I think Edmonton would do well to light up surrounding buildings. The Chamber/World Trade Centre has done well. TD could light up their tower like ATB, City Centre Mall could light up the 100 Street Wall (and other walls) as construction progresses.
 
Let’s not get all worked up just yet - the last few images are the view from the old section of the station - a section that we all know wasn’t going to be remodelled and that isn’t even part of the valley line project. The blue wall is temporary - the new parts are behind it. It’s still under construction. It still needs to be finished.

Could the new connector have been a more daring and bold architectural statement? Possibly.
Did they have existing [dated] infrastructure design they had to integrate and transition into? Yes.
Does the new connector design tie into the existing station/area aesthetic, whether we think it’s ugly or not? Yes.
Is seafoam spandrel glass ever a good choice? Hell no.

Regardless of personal preference on the design of the new connector building, I think it’s important to recognize the improvement and benefits this will bring to the area as well as the considerations that went into the design. I personally think the new building compliments and fits into its surroundings quite well, especially since we already have at least 3 structures with polarizing architecture close by.

Contemporary design doesn’t always have to be a bold, loud statement. Sometimes the best architecture is architecture that seamlessly blends into it’s surroundings, building up the overall established neighbourhood aesthetic without begging loudly for attention.

That’s my 2 cents!
 
occidentalcapital said:
e the most overlooked part of this project. As mentioned here before, it is like no one realized this is the only station with 3 lines and is now the central hub of the system. From the pictures, it has fallen very short of what was needed in this location, especially underground.
Click to expand...
tbjarnason said:
Let’s not get all worked up just yet - the last few images are the view from the old section of the station - a section that we all know wasn’t going to be remodelled and that isn’t even part of the valley line project. The blue wall is temporary - the new parts are behind it. It’s still under construction. It still needs to be finished.

Could the new connector have been a more daring and bold architectural statement? Possibly.
Did they have existing [dated] infrastructure design they had to integrate and transition into? Yes.
Does the new connector design tie into the existing station/area aesthetic, whether we think it’s ugly or not? Yes.
Is seafoam spandrel glass ever a good choice? Hell no.

Regardless of personal preference on the design of the new connector building, I think it’s important to recognize the improvement and benefits this will bring to the area as well as the considerations that went into the design. I personally think the new building compliments and fits into its surroundings quite well, especially since we already have at least 3 structures with polarizing architecture close by.

Contemporary design doesn’t always have to be a bold, loud statement. Sometimes the best architecture is architecture that seamlessly blends into it’s surroundings, building up the overall established neighbourhood aesthetic without begging loudly for attention.

That’s my 2 cents!
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points
 
tbjarnason said:
Let’s not get all worked up just yet - the last few images are the view from the old section of the station - a section that we all know wasn’t going to be remodelled and that isn’t even part of the valley line project. The blue wall is temporary - the new parts are behind it. It’s still under construction. It still needs to be finished.

Could the new connector have been a more daring and bold architectural statement? Possibly.
Did they have existing [dated] infrastructure design they had to integrate and transition into? Yes.
Does the new connector design tie into the existing station/area aesthetic, whether we think it’s ugly or not? Yes.
Is seafoam spandrel glass ever a good choice? Hell no.

Regardless of personal preference on the design of the new connector building, I think it’s important to recognize the improvement and benefits this will bring to the area as well as the considerations that went into the design. I personally think the new building compliments and fits into its surroundings quite well, especially since we already have at least 3 structures with polarizing architecture close by.

Contemporary design doesn’t always have to be a bold, loud statement. Sometimes the best architecture is architecture that seamlessly blends into it’s surroundings, building up the overall established neighbourhood aesthetic without begging loudly for attention.

That’s my 2 cents!
Click to expand...

I agree with this for the most part.

However, one of the things they seem to miss on is "free-flow" design for people moving. Especially Churchill, it doesn't necessarily feel open and inviting and with it soon becoming this Hub, it should "feel" more expansive and open with clear sight lines and free flow of people. I spent some time in Ottawa recently and while the stations and urban realm integration are pretty good, the actual train service has its um...issues. So maybe CoE has different priorities in this regard. Still a bit of head scratcher.
 
Pro.N said:
I agree with this for the most part.

However, one of the things they seem to miss on is "free-flow" design for people moving. Especially Churchill, it doesn't necessarily feel open and inviting and with it soon becoming this Hub, it should "feel" more expansive and open with clear sight lines and free flow of people. I spent some time in Ottawa recently and while the stations and urban realm integration are pretty good, the actual train service has its um...issues. So maybe CoE has different priorities in this regard. Still a bit of head scratcher.
Click to expand...
If you're comparing Churchill with the Ottawa stations, keep in mind the original Churchill LRT station opened in 1978 and we are retrofitting it to mesh with the Churchill Connector, so there's only so much that can be done to make the entire station have that 'free flow' design. Obviously if we had a blank slate there would be much more flexibility with the design.
 
occidentalcapital said:
Churchill connector seems to be the most overlooked part of this project. As mentioned here before, it is like no one realized this is the only station with 3 lines and is now the central hub of the system. From the pictures, it has fallen very short of what was needed in this location, especially underground.
Click to expand...
I agree. Maybe because this is sort of new to Edmonton and as you pointed out this is the only station with 3 lines, they haven't quite figured out how important that is and how to better integrate it.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if there are not some changes or adjustments within a few years of the new line starting to operate once it is realized what works and what does not.
 
I think having “LRT” in huge letters at Churchill and other locations would build the Edmonton Transit brand. Edmonton has the same honour with the LRT as the University of California (Berkeley).

Also, the Churchill Station will become a major transit hub in Edmonton.
 
Glenco said:
It’s all about branding. ETS is their brand Churchill is not.
Click to expand...
OMG! If you want a good brand image, you probably should provide good service. For ETS one important part of that service means clear and prominent signage for station names.

No one is going to ETS. A lot of people are going to Churchill Station. It is not a corporation selling toothpaste competing with another corporation selling toothpaste. There is only one Edmonton Transit System.
 
The_Cat said:
I think having “LRT” in huge letters at Churchill and other locations would build the Edmonton Transit brand. Edmonton has the same honour with the LRT as the University of California (Berkeley).

Also, the Churchill Station will become a major transit hub in Edmonton.
Click to expand...
Exactly. ETS is irrelevant - they are simply the operator. It is the Station Name/Location that is key and Churchill Stations should have been front in centre.
 
Looks well lit and there is signage above the doors entering in.

That said, perhaps they will add more signage if people complain to Transed/COE - the ETS branding is on Davies Station with Davies Station in blue lettering below. They should do something like that here or put a separate sign up next to the building like you have in Vancouver for some of the major stations like Waterfront, etc. I don't think adding ETS branding is a bad thing over time. People will associate it eventually. Translink is on stuff in Vancouver, but it shouldn't be the focal point.
 
Flying E Dark Blue.png
just gonna leave this here to stir the pot a little...
better signage for churchill on all entrances would be hugely helpful. Used to work in the area, the number of people confused about how to get to the train (which has great access to stuff, you just gotta know where to look) was surprisingly high. more prominent signage and a recognizable transit brand (ideally beyond 3 generic letters in bold italic arial font, please see above) That clearly indicate public transport access/entrances/facilities would be great. Churchill has all kinds of pedway entrances and a decent number of public stairs; but none of them are well-identified, including this new one. consistent, concise signage is needed here imo.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top