News   Jul 16, 2024
Minto Submits Modifications to Grand Park Village Plan in Mimico
 682     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
News Roundup for July 16, 2024
 604     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
The Urban Jungle
 745     2 

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

CDL.TO said:
I don't care if it's feasible, building on top of the train shed would be a travesty. Union is the main gateway into the city, and it needs to be treated as such. For comparison, 43.3 million people passed through Union Station in 2004, while Pearson saw 30.9 million passengers in 2006, and the Gardiner (by my estimations) brings fewer than 23 million vehicles into downtown per year..
Click to expand...

My thinking was that if we built over it, it would improve connectivity from the downtown to the waterfront. At the moment, there is like a 200m gulf between the downtown and the waterfront. Putting office towers and commercial real estate on top of the shed could, in my mind, pull the downtown down. Architecturally, the idea is so abstract that I couldn't really suggest anything to prove that it would be attractive and an appropriate 'gateway' (which I agree is essential). In 2008 though, I don't see why an aesthetically pleasing design couldn't be created for a platform area that is, effectively, subterranean.

EDIT: I would be supportive of building a park of sorts on top of the shed. I mainly want something to bridge the gap between the financial core and the area south of tracks.
 
Last edited:
CDL.TO said:
I don't care if it's feasible, building on top of the train shed would be a travesty. Union is the main gateway into the city, and it needs to be treated as such. For comparison, 43.3 million people passed through Union Station in 2004, while Pearson saw 30.9 million passengers in 2006, and the Gardiner (by my estimations) brings fewer than 23 million vehicles into downtown per year.

The Union trainshed needs to be replaced with something that provides an uplifting entrance into the city and fits the important role that Union plays.

Every other station in the world that built on top of their trainshed regrets it to this day (that I'm aware of). I'll take Gare de Lyon over Gare Montparnasse, Liverpool Street Station over Charing Cross Station, or old Pennsylvania Station over new Pennsylvania station.

However, building on top of the railway corridor on either side of Union is something I support fully.
Click to expand...

I'm all for celebrating rail travel. But can we please make the shed a little less utilitarian? Now that we have towers surrounding it on all sides, it's going to be a blight on the city.

Ex: Southern Cross Station, Melbourne (by Grimshaw):

SouthernCrossStation-3791.jpg
 
Whoaccio said:
My thinking was that if we built over it, it would improve connectivity from the downtown to the waterfront. At the moment, there is like a 200m gulf between the downtown and the waterfront. Putting office towers and commercial real estate on top of the shed could, in my mind, pull the downtown down. Architecturally, the idea is so abstract that I couldn't really suggest anything to prove that it would be attractive and an appropriate 'gateway' (which I agree is essential). In 2008 though, I don't see why an aesthetically pleasing design couldn't be created for a platform area that is, effectively, subterranean.

EDIT: I would be supportive of building a park of sorts on top of the shed. I mainly want something to bridge the gap between the financial core and the area south of tracks.
Click to expand...

That's a nice idea, but the train shed isn't subterranean at all. It's elevated. York, Bay, Yonge, and PATH all pass under the tracks. The first floor of any office building would actually be at the 4th floor level. Building offices (or even parkspace) on top of the shed couldn't possibly do anything to link downtown with Harbourfront.

Unless you're talking in a purely "view from an airplane, not from a pedestrian" manner.
 
CDL.TO said:
Every other station in the world that built on top of their trainshed regrets it to this day (that I'm aware of). I'll take Gare de Lyon over Gare Montparnasse, Liverpool Street Station over Charing Cross Station, or old Pennsylvania Station over new Pennsylvania station.
Click to expand...

Then again, Grand Central may be the exception that proves the rule. (Though of course, that was much, much earlier.)
 
CDL.TO said:
That's a nice idea, but the train shed isn't subterranean at all. It's elevated. York, Bay, Yonge, and PATH all pass under the tracks. The first floor of any office building would actually be at the 4th floor level. Building offices (or even parkspace) on top of the shed couldn't possibly do anything to link downtown with Harbourfront.
Click to expand...

Ramp one lane of Yonge, Bay, York and maybe Simcoe/Lower Simcoe up to the base elevation of a proposed platform and down the other side? Run one road east/west across the platform. It would basically amount to a man made hill, but a bit of topography could sex up the downtown, no?:) If I wanted to be a really megalomaniac, I would suggest connecting the theoretical platform to the Union Stn. roof, which could be turned into a park. This is all soo hypothetical it is a bit silly on my part. I just wanted to know if any of this is feasible, which it probably isn't. I still think that keeping a 50,000 sq.m. dead space, even an aesthetically pleasing dead space, on the cities most important real estate is a mistake. Even more so than the Gardiner.
 
Or carve out a niche for a lobby out of one of the teamways.

The place I'd like to see development is further west, closer to the SkyDome. Deck over the tracks and throw a few towers up. Would do wonders to hide the tracks and create new space for towers.
 
Whoaccio said:
I still think that keeping a 50,000 sq.m. dead space, even an aesthetically pleasing dead space, on the cities most important real estate is a mistake. Even more so than the Gardiner.
Click to expand...

If you think that the tracks above Union station are a waste of prime real estate, what do you call this?
 
I must say, I am also a bit confused by the Tokyo City Hall reference. Is it that it is built sort of inter tangling with the quasi highways surrounding it?
 
Sorry, it's not linking properly. I meant Tokyo Station...you know, the giant above ground train shed that happens to sit on some of the most valuable commercial real estate in the world?

Oy, that punchline was about as effective as the 12" stonehenge in Spinal Tap.
 
CDL: While I think you make some very good and valid points about rail-fans and their backwards ways of thinking, I disagree with your assessment that the train shed should not be built over due to its 'gateway' status in the city.

I understand that there is a certain amount of nostalgia and specialness associated with arriving in a train station with high vaulted ceilings, cast-iron or steel structural supports, covered in glass, with people bustling along the train platforms and trains coming and going from across the continent -but let's be honest, this isn't Europe and Union Station isn't that kind of station.

Of the 42+ million who use the station, roughly 37 million are coming from with in the GTA, making their trips almost certainly of a commuter nature, not to mention I doubt there is very much nostalgia associated with their arrival/departure from the station. Now, I may have misunderstood your post, but I think that in its present incarnation, the station is not only inefficient, but it is dreary and unsatisfactory for probably 90% of its users. I don't see how building over top of this would make it any less spectacular, especially if it was done right than it is right now.

p5
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top