[ProjectEnd]

I highly disagree about the necessity of ctrl+v architecture for subways. I think that architecture can play a huge role in one's perception of the transit system. Even in our city, using stations like Dupont and St. Clair West is (or, rather, was, the stations are kinda dreary now) was a much more pleasant experience than the bathroom style stations on line 2. And having pleasant station buildings, when done right, can add to the street scape positively, like the Battery Park Control House at Bowling Green in NYC. If we had something like this, built in the architectural style of the Osgoode Hall buildings, it would make easier to stomach the intrusion onto the green space.



Of course, "doing it right" is not within Metrolinx's knowledge base. Few of the station building renderings for the OL seem visually pleasing, and there's no telling how badly they will be cut back before all is said and done, given how much cost cutting and value engineering has gone into the OL project already. Like, the design concept for the Gerrard station (ditto Exhibition) is really impressive, but I have very little faith that such a thing will ever see the light of day. Does anyone remember the renderings for the Crosstown stations compared to the nothing we got?




Concerning Osgoode station, it is definitely not an impressive structure in any way.

The "winterized" version is even worse. I'm not sure which one they ended up selecting, in the end. Either selection is hardly a win for fans of attractive public spaces or attractive architecture.

View attachment 458849

I'm not saying the final construction it's going to achieve anything anywhere near what's rendered above, but can someone who isn't feeling this station box explain the differences in aspirational detailing to the much-revered Foster Chicago Apple Store?

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not saying the final construction it's going to achieve anything anywhere near what's rendered above, but can someone who isn't feeling this station box explain the differences in aspirational detailing to the much-revered Foster Chicago Apple Store?

Sure:

1) I don't revere the above; its 'ok' but hardly a masterpiece.

2) The above is not on the grounds of Osgoode Hall, where I would hate it. It's not just what you're building; it's where and how it impacts its surroundings.

3) The above, I assume serves it function optimally, where Osgoode Station will not.

4) I don't know if there was any opportunity to leverage broader public realm improvements in your above example, and those were forgone; but that is the case here.

It's not simply what's proposed; it's what could have been proposed; against which this is being measured.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I'm talking only about the "capital A architecture" of the two examples - one is clearly aping the other.

The transformation of University Avenue into a park is DOA currently and it'll take a pretty significant push to get it accepted. It's not going to happen under these governments (both municipal and provincial) while the Ontario Line very much is (or seems to be at this time). It's unfortunate too since the University plan has many strengths - both in terms of the linear park space it would create, and how it could / would change traffic patterns in that part of the City (University sucks currently, but it's comfortable for many looking to zip along it). It ain't going to happen under Doug, and with the Conservative mouth breathers leading most polling by a significant margin, it doesn't look like a change in party is coming any time soon.

 

[Northern Light]

The transformation of University Avenue into a park is DOA currently and it'll take a pretty significant push to get it accepted. It's not going to happen under these governments (both municipal and provincial) while the Ontario Line very much is (or seems to be at this time). It's unfortunate too since the University plan has many strengths - both in terms of the linear park space it would create, and how it could / would change traffic patterns in that part of the City (University sucks currently, but it's comfortable for many looking to zip along it). It ain't going to happen under Doug, and with the Conservative mouth breathers leading most polling by a significant margin, it doesn't look like a change in party is coming any time soon.

Interesting take; but I'm inclined to differ; U of T has decided to back this project and has put up millions in cash towards it too. I believe it will move forward, I certainly hope so anyway.

But, U of T's money; plus the blundering on the Osgoode site, means University Park will be started at the north end, instead of the south end.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm not saying the final construction it's going to achieve anything anywhere near what's rendered above, but can someone who isn't feeling this station box explain the differences in aspirational detailing to the much-revered Foster Chicago Apple Store?

Aspirational is the right word. I'd be curious to see what will actually get built (and that's something they haven't actually shared).

AoD

 

[wmedia]

I've not been frequenting the transit threads lately, so apologies if this has been covered, but what's the story with the circular "T" logo on the station, in addition to the TTC logo?

 

[Northern Light]

I've not been frequenting the transit threads lately, so apologies if this has been covered, but what's the story with the circular "T" logo on the station, in addition to the TTC logo?

An idiotic Mx commissioned branding exercise to have a single icon represent all transit agencies in the GTA.

It's foolish beyond words, and the staff who commissioned the applicable report and those who wrote it should be docked their entire wage for the time in which it was written.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...they could of just used the Metrolinx one. Most folks likely get what they're about. No need for additional branding to confuse everyone.

 

[Ward8]

I'm not saying the final construction it's going to achieve anything anywhere near what's rendered above, but can someone who isn't feeling this station box explain the differences in aspirational detailing to the much-revered Foster Chicago Apple Store?

For me, the look of the building is fine. Quite nice even, but cutting off the corner of a park isn't great. (granted the fence did that, and I've always thought it should be more permeable.) And the blank walls facing the park are also bad.

Really, not matter how great a building looks, the physics of a physical and visual obstruction aren't great for a park. Especially one next to a busy transit stop where the safety concerns would be elevated. Pretty much any building in that position behaves in the way the banjara building does at christie pits. Nothing against that restaurant, but the park would be served better by presenting itself to the corner and being permeable. I can tell you from living in the area, an above average amount of sketchy stuff that happens at christie pits happens on the back sides of those buildings.

University park could happen, with an unlikely result in the upcoming election, but the fact is it's probably a moot point. It's probably more popular than we give it credit for, but you're correct that the provincial government would never allow it.

I suppose, functionally speaking, the station box would be better as a circular building with entrances and exits in all directions. A building with no blank walls facing the park. Making it a lot more like the apple building would be better.

 

[Obsidian]

If by that you mean the grandest of design statements; sure; however, I think the original 'Spadina Line' remains Toronto's gold standard for stations that show some originality, some area context-design and show a conscious effort at place making. That to me is a good jumping off point in terms of new construction.



To me, this would define the original Line 2; which I consider a design failure with its utilitarian and public washroom aesthetic.
If you want people to treat transit like it's valuable, the architecture of its stations should not read as though its a throwaway service; but instead as though it's something that really matters.



I think I've covered this above; but would then add, in this case, the station also features an incredibly inconvenient transfer between Line 1 and the OL; a new entrance (Simcoe) with no direct connection to Line 1, and, in my judgement (though the designers may beg to differ, inadequate provision for future capacity needs for the Line 1 station, which also doesn't get its fire code compliance of a second (fully independent from the platform) exit, which would be much more cost effective to deliver in conjunction with this project.

That's all totally apart from any damage to Osgoode Hall's grounds; and the failure to use this project as leverage to achieve University Park or pedestrianization of Queen West, or both here.

To me 'Less is more' isn't really a a great design philosophy, unless we're just meaning "Hello Kirkor, five different design styles on one tower is at least three too many'.

We not only want to invest in aesthetics and future-proofing and good design from a functional perspective, we want to ask, why can't a station with washrooms also feature a drinking fountain and water bottle filling station, providing everyone access to a free, good-for-you, zero calorie beverage? Why can't we ask about bike storage, or better retail being included, or including vending machines?

I want my public expenditure to aspire and achieve; not settle.

This is the exact reason why transit projects in North America is so expensive, people like Northern light want to turn a transit project which should be built as cost effective and barebones as possible into big public works in which non-transit items are added on to the transit projects. In the end what is accomplished will be fewer transit projects because the cost always spirals out of control if the administrators bend to the will of critics instead of just building the line as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

Building opulent stations is the worst thing you can do to a transit project if you want to see more transit projects built in the future.

 

[Northern Light]

This is the exact reason why transit projects in North America is so expensive, people like Northern light want to turn a transit project which should be built as cost effective and barebones as possible into big public works in which non-transit items are added on to the transit projects. In the end what is accomplished will be fewer transit projects because the cost always spirals out of control if the administrators bend to the will of critics instead of just building the line as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of transit projects in North America, on which you ought to read up.

I've discussed those extensively and linked to two different expert reports in various threads.

I did not proposed charging the cost of University Park to the Transit project, merely leveraging the opportunity. Building a more functional station for riders is not a frill.

Your view represents why transit is a failure in the United States, because is a welfare-service, rather than for choice riders.

 

[Obsidian]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of transit projects in North America, on which you ought to read up.

I've discussed those extensively and linked to two different expert reports in various threads.

I did not proposed charging the cost of University Park to the Transit project, merely leveraging the opportunity. Building a more functional station for riders is not a frill.

Your view represents why transit is a failure in the United States, because is a welfare-service, rather than for choice riders.

The more expensive you make a transit project = less transit projects you will get in the future. Government don't want to get started with them because the public keeps trying to add more cost and time to them for things that don't matter, like trying to save some trees which probably added a couple of million to the project in delays as labour cost.

for one of things sure build it as opulent as you want. but for an ever-growing transit system you want it as simple and as barebones as possible to keep it expanding and getting more transit for your buck.
all you need for a station house is 5 concrete walls or just a hole in the ground.

 

[Northern Light]

The more expensive you make a transit project = less transit projects you will get in the future. Government don't want to get started with them because the public keeps trying to add more cost and time to them for things that don't matter, like trying to save some trees which probably added a couple of million to the project in delays as labour cost.

for one of things sure build it as opulent as you want. but for an ever-growing transit system you want it as simple and as barebones as possible to keep it expanding and getting more transit for your buck.
all you need for a station house is 5 concrete walls or just a hole in the ground.

Fundamentally; we completely and utterly disagree.

I would not want to live in a world designed by you at all.

That besides, at no point did I advocate for 'opulent'. I advocated for functional; designed in the best long term interests of the City and having adequate capacity.

The finishes in the new station will be fine and I am not advocating for using Quartz everywhere for goodness sake.

 

[T3G]

Really? Transit projects are more expensive because they don't look like concrete bunkers? It doesn't have anything, at all, to do with pandering to NIMBYism by burying lines where they have no business being buried, such as in the case of Eglinton West or the Scarborough Subway extension, or the Spadina subway extension? Or the fact that every "leader" we elect insists on forcing their legacy through by cancelling and/or redoing projects instead of just shutting up and letting what was there before be?

 

[Obsidian]

Really? Transit projects are more expensive because they don't look like concrete bunkers? It doesn't have anything, at all, to do with pandering to NIMBYism by burying lines where they have no business being buried, such as in the case of Eglinton West or the Scarborough Subway extension, or the Spadina subway extension? Or the fact that every "leader" we elect insists on forcing their legacy through by cancelling and/or redoing projects instead of just shutting up and letting what was there before be?

Building stations are by far the largest cost of any transit projects, tunneling via TBM is not near as expensive as the stations. The most cost savings are therefore found in the stations.
That's why the Scarborough extension only has 3 stations and why the Yonge extension removed a couple of stations.