[salsa]

For no good reason? I dunno, man. Art? Beauty? Aesthetics?
This is LITERALLY "why we can't have nice things."
OK, I'll grant those are awful pretty for emergency exits, but still.

That's exactly the point.

 

[44 North]

I've never seen Moscow's stations but I have seen a few of Montreal's and I don't really remember them being all that memorable and they certainly were not like these monsters they are building it's no wonder there are cost and construction overruns. If they had kept them simple like most of the line no one would care if they looked like other cities. Plus it would have opened by now if they weren't wasting time and money on all this extra crap on then and building them like bomb shelters.

Most other cities' subway/metro stations are nothing like this. Obviously cities will have a few showcase stations, but the bare bones approach is more often than not the norm. Makes one wonder how these stations will fare after a few decades, or how much it will cost to maintain or provide capital repairs. Doubt there's many TTC yards that carry...whatever unique paneling I'm seeing on the emergency exits. It's possible these palatial stations might not look so great in a generation.

But apparently the anti-Toronto knowitalls have spoken:

• the 69 non-TYSSE are utilitarian chicken **** operations that impress no one, which probably helps explain why we have a paltry 1.1M daily riders using them.

• the 'whiners' are the ones who have few qualms riding bare-bones stations or are thankful for the cost-saving measures that allowed them to be built in the first place, whereas the ones who despise all our existing stations are naturally experts providing a constructive critique...

 

[Adjei]

You can whine forever, these have been built. Your whining won't change these stations. Good on the TTF for having the foresight to build these amazing stations and not the rest of the crappy stations we have. Hopefully future stations are built to this standard.

 

[narduch]

I think the only station that is excessive is the 407 stop.

The VMC station is tiny (the above ground portion).

The York U. stop should be grand. Do we really want our higher learning institutions to have boring utilitarian buildings?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

While I appreciate the statement they're trying to make, these stations really do seem quite over the top, especially given their less than impressive surroundings. I bet the DRL stations won't be anywhere near as extravagant.

DRL stations by and large won't have much room to have sprawling entry pavilions and overbuilt bus stations in the first place.

Look I get that we want to have "nice things" but we don't have to build subway stations like they are the freaking tagmahall

Normally not one to be a spelling Nazi, but it's Taj Mahal. And yes, some of the stations are excessive relative to the amount of ridership they will serve - and you wonder why the cost is bumped up by so much. By all means have a few showcase stations *where it matters* - but not each and everyone on of them, sheesh. The line is overbudget as it is.

AoD

 

[jcam]

Problem was that the decision to go for 'world class design' stations came LATE (from the TTC Board), after consultants and contractors had been procured. And what do changes in design add up to with existing contracts that didn't contemplate them......cost escalation and delays.

 

[crs1026]

Better esthetics don't have to come with a hefty price tag. And it's amazing how much money bare-bones ugly costs.

What's needed is an eye to both aesthetics and value. Spend a little more, sure. Just keep it reasonable. And do try to do better than no-name.

Would like to see some facts on what these stations cost versus a barer-bones box. These are likely less expensive than they look, and not so much more than the butt-ugly version. The price tag comes from building codes, not from finishes.

(Having said that, the Pioneer Village design is just butt-ugly and stupid. Ugh.)

- Paul

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

But apparently the anti-Toronto knowitalls have spoken:

• the 69 non-TYSSE are utilitarian chicken **** operations that impress no one, which probably helps explain why we have a paltry 1.1M daily riders using them.

• the 'whiners' are the ones who have few qualms riding bare-bones stations or are thankful for the cost-saving measures that allowed them to be built in the first place, whereas the ones who despise all our existing stations are naturally experts providing a constructive critique...

Anti Toronto?
And ridership is connected to aesthetics?
It's "possible" that the passage of time will affect them? Do tell, Kreskin.

There are rules of decorum here so I'm just going to say you're wrong, about almost everything, as usual.
Or maybe I'm wrong and the budget cuts to sheppard are what is driving TTC ridership growth, which is totally through the roof. No fallacies there to pick on! It's totally a zero sum game. Nice stations or 1.1m happy riders. Many of them going through Yonge and Bloor and they're ecstatic it's not "palatial. "

You're too much, really.
People think the stations are too fancy.? Some people think this one or that one is visually unappealing?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

P. S. Given the built environment I'm sure the DRL and Yonge extension will have less substantial above ground architecture, when they build them in a few years. So, chin up!

 

[aquateam]

These massive stations do seem like white elephants.

For something to really be a white elephant, it needs to have a significant cost of upkeep. We don't know that yet for the stations.

Anti Toronto?
And ridership is connected to aesthetics?
It's "possible" that the passage of time will affect them? Do tell, Kreskin.

Aesthetics do affect ridership! But the purpose of public art in stations isn't utilitarian, it's supposed to express civic pride and show that public transit is prioritized... whether or not it is.

Moscow's metro stations were built to be palatial to show that the government existed to serve the common man.

(Incidentally, if the TTC every embarked on its "University Line Renaissance" unfunded line item to renovate/refinish the university line stations, Osgoode would be made to look sort of like this under an "Opera" theme)

Part of the reason we are so outraged about funds spent on palatial stations is that we have had so little investment in system expansion. Money spent on architectural onanism looks like it could have been better spent on further system expansion, whether or not we'd actually save that much by cutting back on station finishes.

If we had sustained funding in system expansion, say $500 million/year funded by a 0.25$/day/parking space tax, there would be less outrage and probably less desire for starchitecture.

You kind of have a scale:

Vancouver < Toronto < Montreal < Stockholm < Moscow < NYC (7th avenue stations)

NYC is particularly bad, they just spent $4 billion on a single station. The oculus is very pretty though.

We should aim to be more on the Montreal/Stockholm end of the scale.

 

[cplchanb]

Well at least the Oculus is a major hub for both tourism and business. Theres 6 platforms built under there so essentially its a large modern union station.
Not to mention it has its own source of revenue being a retail hub and a tourist hotspot as well, so perhaps in time it can pay for itself.
What revenue generators do any of the large new stations have save maybe VMC apart from being an A to B stop for daily commuters????
Designers tend to forget the fact that their outlandish designs has to also in the end be part of a profitable system as well and if its just going to be a large fancy mausoleum
that cant make any money or generate extra ridership why waste it one something that is meant for only a to b commuting? I'm pretty sure most daily commuters wont care
much about chandeliers or a giant oculus skylight as long as theyres a set of stairs and a platform that can take them downtown.

 

[BMO]

Most other cities' subway/metro stations are nothing like this. Obviously cities will have a few showcase stations, but the bare bones approach is more often than not the norm. Makes one wonder how these stations will fare after a few decades, or how much it will cost to maintain or provide capital repairs. Doubt there's many TTC yards that carry...whatever unique paneling I'm seeing on the emergency exits. It's possible these palatial stations might not look so great in a generation.

But apparently the anti-Toronto knowitalls have spoken:

• the 69 non-TYSSE are utilitarian chicken **** operations that impress no one, which probably helps explain why we have a paltry 1.1M daily riders using them.

• the 'whiners' are the ones who have few qualms riding bare-bones stations or are thankful for the cost-saving measures that allowed them to be built in the first place, whereas the ones who despise all our existing stations are naturally experts providing a constructive critique...

Because the TTC has been amazing at maintaining and upkeeping existing stations with the barebones brick, tile and bland design? I can't remember a moment in my life when Finch wasn't "undergoing refurbishment". I think unique materials are the least of our worries if they tend to last longer than what we already have because I have zero faith in the TTC actually being able to maintain them aesthetically.

Aesthetically pleasing <> non-funcitonal design. You're criticizing designs that had to compete with numerous other bidders. Do you really think Transit Architecture firms don't realize the use-case of their designs? There's going to be a bunch of stuff in the finished product to make them easy to maintain and ensure they last.

One of my favourite stations, Dupont, has a pretty big art component, and it's hardly falling apart even though it has tiny tiles instead of the standard rectangular ones.

 

[44 North]

You can whine forever, these have been built. Your whining won't change these stations. Good on the TTF for having the foresight to build these amazing stations and not the rest of the crappy stations we have. Hopefully future stations are built to this standard.

Dunno dude, calling all our 69 stations "crappy" sounds pretty "whiny". And unfortunately for you the future stations won't all be built to "this standard" (see: Crosstown).

Or maybe I'm wrong and the budget cuts to sheppard are what is driving TTC ridership growth, which is totally through the roof. No fallacies there to pick

TTC ridership is through the roof, as it's been for quite some time. How's YRT's ridership faring? How many cutbacks have they made to service? What's the YOY change? Why you never write about that?

I'm pretty sure most daily commuters wont care much about chandeliers or a giant oculus skylight as long as theyres a set of stairs and a platform that can take them downtown.

Exactly, most don't. A set of stairs to take them from A to B (and on weekends point C). As long as they're maintained and kept in a SOGR, a bare bones approach - with a select few showcase stations - seems fine to me.

 

[salsa]

Believe it or not, the architecture we're getting have actually been watered down from more ambitious concepts. For example,



Finch bus terminal

Fancy version

Approved design

Downsview Park station

Fancy version

Approved design

 

[Steve X]

IMO, subway stations are here to serve as a place commuters board and unload from trains not a museum. There isn't a need to overkill the design. Look at NYC, HK, Tokyo, Berlin, London, etc They don't look like TYSSE nor Moscow.

Aesthetic doesn't affect ridership too much. Cleanness does. It you have to take the subway, you do what you got to do. You don't avoid a certain station and take a detour about it because you don't like how stations on the BD line look like.

The Crosstown design is actually great. Stations don't look like a tiny 8 foot tall station box. They thought about passageway and how not to impede pedestrian flow. They make use of nature lighting. This is all we need.