The small building that was fenced off beside the hub, on the west side, has been demoed...

20260214_110615.jpg
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
^Since Doug has got his name all over this though, it's fair game. And relevant to this discussion here...

...I mean how else do you explain that this went from our Hauptbahnhof to a Walmart entrance? It's the same thing with Ontario Place and OSC.
Click to expand...
Preach. I've adopted the attitude of (sigh... well at least some rapid transit it being built which is the important part) but it's undeniable that this is a DoFo legacy project and the underwhelming station design is 100% tied to that. We're going to be embarrassed if/when the Unilever site development is done and its associated station looks cheap and utilitarian.

At least Exhibition looks like it'll be good.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
^Since Doug has got his name all over this though, it's fair game. And relevant to this discussion here...

...I mean how else do you explain that this went from our Hauptbahnhof to a Walmart entrance? It's the same thing with Ontario Place and OSC.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that it has anything personally to do with Doug himself, more that it's about which government agency is delivering it. Every OL station except for East Harbour is being delivered by Metrolinx, which we all know is a deeply flawed agency, but is public facing and cares what people think about them and to some extent, is made up of people who care about transit, more or less.

East Harbour Station on the other hand is a product of Infrastructure Ontario. Who have taken Metrolinx's requirements and found the cheapest way to implement the Minimum Viable Product. Because that's what their job is. Infrastructure Ontario doesn't care if it is a good transit station, they aren't a transit agency. They have one job, build things cheap. Which is why Exhibition Station is planned as a grand train station while East Harbour has less design elements than your average Walmart.

I think there was a Star article a couple years ago that Infrastructure Ontario actually is the source of a lot of our public building problems but gets a pass because they have no public presence, so no one thinks to blame them, and they use other government agencies to deflect from their failures, and I increasingly feel like that is true.

As a reminder, IO is building the TOCs over all the stations, so watch those be absolute dreck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The buck stops with Doug no matter what agency under his tenure is cutting it. Thusly I have reason to believe that the same agencies under a different government would likely approach this differently…

…but I guess the only way to tell is voting in a different government. And I will eat a hat and a pigtail if my speculation will be proven to be wrong then. >.<
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
The buck stops with Doug no matter what agency under his tenure is cutting it. Thusly I have reason to believe that the same agencies under a different government would likely approach this differently…

…but I guess the only way to tell is voting in a different government. And I will eat a hat and a pigtail if my speculation will be proven to be wrong then. >.<
Click to expand...
I'm sorry...is this thread about a subway line/GO interchange...or a politician you don't like and didn't vote for?
 
I mean if folks don't like me giving credit where it's due here they can always put me on /ignore instead of finger wagging with a such ridiculous dichotomies...
 
It's not a question where one likes Doug or his governing party or not. Or how much of the approval comes from Metrolinx...

...rather it's about the original vision for this project was that does not match the vision we're being currently offered. The question becomes why? And how we as citizens/consumers can try to right the vision back to where it was. And yes this involves getting into the politics of it fortunately or unfortunately.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
It's not a question where one likes Doug or his governing party or not. Or how much of the approval comes from Metrolinx...

...rather it's about the original vision for this project was that does not match the vision we're being currently offered. The question becomes why? And how we as citizens/consumers can try to right the vision back to where it was. And yes this involves getting into the politics of it fortunately or unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Seems to be a question with every post. The original proposed subway was about a 1/3rd of the length what it is going to be. Now...a massive neighborhood of lower income families will have access to rapid transit. Lofty drawings and renditions are a thing with every proposal from governments at all levels to the private sector...be they buildings, airports, subways LRTs, high speed rail...the list is endless. We will have a subway. The people using it will not give a fuck if there is a nice looking entrance to a station. It will be functional...and it will fill a gap in the system that governments literally decades back could not get their shit together and build.
 
There is an argument to be made of whether something functionalist serves communities better over something spectacular, but I am less convinced even in this discourse that folks from all walks using this in the eventuality won't give a shite about it...

I can agree though that selling it with something spectacular that they where never going to build like that should of never been presented in the first place. If the public is hungering for a relief line it doesn't need sexed up renderings to put that over, IMO.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
There is an argument to be made of whether something functionalist serves communities better over something spectacular, but I am less convinced even in this discourse that folks from all walks using this in the eventuality won't give a shite about it...

I can agree though that selling it with something spectacular that they where never going to build like that should of never been presented in the first place. If the public is hungering for a relief line it doesn't need sexed up renderings to put that over, IMO.
Click to expand...

It’s a pretty obvious gradient to me: something functional and spectacular > something functional > something spectacular > nothing at all.

But I also think we tend to underestimate the intangible effects of beautiful spaces and thoughtful design. I definitely believe our whole society would be in a better mood if our common spaces were more spectacular.
 
I got an answer from Metrolinx. "The design of East Harbour station is preliminary".

While that's a relief, how can it be preliminary if it's currently under construction?? Well, I guess I can ask my follow up question now and will hear back in a few months. 🥴

The Community Liaisons are a façade, they don't answer questions they don't want to answer. I've been asking for engineering drawings or at least an up-to-date rendering for Queen Station for over a year now and they either ignore me or answer with platitudes. To think that they haven't decided on the station design at this stage where it's under construction is crazy to me.

Well, I guess we can dream for something a little nicer for such a key transit hub than what we've seen in the released renderings.
 
Why on earth would you expect them to provide you with engineering drawings???
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top