While we're looking at Mx O/L hype...........they posted an update a few days ago on work in the Leslieville area

.
1690405687200.png


1690405722421.png


1690405867525.png



The above are taken from: https://www.metrolinx.com/en/news/ontario-line-progress-for-toronto-s-east-end
 

Attachments

  • 1690405605493.png
    1690405605493.png
    590 KB · Views: 38
  • 1690405754433.png
    1690405754433.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 37
ARG1 said:
There is a difference between having nice/fancy stations, and having gargantuan palaces. Nobody is saying build Moscow, but a lot can be said about replacing some of the monotonous flat architecture with arches, and some nice tiling work.
Click to expand...
Personally I find the old 1950s 1960s stations are good enough, nice and simple.
 
kamira51 said:
Personally I find the old 1950s 1960s stations are good enough, nice and simple.
Click to expand...

Taste will vary, I really like St. Clair West Station and Eglinton West for being more 'interesting'.

That said, the old 'simple' stations were also a bit under-sized early on (most did not have escalators, which were a sometimes awkward retrofit); newer stations will also be larger and more expensive, adjusted for inflation than older designs, as they are generally supposed to feature at least 2 independent means of egress, redundant elevators, up and down escalator paths, and the TTC just recently changed its mandate to having public washrooms in all new stations. (this was done after the O/L initial designs, so we may or may not see washrooms at all of those stations. (I can confirm washrooms for Osgoode and Pape).

New builds, such as the O/L will mostly be built w/PEDs in mind as well.

But as stated above, there is a 'happy place' between overly elaborate, to the point of cavernous stations, and under-sized boxes that aren't accessible.

Equally, one doesn't really elaborate architecture, beyond 1/2 decent ceiling heights, just a bit quality on wall, ceiling and floor finishes as well as light fixtures, and more distinctive colour palettes.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
But as stated above, their is a 'happy place' between overly elaborate, to the point of cavernous stations, and under-sized boxes that aren't accessible.
Click to expand...
The cavernous stations tend to be more because they are so deep, rather than a deliberate choice.

Of course, they could make the deep stations less cavernous, and more visually similar to an older station. But why spend the extra money to put unnecessary ceilings and backfill back in?

Perhaps some of the 1950s/1960s escalator weirdness can be fixed in Easier Access Phase VIII. :)
 
adys123 said:
There are modern requirements in the fire code that dictate the amount of vertical space required within the stations. Which means even cut and cover stations would require higher ceilings than what exists on the existing TTC network.
Click to expand...
That's interesting! So the smoke takes longer to accumulate near people's heads?

I wonder what requirement there is to rectify that during construction. If anything the ceiling for the new subway platform at Union is even lower than the original one!
 
nfitz said:
That's interesting! So the smoke takes longer to accumulate near people's heads?

I wonder what requirement there is to rectify that during construction. If anything the ceiling for the new subway platform at Union is even lower than the original one!
Click to expand...
There are definitely some ways to get around it, codes are always written with some redundancy. I'm not sure about the specifics regarding the Union station heights. But, your first question there is ultimately correct. Airflow modelling shows places where smoke can go, and essentially you want to build in time for people to escape.
 
I recall reading that the Paris RER's Magenta station (which is at considerable depth) was designed with a larger void to create an illusion of the rider being not very deep at all. I'm not sure if this is a true architectural principle or just an urban legend, but I can understand the intent.
Having said that, when I look at ML's recent above ground products, I wonder if on a simple statistical basis of cubic feet of concrete poured, tons of structural steel used, and meters of conduit required per platform, we are making these stations more massive and costly than they need to be and in comparison to benchmarks elsewhere.
Underground stations need similar comparisons. I'm not in favour of cheapor shoddy - but have the engineers and architects been carefully keeping the scale in check?

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
I recall reading that the Paris RER's Magenta station (which is at considerable depth) was designed with a larger void to create an illusion of the rider being not very deep at all. I'm not sure if this is a true architectural principle or just an urban legend, but I can understand the intent.
Having said that, when I look at ML's recent above ground products, I wonder if on a simple statistical basis of cubic feet of concrete poured, tons of structural steel used, and meters of conduit required per platform, we are making these stations more massive and costly than they need to be and in comparison to benchmarks elsewhere.
Underground stations need similar comparisons. I'm not in favour of cheapor shoddy - but have the engineers and architects been carefully keeping the scale in check?

- Paul
Click to expand...
Certainly, passenger experience also contributes to it as well. Stuffy or compact underground spaces can be claustrophobic.

I will say that in terms of the Ontario Line, substantial optioneering went into it (and continues to go into it) to ensure that we get the most functional station layouts that are timeless and attractive without being excessive. I believe that once delivered, the OL stations could all be examples of clean, utilitarian, and nice station designs.
 
crs1026 said:
Having said that, when I look at ML's recent above ground products, I wonder if on a simple statistical basis of cubic feet of concrete poured, tons of structural steel used, and meters of conduit required per platform, we are making these stations more massive and costly than they need to be and in comparison to benchmarks elsewhere.
Click to expand...
There's no doubt there's some overbuild of the Metrolinx stations. Especially on the periphery where there's unlikely ever to be significant traffic. Bloomington GO in particular, on the Richmond Hill line, seems absurd - for what - 5 trains a day? On a $ per passenger basis, it's much.

The other massive station near there, Gormley, opened in 2016, and pre-Covid (February 2020) still only had 690 passengers a day! I'd expect that to drop now that Bloomington has opened - also close to the 404.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top