[Richard White]

“Warm and modern”.should not be the goal. Tastes change. Nothing stays modern very long.
Let’s try “Timeless and maintainable”. And maybe “upgradeable”.
I like the spaciousness and use of natural light, but imagine a decade of grime and dust on louvers and perforated panels. And a couple generations’ of upgrade to technology, signage, lighting..
How often will all that glass get washed?
Those “sterile” fifties and sixties subway stations were warm and modern when they opened… but with decades of leaking roofs, relocated turnstiles and barriers, retrofitted cabling, new security systems, and new styles of signage that don’t synch to the original design,….. when I look at station renders I try to imagine what the janitor and the next decade’s electricians see. Garbage receptacles? Safet alarm panels?

- Paul

You cannot future proof stations.

What we have now may not be the standard in the future. Now we have electrical wiring in conduits but who knows.. in the future we may have Nikola Tesla style wireless energy.

I do agree though that louvers are not the way to go. Take Lawrence West and Glencairn for example...

 

[hw621]

I disagree, I do like the OL stations based on initial renderings. I like the warm and modern atmosphere these stations give IMO. But hey, they'll probably end up the Toronto grey we all love.

View attachment 326955

View attachment 326956


View attachment 326958

There will be platform screens?!

 

[robmausser]

There will be platform screens?!

Thats been the plan so far

 

[ARG1]

“Warm and modern”.should not be the goal. Tastes change. Nothing stays modern very long.
Let’s try “Timeless and maintainable”. And maybe “upgradeable”.
I like the spaciousness and use of natural light, but imagine a decade of grime and dust on louvers and perforated panels. And a couple generations’ of upgrade to technology, signage, lighting..
How often will all that glass get washed?
Those “sterile” fifties and sixties subway stations were warm and modern when they opened… but with decades of leaking roofs, relocated turnstiles and barriers, retrofitted cabling, new security systems, and new styles of signage that don’t synch to the original design,….. when I look at station renders I try to imagine what the janitor and the next decade’s electricians see. Garbage receptacles? Safet alarm panels?

- Paul

That's hard to properly categorize. Even then, if you make something look nice for an era, it has a good chance to at the very least be a good stylistic representation of that era. If we look at the Montreal Metro for example, the original sections were entirely built with big brutalist architecture that absolutely screams the 70s, and even though its not "modern" and its hard to say if it aged well, its definitely a relic that just screams the 70s and its something many people appreciate it for.

If you look elsewhere around the world, like Moscow, you see the same thing. Sections of the Metro opened in the 40s and 50s have this classical and royal style of architecture that screams the stalinist era it was built in, meanwhile the modern metro is extremely glossy and modern.

Images Below:
Image #1: Electrozavodskaya Station on Line 3 - Opened May 15 1944
Image #2: Electrozavodskaya Station on Line 15 - Opened Dec 31 2020
(Same Station, platforms built in completely different time periods)

 

[allengeorge]

I don’t mind stations being representative of their time - that’s a plus, in my opinion. They should be designed for maintenance regardless. I think part of the problem in Toronto is that we’re historically a low-tax city that doesn’t believe in spending to maintain its public spaces well (see parks, stations, etc.)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I disagree, I do like the OL stations based on initial renderings. I like the warm and modern atmosphere these stations give IMO. But hey, they'll probably end up the Toronto grey we all love.

View attachment 326955

View attachment 326956


View attachment 326958

These do look a lot better than the Crosstown stations.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

“Warm and modern”.should not be the goal. Tastes change. Nothing stays modern very long.
Let’s try “Timeless and maintainable”. And maybe “upgradeable”.
I like the spaciousness and use of natural light, but imagine a decade of grime and dust on louvers and perforated panels. And a couple generations’ of upgrade to technology, signage, lighting..
How often will all that glass get washed?
Those “sterile” fifties and sixties subway stations were warm and modern when they opened… but with decades of leaking roofs, relocated turnstiles and barriers, retrofitted cabling, new security systems, and new styles of signage that don’t synch to the original design,….. when I look at station renders I try to imagine what the janitor and the next decade’s electricians see. Garbage receptacles? Safet alarm panels?

- Paul

I would suggest that modularity and flexibility should be a key aspect of the architectural design for public infrastructure. That means that the design components should be easily swapped out and replaced. The schematics should be archived digitally to allow them to be re-created and modified to fit future needs. The designs should be manufacturer-agonistic, meaning that we can go to any supplier and ask them to manufacture components for the design. Ample void space should be reserved for future purposes (plumbing, electrical, etc...).

One of the problems with the 1954 TTC stations was that their Vitrolite tiles, while magnificent, were also completely unmaintainable. Only one company in the world made those tiles, and once they went out of business, they were impossible to replace. That's how we got stuck with the garbage they use today.

 

[W. K. Lis]

^^ they also can't fit under streetcar wires

Too many low bridges for double-decker buses/streetcars.

From link.

From link.

 

[robmausser]

I would suggest that modularity and flexibility should be a key aspect of the architectural design for public infrastructure. That means that the design components should be easily swapped out and replaced. The schematics should be archived digitally to allow them to be re-created and modified to fit future needs. The designs should be manufacturer-agonistic, meaning that we can go to any supplier and ask them to manufacture components for the design. Ample void space should be reserved for future purposes (plumbing, electrical, etc...).

One of the problems with the 1954 TTC stations was that their Vitrolite tiles, while magnificent, were also completely unmaintainable. Only one company in the world made those tiles, and once they went out of business, they were impossible to replace. That's how we got stuck with the garbage they use today.

View attachment 327067

The crazy thing is that there are alternatives out there that look similar to the Vitrolite tile. Which was beautiful btw, you can still see it in Eglinton station.

They did a complete 180 and replaced the most beautiful tile with this

Its almost as if someone had the logical fallacy of "well beautiful tile was rare and irreplaceable, therefore the answer is to find the ugliest tile imaginable."

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I would suggest that modularity and flexibility should be a key aspect of the architectural design for public infrastructure. That means that the design components should be easily swapped out and replaced. The schematics should be archived digitally to allow them to be re-created and modified to fit future needs. The designs should be manufacturer-agonistic, meaning that we can go to any supplier and ask them to manufacture components for the design. Ample void space should be reserved for future purposes (plumbing, electrical, etc...).

One of the problems with the 1954 TTC stations was that their Vitrolite tiles, while magnificent, were also completely unmaintainable. Only one company in the world made those tiles, and once they went out of business, they were impossible to replace. That's how we got stuck with the garbage they use today.

View attachment 327067

The crazy thing is that there are alternatives out there that look similar to the Vitrolite tile. Which was beautiful btw, you can still see it in Eglinton station.

They did a complete 180 and replaced the most beautiful tile with this

View attachment 327208

Its almost as if someone had the logical fallacy of "well beautiful tile was rare and irreplaceable, therefore the answer is to find the ugliest tile imaginable."

The TTC's approach to design is bizarre. There are clearly a lot of people in the organization that care deeply about design. We see it reflected in a lot of the more recent station refurbishments which are generally quite well done. But once the job is done and its time to maintain the work, all design sense goes out the window.

The tiling at Eglinton is a great example of this. The tiling themselves were fantastic, but once any maintenance is needed, they went back to their low quality garbage. I also noticed that parts of the new mural at the Union Station Line 1 platform are now missing, replaced with ugly metal coverings.

This reeks of an organizational problem at the TTC. They have people that care about design, but it appears that they do not have a seat at the table when it comes to operations and maintenance decisions. That needs to change.

We see a similar problem with the City of Toronto as well. The City might pave a road with beautiful cobblestone or granite or whatever, and then months later parts of it will be torn up and replaced with ugly asphalt.

This goes back to my previous comment as well. We can have designs that are modular and flexible, but that needs to accommodated with an organizational structure that will allow these designs to be maintained in the first place.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The crazy thing is that there are alternatives out there that look similar to the Vitrolite tile. Which was beautiful btw, you can still see it in Eglinton station.

They did a complete 180 and replaced the most beautiful tile with this

View attachment 327208

Its almost as if someone had the logical fallacy of "well beautiful tile was rare and irreplaceable, therefore the answer is to find the ugliest tile imaginable."

There is even more drama about this than mentioned:

Dundas

Photos and description of the TTC's Dundas subway station.

www.stationfixation.com

Fundamentally this city loves to talk about design - but isn't willing to pay for it. A similar case is how the extension to Downsview and the supposed excess coloured design choices for the Sheppard extension. You still get a lot of that even today.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

There is even more drama about this than mentioned:

Dundas

Photos and description of the TTC's Dundas subway station.

www.stationfixation.com

Fundamentally this city loves to talk about design - but isn't willing to pay for it. A similar case is how the extension to Downsview coloured design choices for the Sheppard extension. You still get a lot of that even today.

AoD

I didn''t realize that they almost gave Pachter a contract to cover a good chunk of the current tile w/murals.

Station Fixation took some photos of the mock-ups.

from: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=YkR1ZDl2eFNsZU45N3BXTGtlaGg2U3VDOWstaTFn

 

[syn]

The TTC's approach to design is bizarre. There are clearly a lot of people in the organization that care deeply about design. We see it reflected in a lot of the more recent station refurbishments which are generally quite well done. But once the job is done and its time to maintain the work, all design sense goes out the window.

The tiling at Eglinton is a great example of this. The tiling themselves were fantastic, but once any maintenance is needed, they went back to their low quality garbage. I also noticed that parts of the new mural at the Union Station Line 1 platform are now missing, replaced with ugly metal coverings.

View attachment 327223

This reeks of an organizational problem at the TTC. They have people that care about design, but it appears that they do not have a seat at the table when it comes to operations and maintenance decisions. That needs to change.

We see a similar problem with the City of Toronto as well. The City might pave a road with beautiful cobblestone or granite or whatever, and then months later parts of it will be torn up and replaced with ugly asphalt.

This goes back to my previous comment as well. We can have designs that are modular and flexible, but that needs to accommodated with an organizational structure that will allow these designs to be maintained in the first place.

To the credit of the original designers, these stations have very clean designs. It shouldn't be that difficult to maintain design integrity. That's the biggest disappointment - all of this is very avoidable with the most basic attention to detail and quality control.

 

[W. K. Lis]

When they built the Spadina extension (Spadina to Wilson), they asked the designers to make sure the lighting and wiring was accessible.

Accessibility to lighting was a problem with the original Montréal Metro stations, as well as ventilation. (Guess how many people would be needed to change a light bulb on the Montréal Metro? A lot.)

 

[JSF-1]

If money was no object it would be really neat to go back and "modernize" some of our stations, although looking at what happened on Line 1 south of Bloor perhaps it is best we don't. The TTC can design some nice stations like for example St.Clair West which was desinged by the TTC's in-house architect and is imo an underrated station in the network as far as style and looks goes. One of my favourite modernization's outside of Toronto is Ueno Station in Tokyo which was pretty much unchanged from its opening in 1927. The updated version is so much better; but I guess that is what happens when you have that Olympic money. I've always wondered how different Toronto would be had we won either of our bids of the summer games.

Anyways here's Ueno Station before its modernization:

And after in 2018: