Sounds good, thanks. I was just curious if that was thought of or not, considering the angled glass.
|
|
|
Sounds good, thanks. I was just curious if that was thought of or not, considering the angled glass.
CanadianNational
Senior Member
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
MetroMan
Senior Member
While this is an improvement over what was there before and I welcome the renovations and restorations, I feel that Union Station's shed lacks ambition for a city of this size and stature. The shed is functional but not architecturally significant when compared to the existing stock of beautiful sheds worldwide.
drum118
Superstar
Totally agree with you after visiting Glasgow, Edinburgh and the various stations in London.
Will see Gare Du Nord later today as we move from London to Paris.
Glasgow stands out as the best one at this time and have not been to a few of London station yet.
Cannot say which London station is the best at this time.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Red October
Senior Member
Wrenkin
Active Member
Those are unfair comparisons given that they're terminal stations where passengers were expected to spend time under the shed. It would be more appropriate to compare Union against places like Amsterdam, where you similarly must take a tunnel to reach the middle tracks.
junctionist
Senior Member
Union Station's shed could be uniquely attractive with the restoration of its interesting trusses and better lighting of the structure. The shed is evocative of the North American steam age of the early 20th century. There's a lot of potential for beauty.
MetroMan
Senior Member
I agree that it will be a definite improvement. However, it could be so much more. This is Canada's biggest city and the city's most important rail terminal. If anywhere in the country deserved pushing for architectural excellence, there would have been no better place and opportunity than at Union Station.
junctionist
Senior Member
I share that sentiment, but you can't replace the history you have since it's a major asset. Architectural excellence is not something that Union Station lacks. Its Great Hall is an impressive space by any standard, and its Beaux-Arts facade will once again be spectacular upon restoration and with the new Front Street streetscape design. (Hopefully, the facade restoration won't leave the facade with randomly lighter stone blocks like with the Princes' Gates. There has to be a way to achieve cladding uniformity upon restoration.) We should polish the shed space to create an atmosphere of sophistication and historical significance to really capitalize on what we have. Have some talented designers change the finishes and lighting and add art.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
junctionist:
The problem is that the shed space is fundamentally not about sophistication even back in its' time - but of efficiency and functionality. Adding art to it and (particularly) changing the finishes is basically anathema to the original principles of the structure - and one might as well just tear it down and do a better job starting anew.
AoD
The problem is that the shed space is fundamentally not about sophistication even back in its' time - but of efficiency and functionality. Adding art to it and (particularly) changing the finishes is basically anathema to the original principles of the structure - and one might as well just tear it down and do a better job starting anew.
AoD
Jonny5
Senior Member
Union station is architectural excellence. The shed out back is almost invisible from almost any ground vantage point and is inhabited by people for only a few seconds while boarding their train. I support refurbishing the shed and modernizing the lighting, signals, platform stairs, etc.. but more than that should be very far down the priority list.
I would have much rather funds for architectural excellence go into renovating downtown subway stations and entrances or the ferry terminal or Queens Quay, or dozens of other far more prominent, far more visible and far more important places.
Last edited:
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
A few seconds? That couldn't be further from the truth. I see dozens of people lining up to board my train as I'm pulling into Union a half an hour before our departure time. By 10 minutes to departure time(when the doors are to open) there are literally hundreds of people standing on the platform, some of them having been there for 20+ minutes!
For every hourly train that comes into Union, passengers start streaming up onto the platforms about 5 minutes before arrival time. When the trains are delayed, which happens quite often now due to the on-going tie changing programs and associated slow orders on the Oakville and Kingston subs, you'll have hundreds, sometimes thousands of people standing at platform level for an additional 5 to 10 minutes or more.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
For those of us who seldom arrive on the platform more than 3 minutes before departure time, we don't see the crowds.
I spend a lot more time on other GO platforms than Union, as there's little else to do. At Union I never bother to arrive in the station until 5 minutes before ... and if I do, I don't bother heading to the platform.
Seems an odd thing to do with half-an-hour ...