entourage of hunchbacks to make her seem palatable.

And most of those GO commuters are probably just as "indifferent" of Union Station, and not just because as GO commuters, they don't have the chance to experience its magnificence the way that VIA travellers do. It's simply because when you're on the fast track to and from work, self-conscious architectural magnificence is overrated. They've got other things on their minds.

Hey, I advocated building over it for this reason exactly. I don't think the train shed should be some kind of cathedral. The flip side of course is that it isn't you're personal heritage museum. I agree that most people wont care if we got Calatrava to design some massively grand platform area. The logical implication of that though is that less people would care about the Bush Shed having historical significance as representing some bygone era of N. American rail travel that only a precious few rail fans care about. And I mean that with all respect to rail fans, but it really isn't a big demographic. I just want something with decent lighting, good protection from the wind and feels at least remotely inviting.

And above all, if it were deemed that the Bush sheds were to go, it'd be on straightforward functional, they've had their day, the replacement scheme's superior, grounds.

Ummm... yes, that is the entire bloody point. The Shed should be evaluated based on the same criteria everything else is (cost, technical feasibility, returns) and not be given preferential treatment because it is symbolic to one of the most esoteric personal hobbies (N. American rail fanning) currently going.

 

[adma]

Ummm... yes, that is the entire bloody point. The Shed should be evaluated based on the same criteria everything else is (cost, technical feasibility, returns) and not be given preferential treatment because it is symbolic to one of the most esoteric personal hobbies (N. American rail fanning) currently going.

The issue of "heritage" isn't simply a "N. American rail fanning" thing, kiddo. Unless all of heritage is in some way or another pigeonholeable as a "fanning" thing. You might as well be dismissing Don Mills advocates as engaging in the esoteric hobby of "50s contemporary fanning", as well...

 

[Hipster Duck]

On to a slightly different topic, I think that the platforms are functionally awful as well. There is about two feet of room to squeeze on either side of a staircase, which is quite dangerous. I would much rather have them yank out the extra platforms between the tracks so that the ones that remain can be widened to a safe width.

-----

PS, Whoaccio: "you're" is the abbreviated form of "you are". If you want to talk about something you possess, spell it y-o-u-r. For example: "I was going to your house" or "Your argument is false" or "What is your name?" versus "You're late for our appointment" or "you're sure about this, aren't you?"

 

[taal]

lol ... the most common slip up people make when it comes to the English language. The thing is everyone "knows" what they implied while writing it but still typically mess up between the two.

 

[jswag]

Ummm... yes, that is the entire bloody point. The Shed should be evaluated based on the same criteria everything else is (cost, technical feasibility, returns) and not be given preferential treatment because it is symbolic to one of the most esoteric personal hobbies (N. American rail fanning) currently going.

The issue of "heritage" isn't simply a "N. American rail fanning" thing, kiddo. Unless all of heritage is in some way or another pigeonholeable as a "fanning" thing. You might as well be dismissing Don Mills advocates as engaging in the esoteric hobby of "50s contemporary fanning", as well...

In addition, I would argue you cannot argue for or against protection of heritage structures based on the criteria you described. If those were the only criteria used, we likely wouldn't have saved a bloody building in this city.

The Bush shed has merits, like it or not. I bet it will look awesome after they clean it up.

 

[adma]

The Bush shed has merits, like it or not. I bet it will look awesome after they clean it up.

Well, if such a cleanup took place, it'll disarm a lot of the anti-alibis on its behalf, I reckon. (And re Hipster, widening the platforms wouldn't necessarily affect the shed, of course. Underfoot vs overhead, you know.)

And really, re all the commuters who use the station daily--look, we're talking primarily about matter-of-fact residents of tract suburbia and its like. Frankly, they're not the sort to be ultra-engaged and "with it" heritage wonks of *any* sort--nor are they expected to be. However, if we go by the "there's a little Doors Open in all of us" principle, I wouldn't say there's wall-to-wall hostility there *IF* there's a case made for the shed and presented to them in palatable fashion. It isn't like they're in the position to challenge, or find it worth challenging, the authority of the previously posted PDF report. Add a little plaquage/signage, and clean the shed (or whatever's retained of it) up, and...what's to complain about? Ultimately, once all that's in place, you'll find that the remaining "WTF this ugly crap isn't heritage" crowd is a cranky minority. Remember: advocating replacing the shed is one thing. Denying it has anything to do with "heritage" is another.

Somehow, Whoaccio dealing with the inexplicable reality of the forces of heritage reminds me of Frank Grimes dealing with the inexplicable reality of the force of Homer J. Simpson...

 

[nfitz]

I remember some pretty fantastic-looking train sheds in England in the 1970s and 1980s, that hadn't been maintained in what looked like a century or so. I've never had this feeling in Union Station. Not that I spend a lot of time looking up.

Are there any good pictures somewhere of what is currently there? We seem to have a billion pictures here of every extra 1 cm erection of Bay-Adelaide. What about some pictures in this thread?

 

[ssk]

Are there any good pictures somewhere of what is currently there? We seem to have a billion pictures here of every extra 1 cm erection of Bay-Adelaide. What about some pictures in this thread?

That's it, I'm naming my legs Bay and Adelaide.

 

[khris]

I remember some pretty fantastic-looking train sheds in England in the 1970s and 1980s, that hadn't been maintained in what looked like a century or so. I've never had this feeling in Union Station. Not that I spend a lot of time looking up.

Are there any good pictures somewhere of what is currently there? We seem to have a billion pictures here of every extra 1 cm erection of Bay-Adelaide. What about some pictures in this thread?

http://flickr.com/search/?q=union+station+toronto+platform&m=text

 

[Whoaccio]

PS, Whoaccio: "you're" is the abbreviated form of "you are". If you want to talk about something you possess, spell it y-o-u-r. For example: "I was going to your house" or "Your argument is false" or "What is your name?" versus "You're late for our appointment" or "you're sure about this, aren't you?"

Silly as it may sound, i like 'you're' better. Unless I am doing something which will be taken seriously (essay, report, birthday card...) i just can't bring myself to spell it the other way. Old habits...

The issue of "heritage" isn't simply a "N. American rail fanning" thing, kiddo. Unless all of heritage is in some way or another pigeonholeable as a "fanning" thing. You might as well be dismissing Don Mills advocates as engaging in the esoteric hobby of "50s contemporary fanning", as well...

I do. Most people couldn't give two hoots about Don Mills beyond polite conversation. Certainly nobody would consider the 'heritage' value of Don Mills great enough to compel them not to build their little slice of the Parthenon. I have some personal attachment to Don Mills, having grown up there, but I don't delude myself into thinking there is any sympathy for the place outside of the "50's contemporary fanning" (though I have never used that phrase) crowd. It isn't a coincidence that more and more of those bungalows are disappearing, they are small and very impractical. Most people just want a bigger house with better insulation.

Somehow, Whoaccio dealing with the inexplicable reality of the forces of heritage reminds me of Frank Grimes dealing with the inexplicable reality of the force of Homer J. Simpson...

So, I'm the normal guy while you and the "forces of heritage" are high functioning moron Homer J Simpson? Odd choice of simile, but okay.

In addition, I would argue you cannot argue for or against protection of heritage structures based on the criteria you described. If those were the only criteria used, we likely wouldn't have saved a bloody building in this city.

I think this was addressed to me. In short, you can justify some heritage buildings/districts on the criteria I listed (cost, feasibility, returns). Major heritage buildings, like City Hall (old or new) are significant tourism drivers and draw a lot of attention to the City. Or the CN Tower, it is a major attraction in the city. You could probably build something marginally more attractive, but at the expense of cost and feasibility which upsets the evaluation. Honestly though, does anybody come to Toronto to see the Bush shed? That is an open question. I have never seen Tourism TO put it on a poster. Heritage isn't just there to please people like adma, it is supposed to actually make life better for the people who use it. I can't see the train shed doing that.

And really, re all the commuters who use the station daily--look, we're talking primarily about matter-of-fact residents of tract suburbia and its like. Frankly, they're not the sort to be ultra-engaged and "with it" heritage wonks of *any* sort--nor are they expected to be.

Right, because suburbanites aren't really people. They couldn't possibly understand the beauty of this art. This just further reinforce my points, you have no consideration for people that actually use the train shed instead of waxing on about it's heritage value.

However, if we go by the "there's a little Doors Open in all of us" principle, I wouldn't say there's wall-to-wall hostility there *IF* there's a case made for the shed and presented to them in palatable fashion. It isn't like they're in the position to challenge, or find it worth challenging, the authority of the previously posted PDF report.

Nobody has made the case. Nobody. Not you, not Angella Carr, nobody. In fact, on the topic of the train shed, she had very little to say about it. She recognized that it was "more practical... and better suited to the Canadian climate" than St. Pancras' large glass arch (though not as "elegant" and filled with "gloom"). She also mentioned that it is possibly the last example of a Bush Complex in Canada. I'm sure the tourists will be riveted knowing that they are standing under an utterly practical (for the period 1910-1920) "economic invention" before being succeeded by more practical designs in 1918. I'm practically vibrating at the sheer excitement! The Bush Shed wasn't built to reflect on Toronto's soul, or some other ethereal quantity that heritage wonks like to treat as scientific quantities, it was built to be a practical way to stop people from getting wet. If we can do better today, why the hell shouldn't we? Maybe we should go back to ridding horse carriages and riding trolleys like we did back in the '20s too (this would be funnier if half of it wasn't taken seriously...).