BobBob
Senior Member
Call me a philistine, but I would support breaking the "consistency" of Bloor-Danforth for many things.
|
|
|
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
The TTC locked themselves into the present mode, where each new station must look and feel distinctively different, when the Spadina line - different architects and different looks for each station - opened in the late '70s. Once they abandoned the idea of a coherent appearance for the system as a whole, opportunistic infections like the rogue benefactors could move in and lay their eggs on the dead meat of the TTC's corporate-branding hide.
Why each station has to reflect what's above ground is an unexplained mystery. But once your primary method of branding each location becomes visual ( the Wookie station, the Valkyrie station, etc. ) signage and typography become less crucial.
Why each station has to reflect what's above ground is an unexplained mystery. But once your primary method of branding each location becomes visual ( the Wookie station, the Valkyrie station, etc. ) signage and typography become less crucial.
Archivist
Senior Member
"... signage and typography become less crucial". Or, perhaps, just the opposite. Using the same font, but in a new context, as is being done at Museum, is a way of ensuring the station remains definably "Toronto", while adding some visual interest.
The other part of your analysis, that the Spadina line opened up the need for distinctiveness of each station, is a misunderstanding of the TTC's history. The initial stations were vitrolite (is that the right word?), while those added later were tiled. Many stations have been re-done, such as the re-tiling of Dundas, Queen, College, etc. In fact, the TTC has a long history of making many of their stations distinctive, by either remaking old ones or when they add new ones. Change, as you have pointed out in so many other contexts, is what urbanity is all about. Why should the subway be any different?
If I had to choose between New York / Los Angeles, with rather distinctive stations, or Washington, with elegant but oppressively similar stations, I would go with distinctive. Bring on the egg infestations!
The other part of your analysis, that the Spadina line opened up the need for distinctiveness of each station, is a misunderstanding of the TTC's history. The initial stations were vitrolite (is that the right word?), while those added later were tiled. Many stations have been re-done, such as the re-tiling of Dundas, Queen, College, etc. In fact, the TTC has a long history of making many of their stations distinctive, by either remaking old ones or when they add new ones. Change, as you have pointed out in so many other contexts, is what urbanity is all about. Why should the subway be any different?
If I had to choose between New York / Los Angeles, with rather distinctive stations, or Washington, with elegant but oppressively similar stations, I would go with distinctive. Bring on the egg infestations!
TKTKTK
Senior Member
I find this a funny thing to say. Why wouldn't we want each station to reflect what's above ground? Why do we want to maintain a separation between underground and above ground. Why obscure, or ignore, that there's an amazing Museum just above you?
Isn't this one of our core complaints about PATH? That its impossible to tell where you are in the city because there are no visual indicators?
Our subway stations are terrible. We love them, of course, because they're ours...but...ask yourselves why we have such a strong emotional connection to a service, that for all intents and purposes, looks like the world's largest lavatory (all the more ironic given how uncommon public restrooms are in the TTC)
adma
Superstar
The Wookey station? Wouldn't that be Bay/Yorkville?
syn
Senior Member
I think this entire re-design will look ridiculous. I hope I'm wrong, but it just seems too over the top.
MetroMan
Senior Member
I was quite impressed by it yesterday. It's coming along great. Even though it may seem over the top, once you're in it, you digest it one bit at a time rather than all at once as one viewing a rendering.
I loved the hieroglyphics behind the large MUSEUM lettering. I wonder if they will light up.
I'm still a little concerned about the ceiling though. I'm not sure if they're updating the ceiling as per the rendering. It seems like they're simply painting the concrete ceiling white instead of adding the grey metallic grille which I liked.
I loved the hieroglyphics behind the large MUSEUM lettering. I wonder if they will light up.
I'm still a little concerned about the ceiling though. I'm not sure if they're updating the ceiling as per the rendering. It seems like they're simply painting the concrete ceiling white instead of adding the grey metallic grille which I liked.
junctionist
Senior Member
The Museum redesign in no way reflects the design/architecture of the museum, and station design is indeed about just that. We don't store dinosaur bones at Museum station, so why exactly are we reflecting the contents of the museum in the architecture? This makes as much sense as building a burger restaurant in the shape of a burger.
Also, it's not about choosing to ignore what's out there, but not everyone comes for the Museum. Victoria College is also a fine place that's right beside the station. The subway brings a lot of people so close together physically. Is this a quality opportunity to dictate what is most important upstairs? Sure, but where's the freedom to think? If there's nothing wrong with that, when do we install totem pole traffic signals, and hieroglyphic pedestrian lines on Bloor in front of the ROM?
We might not care for consistency and degrade it, but it's undeniably distinctive and something I believe future generations can appreciate. It's time to restore and enhance, not to destroy. Are the washroom comments supposed to be compliments? My washroom has the nicest walls in the house. They are tiled, not the boring plaster of the other rooms. If it reminds you of dirty public lavatories, then isn't the recommendation to clean up the dirt? Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
The station was named after the museum. The architecture of a museum can change over the years, but content will always consist of historic things. The AGO building alone does not make a museum, its whats inside that makes it a museum. To bring the inside of the ROM into the station is a better reflection of what the station represents than basing it on the architecture of the building itself.
Sure Victoria College is also near by, but last time I checked... the station was still named after the museum.
As for the tiles, If future generations want them back, all they have to do is rip down what is being put up now! I dont think most people would care to bring them back anyways.
junctionist
Senior Member
It's a name, not a design. The station isn't supposed to be a museum. Not even the actual museum bases its architecture on its contents (note the new Crystal addition and its distinct lack of reproductions of artifacts). What is kept in a museum might also change as our culture changes, and the role and importance of the museum might even change.
Museum Station does not represent the ROM, the name only suggests that there is some kind of museum in the neighbourhood. What it does represent is the TTC and public transportation infrastructure.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
The station referencing the museum doesn't suggest that the museum is the only thing above - it just cites a landmark for reference. Does it need to be mummy columns? No.
I think this might be a situation where it benefits us to save the best examples - stations like Wellesley (and get that garage off it), Castle Frank, and a couple others that represent that first phase of station design. That way we can be less precious with the rest of the system.
Filip
Senior Member
Beautiful. Let's have dragon motifs in St. George maybe even Dudley the Dragon columns. Let's put something pious in St. Patrick's like pews and a crucifix!
Great European metro systems do not bring the outside in. Have you ever seen what the Louvre station looks like in Paris? It's about as banal as Islington. Yet, since we're talking about the architecture of the station vs. the architecture of the museum - there is a relationship. But there's NO relationship between a mass transit station and Egyptian works of art. The architecture of the museum is its public face, its persona. This makes or breaks it for many of the 2 cent tourists wandering around.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
When the 1978 Spadina extension opened, north from the terminus of the University Line to Wilson, I remember how they made a big fuss about how all the stations looked different, were designed by various architects, and had distinctive artwork to brand each one. That was quite a change from the 50s-'60s monochromatic vitrolite era which was all about uniformity of colour, form, typography etc. Though, come to think of it, I suppose the Eglinton to York Mills extension a few years earlier was the first to abandon that uniform look - perhaps vitrolite wasn't being made any more, perhaps they couldn't get matching tile, perhaps they didn't realize the unifying quality of their original plan? Or perhaps, if corporate drift set in, they were making a virtue out of necessity and just winging it? Sometimes institutions do this - the ROM, for instance, has only just returned to their original 1914 plan of expansion by replacing the Terrace Galleries with the Crystal.
Comparisons to PATH are tricky, since - as the name implies - it is essentially a path-finding route through properties owned by numerous entities, whereas the TTC stations are part of an entirety that once had a strong identity that was expanded through each new station - but for several decades has been worked against with each new station. Now that rogue benefactors call the shots, we'll have to see which stations on the system they consider important enough to merit Jack Diamond's glorified interior decorating skills.
Comparisons to PATH are tricky, since - as the name implies - it is essentially a path-finding route through properties owned by numerous entities, whereas the TTC stations are part of an entirety that once had a strong identity that was expanded through each new station - but for several decades has been worked against with each new station. Now that rogue benefactors call the shots, we'll have to see which stations on the system they consider important enough to merit Jack Diamond's glorified interior decorating skills.
JasonParis
Moderator
RedRocket191
Senior Member
Transit should be an experience, in addition to a way of moving passengers from A to B. It should be a work of art, and it should wow both tourists and locals alike. Stations on the Stockholm Metro Blue line accomplish this very well in my opinion, and in 10 year's we'll wonder why we didn't upgrade more stations.
Washroom tiles are fine, but they don't wow people. The new design for museum, regardless of it reflecting what is on the street, will wow people.
Washroom tiles are fine, but they don't wow people. The new design for museum, regardless of it reflecting what is on the street, will wow people.