Toronto Union Station Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | NORR

With somewhere in the order of 80% of the exterior of the building remaining untouched there isn't a huge benefit to a big design firm. Digging a basement is primarily and engineering project and the design of the train shed is pretty much set to be as basic as possible. The only piece that might benefit from an architect is the canopy over the moat which could either enhance or destroy the front of the building.
 
I'd argue that the entire interior could use a good architect. The concourses are the busiest places in the city. Might as well design them well, in terms of both aesthetics and circulation.
 
jwill said:
I'd argue that the entire interior could use a good architect. The concourses are the busiest places in the city. Might as well design them well, in terms of both aesthetics and circulation.
Click to expand...

Except that they will be owned by GO and not the city's responsibility.
 
I haven't heard much about the TTC's Union Station project's design which deserves the input of a good architect. Last rendering I saw had the renovated platform with some blank white walls.
 
jwill said:
From what I've seen of all the Union Station projects there is a lack of good architecture. Possible exception is the new shed.
Click to expand...

The "good architecture" that matters was provided by John Lyle, Ross & Macdonald, etc 90 odd years ago.
 
jwill said:
From what I've seen of all the Union Station projects there is a lack of good architecture.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? That's one of the few truly grand buildings that we have in TO. I am praying that the train shed doesn't mess up all that Union station has going for it.
 
EnviroTO said:
With somewhere in the order of 80% of the exterior of the building remaining untouched there isn't a huge benefit to a big design firm. Digging a basement is primarily and engineering project and the design of the train shed is pretty much set to be as basic as possible. The only piece that might benefit from an architect is the canopy over the moat which could either enhance or destroy the front of the building.
Click to expand...

if the canopy over the moat can be used for walking, it wouldn't be such a bad idea. It will increase the pedestrian sidewalk width which will be a plus. If we expect an increase in pedestrian traffic at Union station, we definitely need wider sidewalks otherwise they will spill onto the street.
 
junctionist said:
The person said "projects", implying the contemporary plans. Renderings have been previously released for a variety of newly designed areas.
Click to expand...
True, but I very much get the sense that those renderings were intended to get a sense of the layout of the spaces rather than the appearance. We'll see, though.
 
Yes, obviously I was referring to the new mostly internal projects, which do nothing to enhance the grandeur of the original building.

I agree, its early to judge the renderings and plans as we've seen them. But I am concerned that we're going to end up with a generic basement shopping mall in what should be a proud and distinctive civic building.
 
Of all the concourses in the city, the one under Union Station is the poorest designed, considering the complex uses that it accommodates. If ever wayfinding fails passengers it is there - garish and competing signage systems, poor orientation to the building as a whole, and failure to make the travel sequence the passenger must negotiate - from buying tickets to reaching the platforms - as logical as possible through the location of services and access routes. It's a hell unto itself, with no design link to Lyle's Great Hall above either, when what's needed is simplicity and clarity.

The new basement pedestrian retail level will obviously be less complicated functionally, but let's hope it relates to what's above - the GO and VIA concourses, the Great Hall - in its design as effectively as the best of our underground concourses ( still the TD Centre, I believe ... ) does in reminding us of where we are and feeling a part of the whole.
 
AKS said:
if the canopy over the moat can be used for walking, it wouldn't be such a bad idea. It will increase the pedestrian sidewalk width which will be a plus. If we expect an increase in pedestrian traffic at Union station, we definitely need wider sidewalks otherwise they will spill onto the street.
Click to expand...

Covering over the whole moat wouldn't really be protecting the original design. The plan is to take over more of the street and to calm traffic. Renderings show the street being indistinguishable from the sidewalk except for bollards holding in the traffic and the middle island removed.
 
DavidH said:
Except that they will be owned by GO and not the city's responsibility.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

The trainshed is legally the property of Toronto Terminals Railway, a fully-owned subsidiary of Metrolinx (and formerly a fully-owned subsidiary of GO). The design of the glass "atrium" replacing the central section of the trainshed roof was a GO decision, as was the green roof on the remainder. It's paying for the entire thing itself, and theoretically the new glass box on stilts could have gone ahead without the reno of the station itself.

The spaces underneath the trainshed and the station building proper is the property of the City of Toronto. Metrolinx, in turn, pays to lease the GO concourse space from the City and will pay more to lease office space there as well. As the anchor tenant I imagine they will have more say over how the concourses get redone than the mmmmmuffins will have over their space, but the ownership remains with the City.

In any event, from an interior design/human circulation standpoint, the layout of the concourses has been nailed down already. There are some pretty cool computer simulations to be found buried somewhere on the City of Toronto's pages. In terms of finishes, I don't know who will be making the call.
 
Platform 27 said:
The spaces underneath the trainshed and the station building proper is the property of the City of Toronto. Metrolinx, in turn, pays to lease the GO concourse space from the City and will pay more to lease office space there as well. As the anchor tenant I imagine they will have more say over how the concourses get redone than the mmmmmuffins will have over their space, but the ownership remains with the City.
Click to expand...
GO (now Metrolinx) has a deal with the City to buy the strata rights for the two new GO concourses, along with space for the new GO head office (there I will not write Metrolinx because it is unclear whether any of the Metrolinx regional planning sections will move to Union). While this is not yet in effect, the City will obviously plan on the assumption of the closure of the deal, and so design for GO's spaces (not structural design), but visual design will be GO's responsibiility.
 
:cool:
adma said:
The "good architecture" that matters was provided by John Lyle, Ross & Macdonald, etc 90 odd years ago.
Click to expand...

Not to the areas that now see the most traffic. Lyle and Ross & Macdonald designed those spaces to be purely utility spaces inaccessible to the public. They were converted to passenger concourses without any concern about the role they played within the Union Station ensemble. Unfortunately the recent plans I've seen to build Vaughan Mills in the basement don't really remedy that situation.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top