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

jwill said:
Engineers will make sure the exits are sized properly for expected flows, but an architect can find ways to improve on this very basic level of design. Its their job to create efficient, comfortable and legible circulation routes in a building.
Click to expand...
Having seen the travesty of space inside the new extension of the ROM, I'm not sure that efficient, comfortable, or circulation routes are what they specialize in; it's a shame they didn't get a good engineer to make it work (and what idiot puts the fabric displays in the top of a pyramid, where all the light comes in, forcing them to block all the windows ... sorry, pet peeve ... I've never seen such a museum not put costumes and fabrics in a basement section before ... but that's the curators ...)
 
The ROM Crystal is precisely the sort of logical and practical solution a good architect will come up with. It replaced a 1980s building that prevented the passage of museum visitors between the east and west heritage wings on the second and third floors - envisioned in the original expansion plan - by blocking the space between them. Though the Crystal addition is different in form from those earlier wings, the exhibit display system is a common element that ties them together; with Union Station it ought to be possible to design contemporary retail and train concourse levels in such a way that they're also tied legibly to Lyle's Great Hall, with all three levels feeling as if they're a part of the whole.
 
Oh come on ... the space inside the Crystal is horrible. The building is interesting enough (though the finish seems mundane ... it was far more interesting from the outside when it was still structural steel!). But the usable space inside? The actual volume of space provided seems small compared to the building. And much of the new space is taken up by the exhibition hall in the basement (which works reasonably) and the new entrance hall (which while spacious, has some major problems ... the lack of a washroom for example ... last time I was there, I needed to change a baby before putting on winter clothes an hour before the store closed, but as they were shooing everyone out of the galleries; and they said what I needed to do was walk across the street and use the bathroom in the McDonald's across the street!). Not necessarily the architects fault, but typical of the design failings of the extension.

An interesting experiment, but as usuable gallery space, it seems a complete fail to me; and I'm sure that a dozen Toronto-based architects could have provided something better. In comparison the new entrance hall at the Louvre is a wonderful use of space, that closed quadrangle at the British Museum is magnificent, the new British Library is wonderful space, and the AGO extension is light-years ahead. Even the new opera hall at Queen/University is some great space inside ... though the outside is pretty dull.

Sacrificing usable space for fantastic visuals isn't necessary.
 
nfitz said:
I'm not even aware what renovations have been done downtown apart from the Bloor platforms at Yonge-Bloor ... I can't imagine one is going to call an architect to paint!

As for the creativity in the suburbs ... surely this is because there hasn't been a completely new downtown station designed since the early 1960s, unless you count Dupont, the only 6 new stations in the last quarter-century have all been in North York; so it's more a function of age than anything else.
Click to expand...

Almost every downtown station once had Vitrolite walls, which were renovated at some point. The walls where reclad, but those were opportunities to do more with the stations rather than merely choosing some new tiles. (The new tiles weren't that great either, i.e. Dundas' hard yellow or the faux stone tiles at several Yonge line stations).

Bloor, the busiest station was renovated to look attractive but hardly sophisticated. I'm guessing Union's interior design will be comparable except with some art.

Museum is as close to that "total transformation" as we've gotten so far, done by Diamond and Schmitt. It could have been quite sophisticated. The new metal mesh ceiling panels in the renderings looked promising, but that was before the cheapening. It's much different today and arguable much more interesting despite the cheapening. However, there's still a lot more that can be done with the average downtown station without demolishing it and getting Norman Foster on the job.
 
So you are suggesting that rather than simply replacing some tiles, we should have instead hired architects, and spent $100s of millions blowing out walls? And although perhaps some of the spaces in the Yonge stations deserve exactly that, is that the best use of money?
 
nfitz said:
So you are suggesting that rather than simply replacing some tiles, we should have instead hired architects, and spent $100s of millions blowing out walls? And although perhaps some of the spaces in the Yonge stations deserve exactly that, is that the best use of money?
Click to expand...

If you think that what I'm suggesting costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars, then I think you're clueless. Or you misread my comment when I said "without demolishing".
 
junctionist said:
If you think that what I'm suggesting costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars, then I think you're clueless. Or you misread my comment when I said "without demolishing".
Click to expand...
Yes ... but if your not demolishing anything, and just changing tiles and paint, then what do you need an architect for?
 
Just popping in.....to add a few details

Major Station Reno's always get architects these days (Vic, Park, Pape, Dufferin all have'em)

That is in part because most renos will involves a lot more than paint and tile; for instance, adding second exits, elevators, new windows (Vic Park), completely new bus platforms and canopies (Vic Park/Pape) and/or new sheltered areas/canopies for street-level buses (Dufferin).

Adding art+design is also a requirement now.

The Yonge Stations will get some attention in the next while, though how much depends on DRL and other project choices. The University Line 'Renaissance' project which did Museum will work on another station, either Osgoode or St. Pats in the next year or so.

But the next one to look at will be Woodbine, as it has moved ahead of Yonge-Bloor in the pecking order for 'modernization' as that station is delayed while they figure out the DRL and other complicating issues.

There will be integrated public art, and a second exit and elevators amongst other changes there.

I don't think the Yonge line stations (south of Bloor) will get wholesale new tile in the next while, but they may, when elevator and exit work comes up.

Wellesley is likely first on that list, but College will get work as soon as Aura goes ahead; and Dundas when Ryerson's new building goes ahead.

Oh...

On the subject of budgets.

Station Reno's under the modernization program are around 30-50M depending on the station.

Museum was done for 5M, and its unfortunate that they didn't combine that with second exit and elevator work as they might have been able to leverage money to do a more complete job.
 
nfitz said:
Yes ... but if your not demolishing anything, and just changing tiles and paint, then what do you need an architect for?
Click to expand...

Walls don't have to be merely clad with some tiles, they can be almost abstract murals, with different materials perhaps brick, multicoloured panels and perhaps unpainted metal arranged in patterns with strategic lighting. The architects can implement custom seating for the stations (continuing the 1978 idea seen at Dupont and Glencairn). I feel that there are architects out there more competent at seeking out unique lighting design as well, because on the Spadina line one can see a variety of custom elements like Dupont's circular lights or Eglinton West's 'metal cube' lighting.

All in all there are subtle aspects of the interior design of stations which can give existing stations a more cohesive and sophisticated look.
 
junctionist said:
All in all there are subtle aspects of the interior design of stations which can give existing stations a more cohesive and sophisticated look.
Click to expand...
And these all sound like worthy things to do ... but wouldn't an interior designer make more sense than an architect?
 
nfitz said:
And these all sound like worthy things to do ... but wouldn't an interior designer make more sense than an architect?
Click to expand...

Not at all...unless Union Station is to be filled with throw cushions and bowls of apples.

It's an important public space, not a living room or a new mall wing.
 
nfitz said:
Funny ... I thought a new mall wing would be quite comparable ... a large public space. Though if it's new ... that's surely when you DO want to bring in an architect
Click to expand...

If it was a new mall wing, we could get away with letting accountants and engineers and subcontractors and interior designers dictate what happens. But we don't want Vaughan Mills or PATHesque chaos underneath Union Station.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top