[Skeezix]

But the city doesn't own it. The building owners do. And it took years of negotiation for all the parties to agree to the current system came into use in the early '90s. You have to remember that the building owners have a vested interest in making it hard for you to leave their buildings and walk away from their tenants' businesses.

They do have such an interest, but I think that was a bigger concern decades ago. Now, it is absolutely crucial for a building to be connected to the PATH, and the system is like a highway of sorts that can draw in as many customers as it permits to leave. Even one's own tenants are more likely to frequent your concourse if it's connected to other things. I am not too sure that many building owners today think that confusing way-out signage in the PATH is a particularly effective customer retention strategy.

But you are dead on when you identify the need to satisfy building owners. They will all have their own commercial interests, which any new system will have to address. I can't imagine too many of them would be keen on a plan, for example, to name the "streets" in the PATH (not that the PATH actually has linear streets), as they undoubtedly prefer sections of the network to be known by the building's own branding. The Keenan article talks coloured lines on the floor - yeah right. I can just see the owners of Bay Adelaide and Scotia Plaza, who are spending a fortune on new flooring, adding coloured adhesives to the floor.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

They do have such an interest, but I think that was a bigger concern decades ago. Now, it is absolutely crucial for a building to be connected to the PATH, and the system is like a highway of sorts that can draw as many customers as it does allow them to leave. Even one's own tenants are more likely to frequent your concourse if it's connected to other things. I am not too sure that many building owners today think that confusing way-out signage in the PATH is a particularly effective customer retention strategy.

But you are dead on when you identify the need to satisfy building owners. They will all have their own commercial interests, which any new system will have to address. I can't imagine too many of them would be keen on a plan, for example, to name the "streets" in the PATH (not that the PATH actually has linear streets), as they undoubtedly prefer sections of the network to be known by the building's own branding. The Keenan article talks coloured lines on the floor - yeah right. I can just see the owners of Bay Adelaide and Scotia Plaza, who are spending a fortune on new flooring, adding coloured adhesives to the floor.

Yeah, if ever there were a DOA idea, that is it.

Though I have to admit I don't get the moaning about the confusion in the underground. It's not that hard to figure out. And the maps and the overhead directional signs aren't hard to see, and are everywhere.

 

[Skeezix]

I don't get it either. But I know where Brookfield Place is vis-a-vis Waterpark Place vis-a-vis the Standard Life Centre, etc. etc. I imagine it could be hard to navigate if you are not already familiar with the geography of the Financial District. (Although that's true of navigating anywhere, I suppose.)

 

[WislaHD]

I can't imagine too many of them would be keen on a plan, for example, to name the "streets" in the PATH (not that the PATH actually has linear streets), as they undoubtedly prefer sections of the network to be known by the building's own branding.

Name the "streets" after the buildings then?

 

[Skeezix]

Maybe. A lot of the PATH isn't strictly linear tunnels. But clever mapping/navigation people might be able to come up with something.

 

[muller877]

But the city doesn't own it. The building owners do. And it took years of negotiation for all the parties to agree to the current system came into use in the early '90s. You have to remember that the building owners have a vested interest in making it hard for you to leave their buildings and walk away from their tenants' businesses.

Under the street I believe the city has ownership rights. The building owners own the rest.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

No. The city owns the streets, and so has to grant an easement for the tunnels to be built (as they do for hydro and water and sewers and anything else under the streets. But they don't own the tunnels.

 

[devjohnson]

New PATH map titled #PATH360
"Main feature: colour system is gone, main corridors distinguished from rambling inlets, more connection with the world above"

SOURCE: https://twitter.com/k_delamont

 

[Miscreant]

Interesting. I'm somewhat surprised there isn't a connection from the Metro Hall area down south to the convention Centre. It'd tie it together nicely.

 

[downtownordinary]

Two Osgoode stations... whoops.

 

[P23]

Looks like they actually listened and are using the same visual language we've seen on the street navigation pilot! I'm delighted to see that. Usually when it comes to design and wayfinding the city misses the obvious solutions, this is very promising.

 

[P23]

Here's the official site with more detail: http://torontofinancialdistrict.com/PATH360/

Looks like they will be doing a pilot in one building this summer, full rollout in 2018.

 

[interchange42]

Two Osgoode stations... whoops.

That's a funny one. I have a lot of other questions about this map, meanwhile…

42

 

[AndreaPalladio]

A connection from the real Osgoode Station through the Four Seasons Centre to the Sheraton that does not exist...

Also, I am not sure about putting the names of buildings on the maps. Are they really going to redo all the maps every time a lead tenant moves and the building changes its name?

 

[Skeezix]

Well, except that a good deal of the signage within the PATH contains the name of the building or complex - it's really how people mainly identify where they are. The building names are not that much of a moving target. I think it's helpful if one is in, say, the Bay Adelaide Centre and wants to get to the Toronto Eaton Centre, to see both on the map.