[syn]

Why is that important for tho, ppl are in the station for like 5-15minutes the most, do we really need everything to be opulent in order to get to your destination.

To me the most important thing are clean light and airy and easily replaceable

A clear indication the bar has fallen is that we consider the TYSSE stations 'opulent'. They should be the norm.

I don't mean that every single station needs to be large in size, but there should be a real investment in the public realm - especially for stations on the Ontario Line.

People are rarely in any given public area for a significant amount of time, yet I still believe a beautiful public realm has real impact and value.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

A clear indication the bar has fallen is that we consider the TYSSE stations 'opulent'. They should be the norm.

I don't mean that every single station needs to be large in size, but there should be a real investment in the public realm - especially for stations on the Ontario Line.

The sin of the TYSSE's design was the station depth and size. The architecture itself was very minor cost in comparison. Financials are no excuse to skimp on architectural design. We can afford nice stations with an $11 Billion budget.

If we must quantify the benefits of excellence in architecture for fiscal hawks, people are undoubtedly more likely to travel to places that feature great architecture. Nobody has ever said, "I want to travel to NYC to see [the butt ugly] Penn Station", yet Grand Central has millions of tourist visits annually. Architecture matters.

 

[Ciarlandini]

I'm a little disappointed that the TTC didn't continue the subway station tiling stile that we saw on line one between Sheppard West and Finch and Line 2. Would have been a nice touch to continue, although a little bit too pricy. At least in the Oakwood photos you could see something similar.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't really get what most of the complaints about the ECLRT station architecture are for - beyond personal aesthetic preferences. If there are something to complain about, it would be the quality of exposed concrete work at the track level - like TYSSE, they just aren't all that great, and will probably age badly.

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I don't really get what most of the complaints about the ECLRT station architecture are for - beyond personal aesthetic preferences. If there are something to complain about, it would be the quality of exposed concrete work at the track level - like TYSSE, they just aren't all that great, and will probably age badly.

AoD

The architecture isn't bad. It's just "okay". Medicore. Functional. Good, but not great. Quintessential Toronto. This might be acceptable for a midtown line, but we should strive for better with the Ontario Line. We have more than enough architectural mediocrity in this city as is.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The architecture isn't bad. It's just "okay". Medicore. Functional. Good, but not great. Quintessential Toronto. This might be acceptable for a midtown line, but we should strive for better with the Ontario Line. We have more than enough architectural mediocrity in this city as is.

I don't mind the neutrality of the architecture - and I rather have that than proposals that overpromise and end up being compromised in quality (TYSSE, I am looking at you). If you aren't willing to back up exemplar design with exemplar execution, go for the competent instead.

AoD

 

[innsertnamehere]

The architecture isn't bad. It's just "okay". Medicore. Functional. Good, but not great. Quintessential Toronto. This might be acceptable for a midtown line, but we should strive for better with the Ontario Line. We have more than enough architectural mediocrity in this city as is.

I'm fine with it. Subway stations don't need to be palaces. Simple, attractive, functional is fine. And that is exactly what Metrolinx is aiming for here. TYSSE was over the top, the palatial style of design, and it comes across as farcicial and overkill for it's purpose.

The Crosstown is a vast improvement over the last "functional" transit line that was constructed, the Sheppard line, which looks like designed by engineers (and honestly probably was).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It's amazing how much of an impact the green tracks have had on the public realm on Eglinton East. The areas with the green track instantly feel more lively and vibrant. And it'll only get better as the parking lots are replaced by higher density developments. Give it another decade or so, and it'll be hard to believe that these sections of Eglinton East were once a concrete wasteland. Just goes to show how small investments can yield huge public realm improvements.

This treatment should be the default for all LRT projects in the city. The 510 Spadina, 509 Harbourfront and 511 Bathurst should be next in line to get green tracks. It's unfortunate that it wasn't planned for FWLRT as well.

Hopefully emergency services will be less hesitant to support the green tracks once they see that the sky hasn't fallen on Eglinton.

 

[asher__jo]

The architecture isn't bad. It's just "okay". Medicore. Functional. Good, but not great. Quintessential Toronto. This might be acceptable for a midtown line, but we should strive for better with the Ontario Line. We have more than enough architectural mediocrity in this city as is.

Which is think is generally fine, especially if stations are built over eventually.

 

[nfitz]

Which is think is generally fine, especially if stations are built over eventually.

I'd think the main issue would be like Bloor-Danforth - that the architecture is the same in every station. But I say that without having seen it of course.

 

[crs1026]

I find the interior shots of the stations - particularly the mined stations - quite interesting. They appear to have high ceilings and therefore appear quite spacious. Hard to tell how their rough surfaces will look with some aging, but it’s an appealing look. As to the white square boxes on top - easily forgettable, which is not bad for something that has to last for many decades. Won’t be my problem if they look dated in 50 years.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

I'm fine with it. Subway stations don't need to be palaces.

We're short of publicly accessible palaces in Toronto though............ just sayin...

Simple, attractive, functional is fine. And that is exactly what Metrolinx is aiming for here.

Attractive is key........that includes, in my mind, distinctive designs from one station to the next. I'm not suggesting un-due elaboration, I really like St. Clair West; I also like Glencairn alot. I wouldn't consider either 'palaces' but they're both nice, well done, and unique.

TYSSE was over the top, the palatial style of design, and it comes across as farcicial and overkill for it's purpose.

The ceilings are too high in spots, but the stations are actually under invested in when it comes to finishes. The bare trackside walls look terrible; and there are sections of missing ceiling finishes that appear to absent only as a cost-savings, not for any functional reason.

... the Sheppard line, which looks like designed by engineers (and honestly probably was).

Sheppard had its finishes budget slashed. The money was taken from ceilings, lights, and trackside walls, as well as the flooring budget.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm fine with it. Subway stations don't need to be palaces. Simple, attractive, functional is fine.

I don't disagree. But the problem is that this line of thinking has been used for literally every major civics works project in this city. At some point we should strive for more; something beyond the mediocre. Ontario Line is as good as opportunity as we'll get to start building great things.

 

[Coolstar]

These stations would look beautiful on the OL if the stations end up looking like these. From Metrolinx's Subway design standards pdf.

 

[44 North]

The plain tile design of BD is pretty good and often underappreciated. What destroys it is a) bad colour scheme, b) bad lighting. Off-blue with off-blue lighting. And dirt. *shudders*. The peachy colours tho, with the maroon trims, I quite like.