Toronto The United BLDG | 184.85m | 54s | Davpart | B+H

Design is never going to get in the way of system expansion. You get one opportunity to design the stations and that's when it should be done properly. The reason why subway expansion consists of one extension presently is because politicians didn't fund any more expansion. Expansion is now done in the most expensive way possible: bored tunnels no matter the location and no ROWs, trenches, cut and cover or elevation--all of which the NYC subway uses significantly.
 
Proper station design costs very, very little in the scheme of things, provided you don't go too far off of the basic station design formula. (which the Spadina line doesn't) The vast majority of costs on the lines goes into the digging and the physical infrastructure, tracks, trains, electrical substations, etc. the cost of Marble rather than ceramic tile or a ceiling vs. an open space allowing natural light down to platform level is a drop in the bucket.
 
With this Spadina extension the subway system in Toronto is beginning to look more like BART and less like NYC - is it a subway or commuter rail?
 
p5connex said:
Worse design? Seriously? Respectfully, I think I have to disagree. I love the NYC subway and would be happy to have even a third of their system, in the same or even worse condition that is in today. While we are laughably busy building 6 Taj Mahal stations, they have a massive system, that while dirty and maybe somewhat challenged in some places, is exceptional and is still growing continually, year by year. Furthermore, the 6 stations we have finally started to build, took a decade to finally get in the ground. Sad that the even the idea of transit is such a political hotcake here, that we discuss and debate minor items to death. No wonder people have lost interest in what happens here - as the outcome is painfully and constantly the same - nothing. To bring the point back to design. I can appreciate the aspect of design being important, and I am one of the first to agree, that the design of our system is important, but it is not a priority when the priority is to get the system to connect to more people. It is my humble opinion, that we work on building our system out, have a basic design, that satisfies on the simplest level and build, build, build till we get a well connected system. Span the city, and reach as many areas as we can. Once we have really begun connecting the city together, should we start to worry about designing Taj Mahal stations. It is key that we focus on making transit available and accessible to everyone, and let's put these trumped up designs on hold till we can actually boast a system worthy of such stations.
Click to expand...

Strongly agree with a lot of what you said. The cost of each station in this expansion is simply outrageous and is a worse mistake than the Sheppard Line. We've got a subway going to a Walmart and Futureshop. It doesn't reach Vaughan Mills, it doesn't reach Wonderland, the benefit ends at York U. And it's no argument to say that the TTCs most profitable stations have nothing more than a few staircase entrances like the ones people have posted to the last page, no expansive glass atria and fields of grass.

I am no expert in construction costs or anything and maybe insertnamehere is right, the cost of these physical infrastructure features are a small percentage of the total station cost. However, I still feel that design's most important aspect is functionality. The slanted walls of Steeles West and the grass roofs of Downsview Park stations are the last things that should be considered, and only with a surplus budget that can't be used towards a further expansion. It's just a waste.
 
Last edited:
You could build all of 200 meters of subway with the money saved from doing the stations "on the cheap" like Sheppard. Green roofs cost nothing. You could argue whether or not the extension makes sense, but the project cost would go from $2.6 billion to $2.5 billion with crappy station designs. I would much prefer to have an inviting space that encourages ridership than a crappy space that feels grimy and cheap a decade later like Sheppard does.
 
The stations are the scenery of the underground. They're the civic spaces where hundreds of thousands of people spend time in and pass through every day. A trivial increase in the budget to make them interesting spaces makes sense.
 
Okay, big update. Lots of new renderings and some commentary in a front page story here, and elevations, etc, in the updated dataBase file linked above.

42
 
I love the colonnade concept. Is 210 Dundas supposed to undergo a facadectomy as part of this proposal? I don't like how it's otherwise integrated into the design. The eastern portion of the glass tower should really step back from the heritage building more.
 
The DRP feel that the condo tower is too big (as they do for 480 as well): they'd rather see smaller floor plates. That would allow for a step back. I agree that's needed. I think the whole tower needs another rethink, actually. On this particular Avenue, I'd like to see a little more symmetry, to go with University's formal character, and I'd like to see the neighbouring old Shell building at 505 University (one of my favourites in this city) referenced in 481 University's tower through proportions or rooftop expression - something. I don't mind the glass box on principle, but this one is not working for me yet.

The ground level colonnade is going to be a game-changer for this intersection, definitely elevating it. Here's hoping the next iteration of the design also responds to the DRP's concerns of improving the subway station access through the building.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The DRP feel that the condo tower is too big (as they do for 480 as well): they'd rather see smaller floor plates. That would allow for a step back. I agree that's needed. I think the whole tower needs another rethink, actually. On this particular Avenue, I'd like to see a little more symmetry, to go with University's formal character, and I'd like to see the neighbouring old Shell building at 505 University (one of my favourites in this city) referenced in 481 University's tower through proportions or rooftop expression - something. I don't mind the glass box on principle, but this one is not working for me yet.

The ground level colonnade is going to be a game-changer for this intersection, definitely elevating it. Here's hoping the next iteration of the design also responds to the DRP's concerns of improving the subway station access through the building.

42
Click to expand...

Well put i42. Agreed.
 
The tower sucks, the definition of banal, boring nothing that Toronto has perfected.

However the street level is fantastic. That will do wonders to that corner.
 
interchange42 said:
On this particular Avenue, I'd like to see a little more symmetry, to go with University's formal character, and I'd like to see the neighbouring old Shell building at 505 University (one of my favourites in this city) referenced in 481 University's tower through proportions or rooftop expression - something. I don't mind the glass box on principle, but this one is not working for me yet.
Click to expand...

While there is something to be admired about the austerity of the old Shell Building, its rather expressionless. Not sure how you would envision 481's tower responding to it. The last thing University Avenue needs is more austerity in their designs. Some ornamentation and slight flare would go a long way to help celebrate the streetscape rather than just respecting it.

at streetlevel 481 is definitely winner but up top banality must make way for inspiration.
 
See, I think 505 University is inspired! I do realize that's it's not everyone's idea of beautiful though, and I'm not suggesting that it be copied per se, but I think inspiration can be found in it.

42
 
An acknowledgement of the window pattern of the base, would go a long way in making the tower less banal.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top