cbrown2009
Active Member
Smh.. That's really too bad..
|
|
|
toronto647
Active Member
I don't get why they are not publicly disclosing that the opening is pushed to next year? What is the rationale here? Are they waiting for the city elections to be finished? or waiting till its transferred to the TTC and then blame them for further delay? Like what is the reasoning as wouldn't it make sense to get ahead of the story. Proactive rather than reactive
allengeorge
Senior Member
I’m not sure what benefit there is to announcing the date. The media/public is going to say it’s late regardless, and if it slips again for whatever reason MX/TTC/politicians are going to wear egg on their faces. At this point I would just stay silent and only announce something 2-3 months out from revenue operation when I was fairly confident of hitting my target.
trtcttc
Active Member
Find it funny that the “original” photo they had has a giant graffiti right in the middle. If no one bothered to remove it back then, how important is this “heritage” building anyways that it needed to be rebuilt.
crs1026
Superstar
Why would a heritage structure be immune from attracting grafitti?
And if you knew the building was about to be reconstructed - wouldn’t you wait and let the people doing the reconstruction remove any grafitti as part of that work ?
- Paul
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I thought the source of graffiti in the city was a group of heritage preservationists running around marking buildings for removal like arborists marking trees. Was I misinformed?
trtcttc
Active Member
It won’t be immune, but if it’s of so little importance to people why bother spending the money and time rebuilding it. I wonder how much money and time wasted for useless “heritage“ features in Toronto, like the ugly train shed at Union.
ARG1
Senior Member
idk, I think the train shed is lovely.
Richard White
Senior Member
That train shed has so much heritage protection they can't fully demolish it.
daniel_kryz
Active Member
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
The train shed is very ugly and isn't an integral part of Union Station. The head house (with the columns and great hall) is the true gem... therefore not replacing train shed WAS a mistake.
This building is beautiful and adds character to this intersection. Therefore, this transit project should, and did, restore it to its former glory.
Or are we now against heritage preservation? By that, I mean true heritage... not protecting worthless buildings as a cynical way to prevent development.
The train shed is very ugly and isn't an integral part of Union Station. The head house (with the columns and great hall) is the true gem... therefore not replacing train shed WAS a mistake.
This building is beautiful and adds character to this intersection. Therefore, this transit project should, and did, restore it to its former glory.
Or are we now against heritage preservation? By that, I mean true heritage... not protecting worthless buildings as a cynical way to prevent development.
T3G
Senior Member
Probably next to zero, considering Toronto by and large cares nothing for its heritage and demolishes historically significant buildings and vehicles at the slightest provocation.
Praise be to the exemptions.
PL1
Active Member
Backfill at Leaside (Bayview) nearing road level. Fri, Aug 19.
youngblood
Active Member
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
this is pure clickbait.
