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

Love that clock.. it's so classy. You can't go wrong with that.

interchange42 said:
It's the sculpture that is of secondary importance to me. It's not exactly elegant, and that won't be improved upon with its new neighbour, but I think the clock, being black, actually gives it a little more context.

42
Click to expand...

I think the problem with the sculpture is the clumsy pedestal.
 
The pedestal is clumsy, but I really like the sculpture itself. It shows man ascending higher than even birds can fly, bringing--or holding--the world together, making it complete.

It's a pretty badass image.
 
Miscreant said:
The pedestal is clumsy, but I really like the sculpture itself. It shows man ascending higher than even birds can fly, bringing--or holding--the world together, making it complete.

It's a pretty badass image.
Click to expand...
It's also a copy of a monument given to Sarajevo. Exact replica also given by the Italian gov.
 
mdrejhon said:
At this rate, they are definitely going to be gone by July 10, and probably much sooner.

I commute through here everyday, and it's a big relief to see the Bay+Front intersection become far more pedestrian friendly. Now there's 40 to 50 feet of road-crossing width where there was only 6 feet of width. What remains in fencing appears to be actively worked on (concrete under brick and tiles) and I see rapid progress in the remaining part of the sidewalks now. All the Union scaffolding on the Bay side is gone now, and if construction materials disappearance continues at this pace, the exterior construction stuff will be gone by early July.

I think we'll be fine on that front (pun intended).
Click to expand...

I decided to bike westbound this morning along Front to check it out now that two-way traffic has returned. The width allows vehicles to pull over pretty easily (which I guess explains the presence of sharrows) but I'm wondering if Front between Bay and Yonge is going to be fixed up any time soon. I realize it's not part of the Union project, but it's looking a little rough by comparison.
 
Clock faces now installed.

Hope you like it! Looking forward to gentle warm-illumination being activated

image.jpg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 1,162
Meanwhile, the white sign monolith in the background is obnoxiously bright especially on rainy night.

MarkRejhonUnion.jpg

I've successfully started a twitter conversation with the stakeholders, I think.

https://twitter.com/mdrejhon/status/613160912476860417

As an amateur photographer, my recmmendation is a 50%-75% dimming (gray tinted tube protectors, so it's much more subdued) -- perhaps similiar in brightness to planned gentle clock backlighting. I've suggested tube-dimmer sleeves. Neutral density fluorescent tube protection sleeves can reduce light by 2 F-Stops, 3 F-Stops or 4 F-Stops, and would be a very cheap retrofit.

It would make for more kick-ass night photography of Union Station; they would prefer good photos on Social Media. Hope they follow my suggestion.

Tube Sleeve 209 is 51% light transmission (half brightness)
Tube Sleeve 210 is 24% light transmission (quarter brightness)
Tube Sleeve 211 is 14% light transmission (eighth brightness)

It could be combined with Sleeve 206, to convert fluorescent (6500K) to warmer tungesten-look (4600K) which is more compatible with Union Station heritage look. Warm incandescent look from fluorescent tubes, perhaps combined with Sleeve 209 or 210. There might be a single sleeve that combines both simultaneously.

Professional photographers (and amateurs like me) who want to take nighttime photos of Union with an SLR camera, will agree to how big a problem the current overbright signage monolith will be at night, especially on reflective wet sidewalks.

MarkRejhonUnion.jpg


Observe that the bright sign in the background overexposes, including the reflection on wet sidewalks.

Union Station night photos, that include the bright signage, will look bad on social media due to the glare. This photo was not with an SLR, but with an iPhone (the best camera is the only camera I already was carrying at the time...) but the same glareout problem also happens with professional SLRs.

The excess monoligth brightness overexposes photography, and overwhelms the heritage elements elsewhere in the photo.

Provisionally, as amateur SLR photographer, I recommend either Fluorescent Tube Sleeve #209 (ND, 50% light) or #210 (ND, 25% light) combined with #206 (warmer Tungesten color temperature). Or skip #206 by utilizing warmer tubes instead, but use #209 or #210 for dimming. Each monolith has 8 tubes per side, and there are two monoliths, so that's 32 tube sleeves of each, plus spares. Very cheap retrofit that would make the white sign monolith more heritage compatible. Include polycarbonate sleeves too, for weatherproofing and protecting the filter. They are also UV resistant, so suitable for outdoor installation when configured accordingly. Several manufacturers, including LEE Filter, makes these fluorescent tube filters in several different lengths, including the exact length of standard tube used in the overbright monoliths.

I understand a compromise for wayfinding is needed between "bright enough" versus "too bright". However, it is currently definitely "too bright" both for people and for successful photography. When experimenting with multiple sleeves, test using a camera too at nighttime. I think the 25% (#210) sleeve would be "just right" especially when combined with a color-temperature-warming sleeve (#204, #205 or #206) to make the color more heritage-like but if this is too dim, then the 50% (#209) would be a compromise even though it will probably still overexpose many night photos.

Feel free to vet this post through a different professional (e.g. news photographer), I hereby claim this post as public domain, and give up all rights to this specific post, for the public good.

EDIT: My recommendation has been forwarded to the Union Revitalization Manager.
 

Attachments

  • MarkRejhonUnion.jpg
    MarkRejhonUnion.jpg
    57.9 KB · Views: 1,287
Last edited:
Another vantage -- very poor iPhone photo from iPhone, when I was rushing to a late GOtrain and some rain fell on the lens. But it is relevant to how excessively bright the two signage monoliths are at nighttime.

CN tower and station looks great but the brightness of monoliths ruin the night photos.

image.jpg

(Badly taken iPhone photo, taken while rushing to a nighttime Lakeshore West GOTrain -- but demonstrates how the brightness of the sign monoliths overwhelms the CN tower and the station building).

I'll need to bring the SLR next time, and grab better night photos. But you get what I mean by the new signs (TTC, etc) being too bright for night photography.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    817.1 KB · Views: 1,121
Last edited:
picard102 said:
Not sure night photography is on the list of things they're concerned with when erecting wayfinding signage.
Click to expand...
Actually -- not just camera. I said it is also too bright for in-person too as well. When your eyes are adjusted at night from walking in the not-as-brightly-illuminated nearby areas, the signs are a bit dazzling in comparison. And some peoples' eyes are more sensitive, you know.

None of the nearby streets are as brightly lit as Yonge Street, and this is the only bright light source (except for car headlights -- the total lumen output of the sign is almost as bright as a car headlight!). Headlights are not painful to stare at during daytime, but they are painful to look at at nighttime, especially when your eyes are adjusted to the dark -- especially if you're walking past nearby heritage buildings, or just came back from touring the new Queens Quay on a nice nighttime walk.

For the first time in a while, the front of Union walkin between Royal York and Union, with the majority of construction barrier finally gone, it finally feels like we're walking over a very short short distance of Old Montreal or even something European, and the only thing on the street that aesthetically detracts from a nighttime walk, from this feel, is this sign.

When there's more late-night service (e.g. GO RER, Union mall open), it will become more of an aesthetic priority especially in a touristy area that has more subdued ambient lighting.

It does detract from the heritage value of the area, with the beautiful station facade and beautiful stonework, plus the beautiful iron clock. Cities with heritage districts actually have an ordinance about maximum signage illumination during specific city blocks.

Front between Bay and York is almost 100% heritage look, and this is out-of-character visually even without a camera. Toronto's been historically poor with heritage, and this is a good opportunity to make sure that just a mere one city block is done right, with a very minor inexpensive tweak. The signs don't need to be replaced, but the fluorescent backlighting adjusted.

The fix is so cheap, that a single person like me can donate the funds (including the employee hourly rate necessary). Easily achieved via plastic tube filters costing a few dollars apiece. It's a very low-lying-apple in an aesthetic-effectiveness-versus-dollar metric, as well as the cost-of-fix metric.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what this \"Toronto\" branded pole will be but they just plopped two down in the square. They\'re wired so they might be spotlights.

The restored clock looks beautiful but I can\'t help but wonder about its placement. It\'s very awkwardly put up against the multiculturism statue leaving a narrow space in between. It makes no sense at all. And yes, the podium of the statue is gross and looks out of place in the resorted plaza.

48893


48894
 
This info pole might be what will go on those Toronto branded bases. There's an LED dot matrix screen on all sides. Could be useful for basic symbols like arrows but it's not high res enough for written directions.

48896
 
Filip said:
It's also a copy of a monument given to Sarajevo. Exact replica also given by the Italian gov.
Click to expand...

Interesting--I didn't know that.

But if you're implying that its origins or the fact it's a duplicate somehow compromise its quality or merit, I'm not sure I agree. I find it to be a provocative image, one worthy of duplication.
 
After a long time I went to the great hall and via concourse expecting some upgrades. I was shocked to see that no upgrades were done. My understanding was that they will be rehabilitating the great hall and the via concourse. The only pleasant surprise was the York concourse. So where did all the money go ? is there a phase 2 for the great hall ?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top